![]() |
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
No indication of notability. The only source in the article, AbeBooks, is not an acceptable reliable source. A Google search found no sources. Google Books and Google Scholar dig up some results, but they are only references or short mentions. Mucube ( talk • contribs) 23:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Article doesn't seem to meet WP:NLIST - grouping lacks coverage in independent sources, topic is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Cable TV series doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - coverage is largely WP:ROUTINE announcements of the upcoming series. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Vanchiyankulam. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
I looked for some sources and the added source is all I found. The rest is wikipedia, likely some of its derivatives and weather reports. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 21:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Source search and included sources do not indicate a pass of WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Was previously drafted for notability and BLP sourcing concerns. ASUKITE 21:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Looks to me as a case of WP:SINGLEEVENT, notability is not established. Moreover, there is the strange cross-wiki promotion of this article Renvoy ( talk) 20:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Unreleased film that fails to establish notability. Interviews look like primary sources. No reliable two reviews. No release of notable soundtrack reviews or trailer ( trailer removed from YouTube). Similar Tamil films sent to festival without reviews do not have articles, examples include Kida and Revelations. This source says "upcoming Tamil movie", which confirms that the movie is unreleased. The movie did not release on 14 August 2015 per this (the fact that there are no audience reviews means that the film did not release). The film did not release even in 2018 per this.
In conclusion, the film does not look it establishes notability as an unreleased film. This source says that it was sent to the Toronto International Film Festival but there is no confirmation of that from the official website. DareshMohan ( talk) 18:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. JBW ( talk) 22:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Article about a politician that fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. Commissioners are not presumed automatically notable especially in Africa as its a municipal level office. Jamiebuba ( talk) 18:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there seems to be some uncertainty about this article. And I don't understand the comment to Jimbo Wales who I've never seen participate in an AFD discussion before (although he probably has).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
NOTE: I strongly believe that the creator of this page fails the WP:DUCK test for paid editing. He/she has created multiple articles yesterday and today, all of which look like the same low quality spammy bios as this one. I have (boldly) moved most (probably not all if anyone else wants to take a look) of the creations into draft space, as that's where they belong. Feel free to take a look at the bottom of User talk:Bida thomas for the long list of spammy articles moved back into draft. 10mmsocket ( talk) 17:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Museum of Islamic Art, Doha. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Was draftified by DGG with the hopes that it would be improved. Was not. Currently, zero in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable, secondary sources. And searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Nothing exists even after closure of this school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. BookishReader ( talk) 21:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable school, fails WP:NSCHOOL. BookishReader ( talk) 21:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Semi-pro that does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The spotlight on reference is not independent as it's published by the club that he plays for. The best sources that I found were The West, Sydney Morning Herald and My Football, all of which only mention Gonzalez once. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Promotional article, fails WP:NSCHOOL. BookishReader ( talk) 21:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable for-profit school. Can't find any in-depth independent source. BookishReader ( talk) 20:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable private school. BookishReader ( talk) 20:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. JBW ( talk) 20:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
While I don't doubt that over its 22 year history there has been religious bias on Wikipedia, the majority of the claims in this artice are vague and unsourced. I think the article should be moved to Draft space until the accusations in the article can be supported with reliable sources because right now it seems like a lot of original research. I could have just moved it to Draft space but page moves can always be reverted if the page creator objects so I'm bringing it to AFD to get a more consensus-based verdict on what should happen to this article. I see potential in the topic but there are just a lot of general claims of bias and I don't think it is main space-ready. I can see this article appearing on Wikipedia in 2006 but it's 2023 and Wikipedia now requires more verification, especially on potentially controversial subjects. I ask that it be moved to Draft or User space for now. Liz Read! Talk! 20:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Why is this separate from bias on Wikipedia? Slatersteven ( talk) 11:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. BookishReader ( talk) 20:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP, does not have significant coverage. gov.uk source has nothing related to the company in question, other sources are brief mentions at best. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 19:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Can't find anything towards WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG, his one game in an WP:FPL is no longer relevant. Best I can find is a passing mention in Nemzeti Sport, also derived from a Facebook post, Sport 24, which mentions him only once, and Sport.ua, which mentions him being a defender and having played 17 youth matches. Sport.ua is the best source but it's not good enough for SPORTBASIC. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 19:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
"Sources" are mostly PR pieces masquerading as articles (e.g. the Digital Journal piece). From reading the article and the sources, one would think that Stina Battle is a popular upcoming artist. Bizarrely, there are no Google News results for her [4], and just 22(!) Google hits [5], which is absolutely nothing for a US contemporary artist. Fram ( talk) 17:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to 1991 Atlantic hurricane season#Tropical Storm Fabian. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
This is a GA from 2006 but I genuinely don't see why this article should exist. The article specifically states that the tropical storm was short lived, caused little rainfall, killed no one, and damaged nothing. Nothing here seems WP:LASTING. The entire article too is cited solely to the National Hurricane Center and NOAA. There was somewhat of a merger proposal in 2011 but it just devolved into an anti-mergist rant mostly based on personal opinion. Though, if there is an argument to keep this then I'd love to hear it but I personally don't see a reason to keep it. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 16:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
BLP with no acceptable sources. Best sources I can find are Ar Riyadiyah, which mentions him once, Time Kora, which looks like a blog, contains no in-depth coverage and is referenced to a Twitter page, Al Fiha, which is a basic transfer announcement that merely states his year of birth, position and length of contract and Al-Jazirah, which has only one sentence about him, confirming that he has signed a three-year contract. None of the above meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC.
Furthermore, the article was created by a block-evading sock and has been edited by two more confirmed socks in Lilianasri and Gulfup. Some IP edits mean that this is ineligible for WP:G5 but the socking is still worth mentioning. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Japan at the 1968 Summer Olympics. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 13:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
He competed at the 1968 Summer Olympics but did not win a medal and a WP:BEFORE search didn't find anything else significant although there could be sources in Japanese that I didn't find. Could be redirected to Rowing at the 1968 Summer Olympics – Men's eight or Japan at the 1968 Summer Olympics. Suonii180 ( talk) 13:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 12:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Potentially fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC due to lack of detailed coverage from independent sources. In my searches, the best that I can find is South Wales Argus, which mentions him only once. This club website mentions him being sent off in a match but this is routine game coverage and SPORTBASIC states team sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject. I found plenty of hits on ProQuest but none seem to be relevant. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Artemis Fowl characters#Foaly. (I hope nobody objects to me targeting the section in the list) – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 13:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
What we have here is a pure plot summary related to a secondary character in a book series, with OR mixed in ("role in the series" section) and a very fancrufty "list of inventions". The references present are PRIMARY (books from the series Artemis Fowl). BEFORE found little - there are a few sentence of analysis in this academic book chapter (I am linking this through Wikimedia Library, a useful tool), but I think WP:SIGCOV is not met, and other sources I see seem to be even more in passing and less analytical. I suggest redirecting this to the List of Artemis Fowl characters. If anyone feels like rescuing something, they could try to add a bit of analysis to the list of characters entry using the source I found, even a single sentence would help as it would add said reference to Wikipedia for future editors to have something to work with (the analysis IMHO boils down to a single sentence about how making this character a genius inventor of technology gadgets makes him less of animal and more human... that's it). Maybe one day more significant treatments of this character will emerge. But considering the article's current state (plot summary+OR), there is little to be lost outside maybe the lead, infobox, and the categories anyway. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Editors are encouraged to improve the article's sourcing to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 ( HAPPY 2023) 09:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
There aren't any sources to prove notability, and I can't find any other reliable sources other than the one already in the article. Spinixster ( talk) 09:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 18:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Although this song seems notable (?), sources aside from ones on the chart table are not reliable sources. The article also lacks references, too. My choice would be to redirect to Stephen Sanchez, but I was told to put this in AfD, so here we go. Spinixster ( talk) 09:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Unremarkable single-family home. No claim of significance or notability. –DMartin 08:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Rosebud, Victoria#Schools. Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Article for local primary school which appears to be non-notable in terms of its scope, facilities or history. Crowsus ( talk) 08:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
08:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Second time around (first AfD resulted in No Consensus) and nothing has changed; all of the sources are social media posts are from the pageant itself. There are some sources in Spanish that were brought up in the previous AfD, but I don't believe any of them can be used to establish notability. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs) 07:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
08:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
08:37, 6 January 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!
08:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Unremarkable single-family home. No claim of significance or notability. –DMartin 07:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
A NRHP landmark with several independent reliable sources should pass anyone's definition of WP:GNG. It seems the nom is trying to (IMHO nuisance) delete several Omaha landmarks and doesn't believe NRHP registration has any effect on WP:GNG. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Reed House.
As I read it, your use of "clannish" was entirely negative. Unmodified, the NRHP project members are a positive group. By labeling them clannish - it implied to me that you thought they look out for and protect each other at the expense of other goals (aka prejudiced). Why label them as other than what they are? Comment on content, not on the contributor(s).
The result was merge to Warhammer 40,000#The Imperium of Man. Star Mississippi 03:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Following up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T'au Empire and others ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eldar (Warhammer 40,000), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Necron (Warhammer 40,000)), we have exactly the same problem here: This is a lengthy plot summary with some comments about related miniature and video games, but the topic sadly seems to fail WP:GNG. The few references cited (note the article is mostly unreferenced, with much WP:OR to be concerned about) are not independent and come entirely from game material (rulebooks, novels, video games, etc.). BEFORE shows any how-to-play (or paint, or mod) guides for this faction, but nothing that suggests the faction is notable outside of the game (I found one academic article that in passing criticizes the faction for being male-dominated: [20], I don't think this treatment meets WP:SIGCOV). The best WP:ATD I can suggest would be merging some referenced content to Warhammer_40,000#The_Imperium_of_Man (a section that appears unreferenced), since I guess referencing stuff to PRIMARY sources is still better than not referencing it at all... PS. I double-checked sources provided in the AfD discussion from 2017 and none appear to meet WP:SIGCOV. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. The consensus is to Keep this article. If the nominator wishes to introduce changes in how deletion discussions about this subject are decided, they are encouraged to introduce an RFC on a relevant policy or WikiProject talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Species is not notable as per WP:NOTE, note number 1: "... directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources". Species is not covered anywhere from what I can see outside of databases. EvilxFish ( talk) 04:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 03:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Contrary to the lead, this article lists only the players in the teams very first game in 2020. The page has not been updated for the past two years. It is historically inaccurate and fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The article has no encyclopedic merit. WWGB ( talk) 04:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete and there is a valid argument against the redirect, so I have not done so despite it being a potential AtD Star Mississippi 03:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
While this centre does many laudable things, I could only find one reliable source that gave the subject significant coverage, the Glasgow Times, not enough to support a claim of notability Fiachra10003 ( talk) 03:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
This is a revamp of a previously AfD-d page in March 2021. Author of the article was blocked on French Wikipedia, being confirmed as the same user/sock-farm that was responsible for the page's previous iteration. Toyota Impreza ( talk) 02:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
02:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:BIO for lack of third party coverage. Only primary sources provided LibStar ( talk) 01:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Given the previous AfD went to Deletion Review, I think it's appropriate to add some brief remarks about this close. First, upon reviewing the discussion, there unfortunately is not a lot of detailed argument on either 'side,' as I count a good majority of both 'keep' and 'delete' responses either offering minimal feedback (" It's good to have" or " fails policy") with little actual analysis.
The nominator's central argument is that the page, and its sister pages, are way too indiscriminate, that it functions as a directory, and that Viola repertoire is a better page for notable inclusions. There is no consensus as to whether that is an appropriate reading of the article and it's not for me as the closer to impose my own view. The primary sentiment from Keep !votes is that the article meets WP:NLIST and should therefore remain as-is. The nom argues this isn't responsive to their reason for deletion, but I don't think that's quite right. If the list is notable, the question becomes an editorial one of the best way to handle the information in article/list format. Given there is no consensus about how to resolve that here, I think this is the most appropriate close at this time.
Finally, given the discussion is starting to go in circles and has been relisted twice already, I don't think a third relisting would be fruitful. -- Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 17:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Including:
Huge violation of WP:NOTDATABASE/ WP:DIRECTORY! This should have never been kept at the first deletion discussion where the arguments for deletion were more numerous and the arguments to keep were fallacious. The presiding arguments to keep can easily be reduced to WP:LONGTIME and WP:USEFUL. However, Wikipedia does not need to (or should) fill the role that Music4Viola can do better.
I had created Viola repertoire to include notable inclusions (i.e., with Wikipedia pages or book/dissertation sources as the selection criteria) as pieces for viola do meet WP:NLIST (and a list could be more detailed than Category:Compositions for viola). However, redirecting the alphabetical lists of the compositions to the new page was opposed by the voters arguing keep of the last debate. When a list grows to over 10,000 entries filled with red linked composers, and the only sources are more directories that don't discuss a work in depth (in this case, Literatur für Viola) , it needs to be trimmed. Most of the pieces' top results on Google are this list.
Again, no prejudice against a Wikipedia list for viola compositions (when there are sources), but this needs a trim. In that case a suitable page, Viola repertoire, exists and can be renamed and expanded, and using the current "A–B" scheme as redirects would be unhelpful. Why? I Ask ( talk) 22:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia offers links to composers. That's such an incredibly weak feature to the list when looking up a composer takes less than a few seconds by highlighting the name and clicking "Open In New Tab" where Wikipedia is the top result.
It lists pieces without an article. Obviously, red links are important and such to grow the project, but they should only be made if there is a chance of an article. That means there must be a bare minimum of some source. Most of the pieces and even most of the composers fail even the criteria of that. A red link can be added to Viola repertoire with a basic citation to some book/dissertation. Something that shows the piece has been discussed.
The same could be said of any article. See WP:OSE and WP:NOHARM. Why? I Ask ( talk) 11:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the previous AFD was the subject of a Deletion review, I'm going to be extra careful here and list the discussion for another week of debate or until an admin decides there is a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ASTIG️🎉 (
HAPPY
2023)
01:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of lists should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence.There you go. If you can find me that half of the pieces by even composers with blue links do more than verifiably exist, I'll withdraw my nomination. Why? I Ask ( talk) 16:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Extremely vague article with no sources, barely any real biographical information, no further details in the Persian and Arabic language pages, no detail on this supposedly very impressive manual. Mirza Ali is also an extremely common part of many names - without further detail, sourcing and establishing notability seem unlikely. Kazamzam ( talk) 01:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I cannot find anything about this swimmer. The COMEN Cup was a swimming event for 13-15 years old. If he was a senior national champion, maybe that makes him notable but there is no information about the particular event. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk) 00:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
No indication of notability. The only source in the article, AbeBooks, is not an acceptable reliable source. A Google search found no sources. Google Books and Google Scholar dig up some results, but they are only references or short mentions. Mucube ( talk • contribs) 23:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Article doesn't seem to meet WP:NLIST - grouping lacks coverage in independent sources, topic is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Cable TV series doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - coverage is largely WP:ROUTINE announcements of the upcoming series. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Vanchiyankulam. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
I looked for some sources and the added source is all I found. The rest is wikipedia, likely some of its derivatives and weather reports. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 21:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Source search and included sources do not indicate a pass of WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Was previously drafted for notability and BLP sourcing concerns. ASUKITE 21:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Looks to me as a case of WP:SINGLEEVENT, notability is not established. Moreover, there is the strange cross-wiki promotion of this article Renvoy ( talk) 20:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Unreleased film that fails to establish notability. Interviews look like primary sources. No reliable two reviews. No release of notable soundtrack reviews or trailer ( trailer removed from YouTube). Similar Tamil films sent to festival without reviews do not have articles, examples include Kida and Revelations. This source says "upcoming Tamil movie", which confirms that the movie is unreleased. The movie did not release on 14 August 2015 per this (the fact that there are no audience reviews means that the film did not release). The film did not release even in 2018 per this.
In conclusion, the film does not look it establishes notability as an unreleased film. This source says that it was sent to the Toronto International Film Festival but there is no confirmation of that from the official website. DareshMohan ( talk) 18:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. JBW ( talk) 22:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Article about a politician that fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. Commissioners are not presumed automatically notable especially in Africa as its a municipal level office. Jamiebuba ( talk) 18:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there seems to be some uncertainty about this article. And I don't understand the comment to Jimbo Wales who I've never seen participate in an AFD discussion before (although he probably has).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
NOTE: I strongly believe that the creator of this page fails the WP:DUCK test for paid editing. He/she has created multiple articles yesterday and today, all of which look like the same low quality spammy bios as this one. I have (boldly) moved most (probably not all if anyone else wants to take a look) of the creations into draft space, as that's where they belong. Feel free to take a look at the bottom of User talk:Bida thomas for the long list of spammy articles moved back into draft. 10mmsocket ( talk) 17:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Museum of Islamic Art, Doha. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Was draftified by DGG with the hopes that it would be improved. Was not. Currently, zero in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable, secondary sources. And searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Nothing exists even after closure of this school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. BookishReader ( talk) 21:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable school, fails WP:NSCHOOL. BookishReader ( talk) 21:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Semi-pro that does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The spotlight on reference is not independent as it's published by the club that he plays for. The best sources that I found were The West, Sydney Morning Herald and My Football, all of which only mention Gonzalez once. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Promotional article, fails WP:NSCHOOL. BookishReader ( talk) 21:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable for-profit school. Can't find any in-depth independent source. BookishReader ( talk) 20:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable private school. BookishReader ( talk) 20:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. JBW ( talk) 20:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
While I don't doubt that over its 22 year history there has been religious bias on Wikipedia, the majority of the claims in this artice are vague and unsourced. I think the article should be moved to Draft space until the accusations in the article can be supported with reliable sources because right now it seems like a lot of original research. I could have just moved it to Draft space but page moves can always be reverted if the page creator objects so I'm bringing it to AFD to get a more consensus-based verdict on what should happen to this article. I see potential in the topic but there are just a lot of general claims of bias and I don't think it is main space-ready. I can see this article appearing on Wikipedia in 2006 but it's 2023 and Wikipedia now requires more verification, especially on potentially controversial subjects. I ask that it be moved to Draft or User space for now. Liz Read! Talk! 20:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Why is this separate from bias on Wikipedia? Slatersteven ( talk) 11:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. BookishReader ( talk) 20:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP, does not have significant coverage. gov.uk source has nothing related to the company in question, other sources are brief mentions at best. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 19:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Can't find anything towards WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG, his one game in an WP:FPL is no longer relevant. Best I can find is a passing mention in Nemzeti Sport, also derived from a Facebook post, Sport 24, which mentions him only once, and Sport.ua, which mentions him being a defender and having played 17 youth matches. Sport.ua is the best source but it's not good enough for SPORTBASIC. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 19:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
"Sources" are mostly PR pieces masquerading as articles (e.g. the Digital Journal piece). From reading the article and the sources, one would think that Stina Battle is a popular upcoming artist. Bizarrely, there are no Google News results for her [4], and just 22(!) Google hits [5], which is absolutely nothing for a US contemporary artist. Fram ( talk) 17:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to 1991 Atlantic hurricane season#Tropical Storm Fabian. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
This is a GA from 2006 but I genuinely don't see why this article should exist. The article specifically states that the tropical storm was short lived, caused little rainfall, killed no one, and damaged nothing. Nothing here seems WP:LASTING. The entire article too is cited solely to the National Hurricane Center and NOAA. There was somewhat of a merger proposal in 2011 but it just devolved into an anti-mergist rant mostly based on personal opinion. Though, if there is an argument to keep this then I'd love to hear it but I personally don't see a reason to keep it. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 16:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
BLP with no acceptable sources. Best sources I can find are Ar Riyadiyah, which mentions him once, Time Kora, which looks like a blog, contains no in-depth coverage and is referenced to a Twitter page, Al Fiha, which is a basic transfer announcement that merely states his year of birth, position and length of contract and Al-Jazirah, which has only one sentence about him, confirming that he has signed a three-year contract. None of the above meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC.
Furthermore, the article was created by a block-evading sock and has been edited by two more confirmed socks in Lilianasri and Gulfup. Some IP edits mean that this is ineligible for WP:G5 but the socking is still worth mentioning. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Japan at the 1968 Summer Olympics. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 13:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
He competed at the 1968 Summer Olympics but did not win a medal and a WP:BEFORE search didn't find anything else significant although there could be sources in Japanese that I didn't find. Could be redirected to Rowing at the 1968 Summer Olympics – Men's eight or Japan at the 1968 Summer Olympics. Suonii180 ( talk) 13:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 12:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Potentially fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC due to lack of detailed coverage from independent sources. In my searches, the best that I can find is South Wales Argus, which mentions him only once. This club website mentions him being sent off in a match but this is routine game coverage and SPORTBASIC states team sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject. I found plenty of hits on ProQuest but none seem to be relevant. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Artemis Fowl characters#Foaly. (I hope nobody objects to me targeting the section in the list) – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 13:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
What we have here is a pure plot summary related to a secondary character in a book series, with OR mixed in ("role in the series" section) and a very fancrufty "list of inventions". The references present are PRIMARY (books from the series Artemis Fowl). BEFORE found little - there are a few sentence of analysis in this academic book chapter (I am linking this through Wikimedia Library, a useful tool), but I think WP:SIGCOV is not met, and other sources I see seem to be even more in passing and less analytical. I suggest redirecting this to the List of Artemis Fowl characters. If anyone feels like rescuing something, they could try to add a bit of analysis to the list of characters entry using the source I found, even a single sentence would help as it would add said reference to Wikipedia for future editors to have something to work with (the analysis IMHO boils down to a single sentence about how making this character a genius inventor of technology gadgets makes him less of animal and more human... that's it). Maybe one day more significant treatments of this character will emerge. But considering the article's current state (plot summary+OR), there is little to be lost outside maybe the lead, infobox, and the categories anyway. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Editors are encouraged to improve the article's sourcing to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 ( HAPPY 2023) 09:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
There aren't any sources to prove notability, and I can't find any other reliable sources other than the one already in the article. Spinixster ( talk) 09:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 18:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Although this song seems notable (?), sources aside from ones on the chart table are not reliable sources. The article also lacks references, too. My choice would be to redirect to Stephen Sanchez, but I was told to put this in AfD, so here we go. Spinixster ( talk) 09:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Unremarkable single-family home. No claim of significance or notability. –DMartin 08:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Rosebud, Victoria#Schools. Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Article for local primary school which appears to be non-notable in terms of its scope, facilities or history. Crowsus ( talk) 08:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
08:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Second time around (first AfD resulted in No Consensus) and nothing has changed; all of the sources are social media posts are from the pageant itself. There are some sources in Spanish that were brought up in the previous AfD, but I don't believe any of them can be used to establish notability. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs) 07:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
08:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
08:37, 6 January 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!
08:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Unremarkable single-family home. No claim of significance or notability. –DMartin 07:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
A NRHP landmark with several independent reliable sources should pass anyone's definition of WP:GNG. It seems the nom is trying to (IMHO nuisance) delete several Omaha landmarks and doesn't believe NRHP registration has any effect on WP:GNG. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Reed House.
As I read it, your use of "clannish" was entirely negative. Unmodified, the NRHP project members are a positive group. By labeling them clannish - it implied to me that you thought they look out for and protect each other at the expense of other goals (aka prejudiced). Why label them as other than what they are? Comment on content, not on the contributor(s).
The result was merge to Warhammer 40,000#The Imperium of Man. Star Mississippi 03:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Following up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T'au Empire and others ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eldar (Warhammer 40,000), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Necron (Warhammer 40,000)), we have exactly the same problem here: This is a lengthy plot summary with some comments about related miniature and video games, but the topic sadly seems to fail WP:GNG. The few references cited (note the article is mostly unreferenced, with much WP:OR to be concerned about) are not independent and come entirely from game material (rulebooks, novels, video games, etc.). BEFORE shows any how-to-play (or paint, or mod) guides for this faction, but nothing that suggests the faction is notable outside of the game (I found one academic article that in passing criticizes the faction for being male-dominated: [20], I don't think this treatment meets WP:SIGCOV). The best WP:ATD I can suggest would be merging some referenced content to Warhammer_40,000#The_Imperium_of_Man (a section that appears unreferenced), since I guess referencing stuff to PRIMARY sources is still better than not referencing it at all... PS. I double-checked sources provided in the AfD discussion from 2017 and none appear to meet WP:SIGCOV. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. The consensus is to Keep this article. If the nominator wishes to introduce changes in how deletion discussions about this subject are decided, they are encouraged to introduce an RFC on a relevant policy or WikiProject talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Species is not notable as per WP:NOTE, note number 1: "... directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources". Species is not covered anywhere from what I can see outside of databases. EvilxFish ( talk) 04:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 03:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Contrary to the lead, this article lists only the players in the teams very first game in 2020. The page has not been updated for the past two years. It is historically inaccurate and fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The article has no encyclopedic merit. WWGB ( talk) 04:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete and there is a valid argument against the redirect, so I have not done so despite it being a potential AtD Star Mississippi 03:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
While this centre does many laudable things, I could only find one reliable source that gave the subject significant coverage, the Glasgow Times, not enough to support a claim of notability Fiachra10003 ( talk) 03:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
This is a revamp of a previously AfD-d page in March 2021. Author of the article was blocked on French Wikipedia, being confirmed as the same user/sock-farm that was responsible for the page's previous iteration. Toyota Impreza ( talk) 02:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
02:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:BIO for lack of third party coverage. Only primary sources provided LibStar ( talk) 01:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Given the previous AfD went to Deletion Review, I think it's appropriate to add some brief remarks about this close. First, upon reviewing the discussion, there unfortunately is not a lot of detailed argument on either 'side,' as I count a good majority of both 'keep' and 'delete' responses either offering minimal feedback (" It's good to have" or " fails policy") with little actual analysis.
The nominator's central argument is that the page, and its sister pages, are way too indiscriminate, that it functions as a directory, and that Viola repertoire is a better page for notable inclusions. There is no consensus as to whether that is an appropriate reading of the article and it's not for me as the closer to impose my own view. The primary sentiment from Keep !votes is that the article meets WP:NLIST and should therefore remain as-is. The nom argues this isn't responsive to their reason for deletion, but I don't think that's quite right. If the list is notable, the question becomes an editorial one of the best way to handle the information in article/list format. Given there is no consensus about how to resolve that here, I think this is the most appropriate close at this time.
Finally, given the discussion is starting to go in circles and has been relisted twice already, I don't think a third relisting would be fruitful. -- Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 17:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Including:
Huge violation of WP:NOTDATABASE/ WP:DIRECTORY! This should have never been kept at the first deletion discussion where the arguments for deletion were more numerous and the arguments to keep were fallacious. The presiding arguments to keep can easily be reduced to WP:LONGTIME and WP:USEFUL. However, Wikipedia does not need to (or should) fill the role that Music4Viola can do better.
I had created Viola repertoire to include notable inclusions (i.e., with Wikipedia pages or book/dissertation sources as the selection criteria) as pieces for viola do meet WP:NLIST (and a list could be more detailed than Category:Compositions for viola). However, redirecting the alphabetical lists of the compositions to the new page was opposed by the voters arguing keep of the last debate. When a list grows to over 10,000 entries filled with red linked composers, and the only sources are more directories that don't discuss a work in depth (in this case, Literatur für Viola) , it needs to be trimmed. Most of the pieces' top results on Google are this list.
Again, no prejudice against a Wikipedia list for viola compositions (when there are sources), but this needs a trim. In that case a suitable page, Viola repertoire, exists and can be renamed and expanded, and using the current "A–B" scheme as redirects would be unhelpful. Why? I Ask ( talk) 22:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia offers links to composers. That's such an incredibly weak feature to the list when looking up a composer takes less than a few seconds by highlighting the name and clicking "Open In New Tab" where Wikipedia is the top result.
It lists pieces without an article. Obviously, red links are important and such to grow the project, but they should only be made if there is a chance of an article. That means there must be a bare minimum of some source. Most of the pieces and even most of the composers fail even the criteria of that. A red link can be added to Viola repertoire with a basic citation to some book/dissertation. Something that shows the piece has been discussed.
The same could be said of any article. See WP:OSE and WP:NOHARM. Why? I Ask ( talk) 11:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the previous AFD was the subject of a Deletion review, I'm going to be extra careful here and list the discussion for another week of debate or until an admin decides there is a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ASTIG️🎉 (
HAPPY
2023)
01:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of lists should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence.There you go. If you can find me that half of the pieces by even composers with blue links do more than verifiably exist, I'll withdraw my nomination. Why? I Ask ( talk) 16:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Extremely vague article with no sources, barely any real biographical information, no further details in the Persian and Arabic language pages, no detail on this supposedly very impressive manual. Mirza Ali is also an extremely common part of many names - without further detail, sourcing and establishing notability seem unlikely. Kazamzam ( talk) 01:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I cannot find anything about this swimmer. The COMEN Cup was a swimming event for 13-15 years old. If he was a senior national champion, maybe that makes him notable but there is no information about the particular event. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk) 00:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)