![]() |
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
One appearance for the Madagascar national football team four years ago. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 23:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable hotel without any media coverage. Created in 2012 by an account whose only edit is this article. Likely promotional, only references are a link that goes nowhere and the hotel's own website. Fritzmann ( message me) 22:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. ✗ plicit 00:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG C1K98V ( 💬 ✒️ 📂) 12:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus on the articles nominated here, but there is a consensus amongst many participants that this nomination was a WP:TRAINWRECK and never going to yield a workable result. Individual AfD discussions for some of the nominated articles are likely warranted, and it has been suggested that other matters be discussed at more appropriate venues like WP:ANI. Relisting of this discussion is highly unlikely to result in a clearer outcome or consensus on the bundle of articles that were nominated. Liz suggested a procedural close during an earlier relist, but decided against that due to the editor resources involved in the discussion; regarding that, I would suggest that relevant discussion and analysis from this discussion be referred to in any AfDs on the individual articles that might be opened later. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm ( talk) 20:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Not a single neutral source or source from a credible publisher or website for this article, plus violation of WP:GS/AA – articles created by non-extended confirmed user. I am also nominating the following related pages because of same reasons, to enforce WP:GS/AA among other issues such as:
- Kevo327 ( talk) 13:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this is a complicated bundled nomination with the nominator changing what they are requesting with several different articles. Participating editors should carefully review the nomination statement as Deletion is not being called for with all proposed articles. I'm almost tempted to do a procedural close so that these articles can be considered in individual or smaller bundled nominations but editors have invested time in this discussion so I will relist it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.-- Visviva ( talk) 22:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was procedural keep. The article will be reverted to this version in accordance with the consensus here. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm ( talk) 20:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
While a one sentence biography can provide some general notability, the article lacks WP:SIGCOV. The article needs citations from reliable, independent sources; is missing information about Early life, Career, Personal life, Achievements and honours (if any). JoeNMLC ( talk) 14:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 08:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSOFT Mfixerer ( talk) 16:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
TheSandDoctor
Talk
17:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Alternative versions of Spider-Man#Insomniac's Peter Parker. History will be left intact, so if either it is desired to merge any content or additional notability takes place after release of additional material, that will still be available if needed. Given that, there is no need to send anything to draft; anyone who wants a draft or userspace copy can just do that themself. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Most of the reception is for the parent game, and not the character itself, and there's very little reception as is. Development info can be rolled into the parent game too where not already present, and doesn't really warrant a separate article on the character. There's also a heavy instance of synthesis here, such as some of the appearances in other media being claimed as direct nods to this particular incarnation of the character. This fails notability. Kung Fu Man ( talk) 23:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Creator Keep: This is getting silly at best. Just because reception is not full like you expect. Doesn’t mean WP:GNG is not established. There is other proofs of notability in the article and it would not surprise me there is more reception now that can be added, even moreso in the future, when the sequel coming out. Are you the same editor or same IP that pulled “what about Batman: Arkham character” logic? It wouldn’t surprise me. There is a lot of articles I don’t care to keep, but this is not one of them. I even pushed GA on it one time. Jhenderson 777 04:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. Me being replied to when I voted and then I replied back is not harassing haranguing.
Jhenderson
777
05:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Ok I found the discord convo now. No need to link it to me now. Jhenderson 777 07:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
the character's storytelling. EGM made no such claim. It attributed nothing like that to the character. Every instance the review makes of referring to storytelling is in the context of
the game's storytelling. The entire reception section is like this, while details such as Development are almost completely duplicative of the game's own development sections. The rest of the article is a huge run down of "Spider-man appeared in Marvel related properties!" with a lot of OR/Synth in regards to whether any given appearance of Spider man was actually the "Insomniac incarnation" or simply a nod to the game, which is obviously part of branding as the premiere Spider-man video game at this time. Even the Face model controversy is not really coverage of the character as an independent subject, but commentary related to the remastered video game. -- ferret ( talk) 15:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, sorry for prolonging this involved discussion but we have editors voicing support for Delete, Keep, Draftify, and Redirect or Merge with several different target articles suggested. It's hard to find a consensus with editors all over the map here. I want to discourage further tangents on Discord or Video game communities on Wikipedia and just consider whether or not there are enough reliable sources to warrant a stand-alone article. Just as a reminder, as you all know, an outcome of Redirect or Draftify would preserve the article in case future games and media coverage about them provide additional sources of notability. Things would be more difficult to handle in those circumstances with a Delete or Merge outcome. But, personally, I'm not invested in any result, just taking the temperature of the group discussion. But please, stick to talking about the sources and the article. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Not seeing encyclopedic notability here. Coverage is low-level local. BD2412 T 21:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
One appearance for the Madagascar national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
One appearance for the Madagascar national football team four years ago. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Five official appearances for the Madagascar national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Six appearances for the Belize national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Same sort of case as Kingston and District Football League and Wearside Combination Football League. In recent news, I can't find anything better than Guardian Series, which mentions the league once in passing. Searching in the British Newspaper Archive yields a few relevant hits but these are all just basic results listings with no meaningful prose about the league. The previous deletions linked above clearly show that this sort of coverage isn't enough, especially when it's in hyper local newspapers like Tower Hamlets Independent and East End Local Advertiser and contains nothing that we can actually build an article from. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to E.D.I. Mean#Production credits. Liz Read! Talk! 19:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I have not found any sources discussing his production discography and this article is unsourced, so I do not think this meets WP:LISTN. I am not against a merge to E.D.I Mean#Production credits. ~ UN6892 t c 18:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 19:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Does not pass the notability guideline; WP:GNG. Most sources are primary or exclusively local, with a direct connection to the subject. Additionally, one source seems to be dead. GuardianH ( talk) 18:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 19:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS and WP:SPS. Refs are routine coverage. scope_creep Talk 18:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
This is a brochure advertising article with no attempt to supply references that are compliant with consensus based wikipedia policy. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep Talk 20:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. WP:G5 as an article created by a Bensebgli sock with no significant contributions from others. Abecedare ( talk) 17:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Completely hoax creation, as the Chalukya dynasty was a South Indian/Gujarat/Karnataka dynasty, not Gurjar or Gujar. [1] Gujjars are an ethnic group native to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. They speak the Gujari language, which is a dialect of Rajasthani. Gujaratis, on the other hand, are an ethnic group from Gujarat, an Indian state. They communicate in Gujarati, an Indo-Aryan language. Gujjars and Gujaratis are not related since they hail from separate locations, speak different languages, and have different customs. Since Gujarat was once known as Gujaratra, locals are referred to as Gurjars or Gurjardesha residents, despite the fact that the caste referenced in this article belongs to a completely distinct tribe that raises cattle. By duplicating Chalukya dynasty, inaccurate information is supplied in this article. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 18:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Rainbow (TV series). Liz Read! Talk! 19:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Also nominating:
These characters has been the subject of barely any reliable SIGCOV. Bungle has one Den of Geek source but that is it. I could not find anything for the other two. QuicoleJR ( talk) 17:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 18:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Same sort of case as Aung Moe Htwe. BLP sourced only to the unreliable Facebook and with no evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Best I can find is a squad list mention in SCMP and a trivial mention in Myanmar Digital Newspaper. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies per WP:ATD-R. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 18:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:JUDGE. Lack of secondary coverage. Let'srun ( talk) 16:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 18:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sourced entirely by primary/non- reliable sources, and routine run-of-the-mill campaign coverage. My WP:BEFORE search across multiple search engines produced no reliably-sourced significant coverage as needed to satisfy the notability guidelines. Sal2100 ( talk) 16:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies. This is numerically 50/50 between keep and merge, however all of the keep votes cited WP:NPOL, which was proven not applicable. With that and failing WP:GNG, the merge argument carries. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 18:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Sources are either primary or namedrops Let'srun ( talk) 15:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
No objection to merge as per Let'srun. Ravenswing 13:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 18:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of Tekken characters#Alisa Bosconovitch. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Article lacks any significant reception discussing them as a character to satisfy SIGCOV or notability, and trying to find sources per WP:BEFORE proved fruitless in turn. At most she gets light mentions, but little actual discussion and more passing reactions. Kung Fu Man ( talk) 15:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
References
The result was keep. Consensus amongst those who participated is that notability was established within the AFD itself. I'd suggest editing the article to add the sources that Cunard came up with. (non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 00:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I was able to find one review of this book ( from The Pittsburgh Press), but the only other coverage available from what I can find is a very short blurb from Entertainment Weekly ( here). These sources have been added to the article. Appears to fail WP:BKCRIT, as only the Pittsburgh Press article should be considered "significant" coverage, with the EW article not making the cut. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
SourcesA book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
- The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The review notes: "Less grandiose, both in subject matter and presentation, but no less memory inducing for the baby boom generation is "Spin Again." Though it does briefly investigate the historical conception of board games in the 1880s, the thrust of Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaefer's joint effort is an analysis and loving look at game playing in the wake of television's mass invasion of American culture. ... Noticeably absent from the book, however, are "Candyland" and "Chutes and Ladders." ... Despite its limitations and these obvious omissions, "Spin Again" is still an enjoyable way to spend a contemporary rainy day."
The review notes: "SPIN AGAIN: Board Games From the Fifties and Sixties by Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaefer (Chronicle: $16.95). The minimal text of this campy survey reveals that board games have a surprisingly long history in the United States: ... This brightly colored book would make an excellent hostess gift/ice breaker at baby-boomer holiday parties, provoking delighted cries of “Remember Lie Detector?” and “I used to play Mouse Trap!”"
The review notes: "These favorites, along with a host of others, are cataloged in Spin Again: Board Games from the Fifties and Sixties (Chronicle Books, 415/777-7240) by Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaefer. Spin Again takes a look at the history of board games, especially those spawned from popular TV icons. The book doesn't pin values on any of the games, but the authors provide helpful categories and illustrations of the original issues. Some of the top TV-inspired categories include: ..."
The review notes: "Spin Again by Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaefer ... is an affectionate look at boardgames of the 1950s and '60s, including histories of the major game companies and glorious full-color illustrations, many showing the board and other components as well as the box. The lack of an index limits its usefulness to collectors, but it sure is handsome."
The review notes: "Spin Again is an informative as well as a nostalgic look at the games we played. Well illustrated with each game's boards, boxes, cards, tokens, etc., it also includes a brief history of games since the 1800's, and historical background on major companies."
The article notes: "Here are photos of the most popular games, accompanied by a short history of the development of the pastime. One mark of a popular TV show in the '50s and '60s was that it had its own board game, and here are some of the best, including You'll Never Get Rich, with Phil Silvers as Sgt. Bilko on the box (1955)."
The article notes: "For starters, they're collected in a terrific new book, "Spin Again: Board Games from the Fifties and Sixties" (Chronicle, $16.95), by two New Orleans natives, Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaeffer. This loving tribute to board games is a winsome trip down memory lane, an anecdotal history of both the games themselves and their creators. ... Polizzi and Schaeffer were inspired to research the history of games by Polizzi's collection, which in addition to those games from childhood began to get serious three years ago after the purchase of a "Beverly Hillbillies game" on impulse."
The review notes: "Take a nostalgic trip this summer with Spin Again: Board Games From the Fifties and Sixties (Chronicle, $16.95). By Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaefer, the softbound book details the history of board games in general and the ones that baby boomers grew up with in particular. I quickly paged through the color photographs to find my long-gone Barbie: Queen of the Prom game. ... The book includes concise bios of Milton Bradley, George and Charles Parker, and the founders of Mattel. It is fun and well-done."
The article notes: ""People collect games that look great but are often the least challenging to play," said Rick Polizzi, the co-author with Fred Schaefer of the new book Spin Again: Board Games of the 50's and 60's (Chronicle Books). ... Most of the 180 board games illustrated in Spin Again are from Polizzi's collection of 800."
The article notes: "Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaefer note in "Spin Again" (Chronicle, 120 pages, $16.95 softbound), a colorful look at board games of the 1950s and '60s. ... "Spin Again" pictures all of these games and around 150 more in color, along with brief descriptions and an introductory history of board games. For almost anyone who grew up in the '50s and '60s, this tribute to the now-collectible games of the past is sure to bring back at least a few pleasant memories."
The article notes: ""Spin Again, Board Games From the Fifties and Sixties," by Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaefer (Chronicle Books), offers not only a vivid presentation of these icons of the recent past but traces their history -- board games, it seems, date back more than 4,000 years -- from the moralizing games of the Victorian era to the voluptuous Barbie."
The article notes: "Chronicle Books Spin Again: Board Games of the Fifties and Sixties (Sept., $16.95) by Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaefer features photographs and text describing popular game boards and playing pieces of the '50s and '60s. 15,000 first printing. Advertising."
The article notes: "The young Californian is also the coauthor of an engaging, richly illustrated new book on his favorite subject—Spin Again: Board Games of the Fifties and Sixties (Chronicle, $16.95)."
The article notes: "... Burt Hockberg, senior editor of the New York City-based Games magazine. Spin Again (Chronicle Books, 1992, $20) and Baby Boomer Games (Collector Books, 1995, $28) are beautifully illustrated coffee table books that catalog a variety of board games spanning the '40s through the '70s. Hockberg praised the books and gave them a favorable review in his magazine. "Basically he's mining a field that no one else has bothered to do," Hockberg says. "His books are special because they show pictures and you can see the games. It helps people to know what to look for.""
The article notes: "Now he has 1,000 — and he and cowriter Fred Schaefer have produced Spin Again, a classily designed, essence-of-stuff-in-the-attic book about board games from the ’50s and ’60s to remind you of what you, too, stupidly tossed. Your turn."
The result was redirect to Ryo Ikuemi. The consensus amongst those who participated is a redirect. (non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 00:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2016. Both volumes reviewed by WP:A&M/RS listed Planete BD [24] [25] Unable to find any other RS coverage. Fails WP:NBOOKS. Redirect to the author Ryo Ikuemi or the magazine? Charcoal feather ( talk) 14:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to COVID-19 vaccination in Germany#Above-average number of "post-vac" reports in Germany. Liz Read! Talk! 18:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Inappropriate content fork covering adverse effects attributed to covid-19 vaccination in German-speaking countries. The adverse effects of the vaccine are the same in Germany etc. as any other country so this term makes no sense for an enwiki article title. The content should be covered if WP:DUE at COVID-19 vaccine or potentially adverse effects of the COVID-19 vaccine if a split is merited. ( t · c) buidhe 14:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Stats stub on a footballer that was previously deleted last summer and this new version does nothing to address the previous reasons for deletion. The best sources found in an Arabic WP:BEFORE are Ar Riyadiyah 1, Al Araby and Ar Riyadiyah 2. The first two are trivial mentions and the last is an image caption. Still no evidence of meeting WP:SPORTBASIC so the reasons for deletion are still valid. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK #1 (non-admin closure) AviationFreak 💬 17:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
This village article has zero references. It is missing information to show the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article by using multiple sources that meet four criteria. The sources should be (1) reliable (2) secondary (3) independent of the subject (4) talk about the subject in some depth. Created on 20 November 2013. JoeNMLC ( talk) 12:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) WJ94 ( talk) 09:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NSCHOLAR. Almost all the sources cited are either primary/non-independent. The only exception is a single review of Gertz's book which is not sufficient by itself to establish notability.
WJ94 (
talk) 12:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Edit: I've just noticed that there's a second review cited in the article for a second book. Nevertheless, I still don't think that having authored two books each with a single review (on a website which seems to review a lot of classics books) is sufficient for GNG/NSCHOLAR/NAUTHOR.
WJ94 (
talk) 14:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn.
WJ94 (
talk)
09:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:SPORTCRIT #5, and violates
WP:NOTDATABASE. While the article was kept at a previous AfD on the basis that winning an award from a Danish tabloid met
WP:ANYBIO #1, and thus Leidersdorff was likely to be notable
, in the 18 months since that AfD no one has been able to find additional suitable sources.
Even if an award from a tabloid newspaper is a well-known and significant award
, an assertion that seems dubious to me, the failure to find any suitable sources is strong evidence that in this case it is not a predictor of notability. In addition meeting ANYBIO doesn't create an exception from the requirements of SPORTSCRIT #5, and thus if we cannot find any significant coverage we cannot keep the article.
BilledMammal (
talk)
10:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
12:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
We should be able to presume coverageIf we can find one example of WP:SIGCOV then we can. If we can't, then we are forbidden from doing so per WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, and a local consensus is not permitted to overrule that restriction - if you disagree with it, I suggest proposing that #5 is rescinded. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
[This] is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.BeanieFan11 ( talk) 13:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
"Nordics' foremost foil and saber fencer since 1935."Alvaldi ( talk) 09:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
[This] is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.Also FWIW, in my opinion if the proposal at that NSPORT2022 discussion was "all articles must have significant coverage or they must be deleted no matter how great their athletic achievements were even if coverage is impossible to find and we know it is near-certain to exist" it would have assuredly not achieved consensus. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 19:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus and no indication further input or source analysis is forthcoming Star Mississippi 12:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Not notable. There are no independent sources Mdggdj ( talk) 09:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For some input on the sources presented by Siroxo.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
12:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Cook Islands international footballers. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 04:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Cook Islands international footballers. Three appearances for the Cook Islands national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. Full name is "Ishaq Nazeem Mohammed" or some variation thereof. JTtheOG ( talk) 08:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
12:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to MFJ Enterprises. History remains should there be sourced info to merge Star Mississippi 12:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Stub about a company that manufactures antennas for ham radio. The only two sources cited are PR from the company itself and a WP:BEFORE search reveals only promotional information rather than any WP:SIGCOV. This company is likely notable within the ham radio hobbyist sphere, but I'm not seeing any justification for a Wikipedia article. Flip Format ( talk) 09:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
21:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)The result was delete. The redirect will be restored. ✗ plicit 05:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Not able to find much of anything about the topic. The phrase was coined by Laura Rockhold who doesn't appear notable herself nor a subject-matter expert. Topic doesn't appear to have any widespread usage. –– FormalDude (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: How about this suggestion, the current article is draftified and the redirect is restored?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. Star Mississippi 12:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails
WP:NPOL. The majority of the cited sources do not meet the credibility standards as per Wikipedia's Reliable Sources guideline (
WP:SIRS) Notability guidelines for people (
WP:BIO).
CGGCA201 (
talk)
16:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
04:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as I see no consensus. Would editors consider draftifying?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Marked for notability concerns 3.5 years ago. Unreliable sources used. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar ( talk) 04:08, 1 July 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!
04:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete per WP:G5 for Ajit Singh Bhati and Shambhujit Singh Bhati as article created by a Bensebgli sock with no significant contributions from others; and redirect to Dadri for Dargahi Singh Bhati. Abecedare ( talk) 18:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
There is no mention of them in the sources cited in these articles. One source is the book of an academic named Javaid Rahi, who is not independent because he is a Gujjar academic who only writes praise in his publications. Second, it is unknown whether these kings existed or were imaginary. Some such articles were created in the last two to three days using the Gazetteer as a source, but there is no mention of these names in it.
This nomination is also for:
You can see a short discussion here on my talk. DreamRimmer ( talk) 17:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
2023-06 ✍️ create
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
—ScottyWong—
05:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Some details about Javed Rahi's unreliable book
|
---|
The
Javaid Rahi's source is cited in all three articles. But it is edited by Javaid Rahi, a Gurjar activist who specialises in Kashmiri languages. So he is not even a historian. More importantly, the author (Rana Ali Hussan Chouhan) of the
cited pages was not even a scholar. He was a civil engineer belonging to the Gurjar caste himself. So this is a non-scholarly and
non-HISTRS source, which is not reliable for history-related details. BTW, the details of the author (Chauhan) are mainly available on
Gurjar promo sites, although his nephew also mentions
in this interview that Chauhan was a civil engineer in
Pakistan Public Works Department. Note that the 400-plus pages of Rahi's book, i.e.
pp. 243–728, are authored by this Gurjar engineer. As expected from a nonscholar, the content is full of fringe theories, e.g. Kolff's source mentions (on
page no. 151) that the subject of this AfD (Ajit Singh) died in 1812: " |
Rebuttal to NitinMlk's analysis of sources from أسامة بن عبد الله وليد and tangents about other articles signed, Rosguill talk 04:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate !votes, more arguments about other articles signed, Rosguill talk 04:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Firstly, you mentioned that Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan is not cited in the articles in question. But that's not true, as he is cited in all three articles even now: see
Ajit Singh Bhati's ref no. 4 and 6;
Shambhujit Singh Bhati's ref no. 4 and 7; and
Dargahi Singh Bhati's ref no. 4. All of them cite
page no. 589 and/or page no. 590, which are authored by Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan.
Secondly, I never " Thirdly, Dadri was never a princely state. So I pointed out that mistake, as estates and princely states are two different things. You can read princely state to know more about it. Fourthly, I mentioned, " Finally, please don't reply without reading my previous and this comment very carefully. Thanks. - NitinMlk ( talk) 21:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
|
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's have a relist not overwhelmed by walls of text from a sockpuppet
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
04:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see any consensus here. But, speaking as an uninvolved bystander, perhaps a move to Draft space would alleviate some concerns about sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 05:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
The disambiguation page is no longer necessary when the film had got a new English title "The Boy and the Heron". I suggest moving How Do You Live? (novel) to the " How Do You Live?" main title and add a hatnote in the article to point readers to the film. Explorer09 ( talk) 04:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Calgary Catholic School District. Star Mississippi 12:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
The school is not notable, the entire article relies soly on the school's own website, which isn't a reliable, secondary source. Luna <3 (She/Her) ( talk) 04:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Bones (TV series)#Main cast. (non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 00:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Sadly, as much as I love Bones, this character is not notable, and the article must be brought here. There are no good sources for the character. QuicoleJR ( talk) 03:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Ultra-short article on a Croation-Dutch architect. I suggest redirecting to Berlage Institute per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. gidonb ( talk) 02:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
02:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as some references have been added since nomination and no one has responded to the nominator's suggestion of redirection. But being a short article has never been a valid reason for deletion by itself alone and no other deletion rationale has been offered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Lack of notability, almost zero reliable sources mentioning this school. Ratnahastin ( talk) 01:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. However this does not preclude a merger conversation happening. It just means consensus will not develop to delete this, and therefore doesn't require continuation of the AfD. Star Mississippi 12:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Originally moved to draft space but was recreated in main space, fails WP:NFILM, no good results came from WP:BEFORE. ThisIsSeanJ ( talk) 01:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I get that some people have nostalgia for this film but the article has no reliable sources to establish notability (IMDb doesn't count nor do passing mentions). Is this Award considered notable? I'm relisting this discussion for another week but if there aren't usable sources located over the next few days, this discussion will either close as Delete or as Merge to
Okay Ka, Fairy Ko!.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NACTOR. No major roles in notable films or television shows and sources are spammy. DanCherek ( talk) 02:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Lack of reliable sources, most sources are user generated content Ratnahastin ( talk) 01:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to reassess new sources added to the article. Does the deletion rationale still fit?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:02, 15 July 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! 01:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Six official appearances for the United States Virgin Islands national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 01:11, 15 July 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! 01:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Three official appearances for the United States Virgin Islands national football team. He is not known to have continued playing past his college career. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 01:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. While promotional tone could be fixed editorially, consensus is depth of sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 12:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Unclear why this person is notable, doesn't pass the criteria at WP:BIO. No depth of coverage. Lots of minor positions such as local councillor or chair of various committees, but nothing that would automatically grant notability. cagliost ( talk) 19:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
21:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
"Available sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG.". I read each of the journalistic sources in the article and they do establish WP:GNG per Necrothesp. I did not read any of the other sources. Regards, -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 12:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
*Keep, don't getting why it failed
WP:GNG
Gerblinpete (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added
10:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
05:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. It does not contemplate that we would have a notable event and a person involved in it, and not have an article on either. So if 1E applies, and presuming that we are not going to have an article on the Resignation of Edward Lord or whatever, then 1E would suggest that the article on the individual should be kept. (I would preemptively note that I'm not actually convinced that 1E does apply here, and also that WP:BLP1E does not apply here at all for the reasons explained at WP:LPI.) (2) As a technical note, I believe the above citation to ANYBIO is actually meant to go to WP:NBASIC. (Which is good, since ANYBIO wouldn't actually apply here AFAICT.) (3) Absent some indication that a piece was taken down for substantive flaws, I am not sure why that would have any repercussions for our use of it here. It makes verification harder (the Wayback Machine only has some teaser text), but the hard copy of the Times is presumably still out there somewhere. (4) As NBASIC itself implies, there is a substantial gap between "not substantial" and "trivial". The best analysis of what a "trivial" mention is can probably be found at WP:GNG, which describes non-trivial (i.e. significant) coverage as having sufficient detail that
no original research is needed to extract the content. So if we were trying to piece this guy's life together from the various articles where he was quoted in passing as chair of the Inclusion Advisory Board, that would be a legitimate case of sourcing an article to trivial mentions. That doesn't seem to be what's going on here: articles like this and this, which are entirely devoted to the Wikipedia article subject, might still arguably be less than substantial, but they are certainly more than trivial. -- Visviva ( talk) 02:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Atypical third fourth relist due to the late swing toward deletion coupled with continued spirited counterargument from keep !voters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
01:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Narada Productions. Liz Read! Talk! 04:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable compilation album. Promotional lead copied from label's website. Fails NALBUM. The external links are related to the artists and not this album, and they do nothing to establish notability. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 20:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
00:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)#Recurring cast. Liz Read! Talk! 00:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR; none of his roles are significant enough. Being the son of Edward James Olmos does not make him notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. The Film Creator ( talk) 00:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
One appearance for the Madagascar national football team four years ago. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 23:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable hotel without any media coverage. Created in 2012 by an account whose only edit is this article. Likely promotional, only references are a link that goes nowhere and the hotel's own website. Fritzmann ( message me) 22:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. ✗ plicit 00:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG C1K98V ( 💬 ✒️ 📂) 12:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus on the articles nominated here, but there is a consensus amongst many participants that this nomination was a WP:TRAINWRECK and never going to yield a workable result. Individual AfD discussions for some of the nominated articles are likely warranted, and it has been suggested that other matters be discussed at more appropriate venues like WP:ANI. Relisting of this discussion is highly unlikely to result in a clearer outcome or consensus on the bundle of articles that were nominated. Liz suggested a procedural close during an earlier relist, but decided against that due to the editor resources involved in the discussion; regarding that, I would suggest that relevant discussion and analysis from this discussion be referred to in any AfDs on the individual articles that might be opened later. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm ( talk) 20:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Not a single neutral source or source from a credible publisher or website for this article, plus violation of WP:GS/AA – articles created by non-extended confirmed user. I am also nominating the following related pages because of same reasons, to enforce WP:GS/AA among other issues such as:
- Kevo327 ( talk) 13:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this is a complicated bundled nomination with the nominator changing what they are requesting with several different articles. Participating editors should carefully review the nomination statement as Deletion is not being called for with all proposed articles. I'm almost tempted to do a procedural close so that these articles can be considered in individual or smaller bundled nominations but editors have invested time in this discussion so I will relist it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.-- Visviva ( talk) 22:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was procedural keep. The article will be reverted to this version in accordance with the consensus here. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm ( talk) 20:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
While a one sentence biography can provide some general notability, the article lacks WP:SIGCOV. The article needs citations from reliable, independent sources; is missing information about Early life, Career, Personal life, Achievements and honours (if any). JoeNMLC ( talk) 14:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 08:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSOFT Mfixerer ( talk) 16:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
TheSandDoctor
Talk
17:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Alternative versions of Spider-Man#Insomniac's Peter Parker. History will be left intact, so if either it is desired to merge any content or additional notability takes place after release of additional material, that will still be available if needed. Given that, there is no need to send anything to draft; anyone who wants a draft or userspace copy can just do that themself. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Most of the reception is for the parent game, and not the character itself, and there's very little reception as is. Development info can be rolled into the parent game too where not already present, and doesn't really warrant a separate article on the character. There's also a heavy instance of synthesis here, such as some of the appearances in other media being claimed as direct nods to this particular incarnation of the character. This fails notability. Kung Fu Man ( talk) 23:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Creator Keep: This is getting silly at best. Just because reception is not full like you expect. Doesn’t mean WP:GNG is not established. There is other proofs of notability in the article and it would not surprise me there is more reception now that can be added, even moreso in the future, when the sequel coming out. Are you the same editor or same IP that pulled “what about Batman: Arkham character” logic? It wouldn’t surprise me. There is a lot of articles I don’t care to keep, but this is not one of them. I even pushed GA on it one time. Jhenderson 777 04:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. Me being replied to when I voted and then I replied back is not harassing haranguing.
Jhenderson
777
05:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Ok I found the discord convo now. No need to link it to me now. Jhenderson 777 07:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
the character's storytelling. EGM made no such claim. It attributed nothing like that to the character. Every instance the review makes of referring to storytelling is in the context of
the game's storytelling. The entire reception section is like this, while details such as Development are almost completely duplicative of the game's own development sections. The rest of the article is a huge run down of "Spider-man appeared in Marvel related properties!" with a lot of OR/Synth in regards to whether any given appearance of Spider man was actually the "Insomniac incarnation" or simply a nod to the game, which is obviously part of branding as the premiere Spider-man video game at this time. Even the Face model controversy is not really coverage of the character as an independent subject, but commentary related to the remastered video game. -- ferret ( talk) 15:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, sorry for prolonging this involved discussion but we have editors voicing support for Delete, Keep, Draftify, and Redirect or Merge with several different target articles suggested. It's hard to find a consensus with editors all over the map here. I want to discourage further tangents on Discord or Video game communities on Wikipedia and just consider whether or not there are enough reliable sources to warrant a stand-alone article. Just as a reminder, as you all know, an outcome of Redirect or Draftify would preserve the article in case future games and media coverage about them provide additional sources of notability. Things would be more difficult to handle in those circumstances with a Delete or Merge outcome. But, personally, I'm not invested in any result, just taking the temperature of the group discussion. But please, stick to talking about the sources and the article. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Not seeing encyclopedic notability here. Coverage is low-level local. BD2412 T 21:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
One appearance for the Madagascar national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
One appearance for the Madagascar national football team four years ago. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Five official appearances for the Madagascar national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Six appearances for the Belize national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Same sort of case as Kingston and District Football League and Wearside Combination Football League. In recent news, I can't find anything better than Guardian Series, which mentions the league once in passing. Searching in the British Newspaper Archive yields a few relevant hits but these are all just basic results listings with no meaningful prose about the league. The previous deletions linked above clearly show that this sort of coverage isn't enough, especially when it's in hyper local newspapers like Tower Hamlets Independent and East End Local Advertiser and contains nothing that we can actually build an article from. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to E.D.I. Mean#Production credits. Liz Read! Talk! 19:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I have not found any sources discussing his production discography and this article is unsourced, so I do not think this meets WP:LISTN. I am not against a merge to E.D.I Mean#Production credits. ~ UN6892 t c 18:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 19:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Does not pass the notability guideline; WP:GNG. Most sources are primary or exclusively local, with a direct connection to the subject. Additionally, one source seems to be dead. GuardianH ( talk) 18:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 19:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS and WP:SPS. Refs are routine coverage. scope_creep Talk 18:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
This is a brochure advertising article with no attempt to supply references that are compliant with consensus based wikipedia policy. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep Talk 20:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. WP:G5 as an article created by a Bensebgli sock with no significant contributions from others. Abecedare ( talk) 17:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Completely hoax creation, as the Chalukya dynasty was a South Indian/Gujarat/Karnataka dynasty, not Gurjar or Gujar. [1] Gujjars are an ethnic group native to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. They speak the Gujari language, which is a dialect of Rajasthani. Gujaratis, on the other hand, are an ethnic group from Gujarat, an Indian state. They communicate in Gujarati, an Indo-Aryan language. Gujjars and Gujaratis are not related since they hail from separate locations, speak different languages, and have different customs. Since Gujarat was once known as Gujaratra, locals are referred to as Gurjars or Gurjardesha residents, despite the fact that the caste referenced in this article belongs to a completely distinct tribe that raises cattle. By duplicating Chalukya dynasty, inaccurate information is supplied in this article. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 18:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Rainbow (TV series). Liz Read! Talk! 19:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Also nominating:
These characters has been the subject of barely any reliable SIGCOV. Bungle has one Den of Geek source but that is it. I could not find anything for the other two. QuicoleJR ( talk) 17:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 18:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Same sort of case as Aung Moe Htwe. BLP sourced only to the unreliable Facebook and with no evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Best I can find is a squad list mention in SCMP and a trivial mention in Myanmar Digital Newspaper. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies per WP:ATD-R. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 18:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:JUDGE. Lack of secondary coverage. Let'srun ( talk) 16:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 18:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sourced entirely by primary/non- reliable sources, and routine run-of-the-mill campaign coverage. My WP:BEFORE search across multiple search engines produced no reliably-sourced significant coverage as needed to satisfy the notability guidelines. Sal2100 ( talk) 16:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies. This is numerically 50/50 between keep and merge, however all of the keep votes cited WP:NPOL, which was proven not applicable. With that and failing WP:GNG, the merge argument carries. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 18:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Sources are either primary or namedrops Let'srun ( talk) 15:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
No objection to merge as per Let'srun. Ravenswing 13:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 18:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of Tekken characters#Alisa Bosconovitch. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Article lacks any significant reception discussing them as a character to satisfy SIGCOV or notability, and trying to find sources per WP:BEFORE proved fruitless in turn. At most she gets light mentions, but little actual discussion and more passing reactions. Kung Fu Man ( talk) 15:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
References
The result was keep. Consensus amongst those who participated is that notability was established within the AFD itself. I'd suggest editing the article to add the sources that Cunard came up with. (non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 00:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I was able to find one review of this book ( from The Pittsburgh Press), but the only other coverage available from what I can find is a very short blurb from Entertainment Weekly ( here). These sources have been added to the article. Appears to fail WP:BKCRIT, as only the Pittsburgh Press article should be considered "significant" coverage, with the EW article not making the cut. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
SourcesA book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
- The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The review notes: "Less grandiose, both in subject matter and presentation, but no less memory inducing for the baby boom generation is "Spin Again." Though it does briefly investigate the historical conception of board games in the 1880s, the thrust of Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaefer's joint effort is an analysis and loving look at game playing in the wake of television's mass invasion of American culture. ... Noticeably absent from the book, however, are "Candyland" and "Chutes and Ladders." ... Despite its limitations and these obvious omissions, "Spin Again" is still an enjoyable way to spend a contemporary rainy day."
The review notes: "SPIN AGAIN: Board Games From the Fifties and Sixties by Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaefer (Chronicle: $16.95). The minimal text of this campy survey reveals that board games have a surprisingly long history in the United States: ... This brightly colored book would make an excellent hostess gift/ice breaker at baby-boomer holiday parties, provoking delighted cries of “Remember Lie Detector?” and “I used to play Mouse Trap!”"
The review notes: "These favorites, along with a host of others, are cataloged in Spin Again: Board Games from the Fifties and Sixties (Chronicle Books, 415/777-7240) by Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaefer. Spin Again takes a look at the history of board games, especially those spawned from popular TV icons. The book doesn't pin values on any of the games, but the authors provide helpful categories and illustrations of the original issues. Some of the top TV-inspired categories include: ..."
The review notes: "Spin Again by Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaefer ... is an affectionate look at boardgames of the 1950s and '60s, including histories of the major game companies and glorious full-color illustrations, many showing the board and other components as well as the box. The lack of an index limits its usefulness to collectors, but it sure is handsome."
The review notes: "Spin Again is an informative as well as a nostalgic look at the games we played. Well illustrated with each game's boards, boxes, cards, tokens, etc., it also includes a brief history of games since the 1800's, and historical background on major companies."
The article notes: "Here are photos of the most popular games, accompanied by a short history of the development of the pastime. One mark of a popular TV show in the '50s and '60s was that it had its own board game, and here are some of the best, including You'll Never Get Rich, with Phil Silvers as Sgt. Bilko on the box (1955)."
The article notes: "For starters, they're collected in a terrific new book, "Spin Again: Board Games from the Fifties and Sixties" (Chronicle, $16.95), by two New Orleans natives, Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaeffer. This loving tribute to board games is a winsome trip down memory lane, an anecdotal history of both the games themselves and their creators. ... Polizzi and Schaeffer were inspired to research the history of games by Polizzi's collection, which in addition to those games from childhood began to get serious three years ago after the purchase of a "Beverly Hillbillies game" on impulse."
The review notes: "Take a nostalgic trip this summer with Spin Again: Board Games From the Fifties and Sixties (Chronicle, $16.95). By Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaefer, the softbound book details the history of board games in general and the ones that baby boomers grew up with in particular. I quickly paged through the color photographs to find my long-gone Barbie: Queen of the Prom game. ... The book includes concise bios of Milton Bradley, George and Charles Parker, and the founders of Mattel. It is fun and well-done."
The article notes: ""People collect games that look great but are often the least challenging to play," said Rick Polizzi, the co-author with Fred Schaefer of the new book Spin Again: Board Games of the 50's and 60's (Chronicle Books). ... Most of the 180 board games illustrated in Spin Again are from Polizzi's collection of 800."
The article notes: "Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaefer note in "Spin Again" (Chronicle, 120 pages, $16.95 softbound), a colorful look at board games of the 1950s and '60s. ... "Spin Again" pictures all of these games and around 150 more in color, along with brief descriptions and an introductory history of board games. For almost anyone who grew up in the '50s and '60s, this tribute to the now-collectible games of the past is sure to bring back at least a few pleasant memories."
The article notes: ""Spin Again, Board Games From the Fifties and Sixties," by Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaefer (Chronicle Books), offers not only a vivid presentation of these icons of the recent past but traces their history -- board games, it seems, date back more than 4,000 years -- from the moralizing games of the Victorian era to the voluptuous Barbie."
The article notes: "Chronicle Books Spin Again: Board Games of the Fifties and Sixties (Sept., $16.95) by Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaefer features photographs and text describing popular game boards and playing pieces of the '50s and '60s. 15,000 first printing. Advertising."
The article notes: "The young Californian is also the coauthor of an engaging, richly illustrated new book on his favorite subject—Spin Again: Board Games of the Fifties and Sixties (Chronicle, $16.95)."
The article notes: "... Burt Hockberg, senior editor of the New York City-based Games magazine. Spin Again (Chronicle Books, 1992, $20) and Baby Boomer Games (Collector Books, 1995, $28) are beautifully illustrated coffee table books that catalog a variety of board games spanning the '40s through the '70s. Hockberg praised the books and gave them a favorable review in his magazine. "Basically he's mining a field that no one else has bothered to do," Hockberg says. "His books are special because they show pictures and you can see the games. It helps people to know what to look for.""
The article notes: "Now he has 1,000 — and he and cowriter Fred Schaefer have produced Spin Again, a classily designed, essence-of-stuff-in-the-attic book about board games from the ’50s and ’60s to remind you of what you, too, stupidly tossed. Your turn."
The result was redirect to Ryo Ikuemi. The consensus amongst those who participated is a redirect. (non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 00:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2016. Both volumes reviewed by WP:A&M/RS listed Planete BD [24] [25] Unable to find any other RS coverage. Fails WP:NBOOKS. Redirect to the author Ryo Ikuemi or the magazine? Charcoal feather ( talk) 14:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to COVID-19 vaccination in Germany#Above-average number of "post-vac" reports in Germany. Liz Read! Talk! 18:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Inappropriate content fork covering adverse effects attributed to covid-19 vaccination in German-speaking countries. The adverse effects of the vaccine are the same in Germany etc. as any other country so this term makes no sense for an enwiki article title. The content should be covered if WP:DUE at COVID-19 vaccine or potentially adverse effects of the COVID-19 vaccine if a split is merited. ( t · c) buidhe 14:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Stats stub on a footballer that was previously deleted last summer and this new version does nothing to address the previous reasons for deletion. The best sources found in an Arabic WP:BEFORE are Ar Riyadiyah 1, Al Araby and Ar Riyadiyah 2. The first two are trivial mentions and the last is an image caption. Still no evidence of meeting WP:SPORTBASIC so the reasons for deletion are still valid. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK #1 (non-admin closure) AviationFreak 💬 17:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
This village article has zero references. It is missing information to show the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article by using multiple sources that meet four criteria. The sources should be (1) reliable (2) secondary (3) independent of the subject (4) talk about the subject in some depth. Created on 20 November 2013. JoeNMLC ( talk) 12:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) WJ94 ( talk) 09:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NSCHOLAR. Almost all the sources cited are either primary/non-independent. The only exception is a single review of Gertz's book which is not sufficient by itself to establish notability.
WJ94 (
talk) 12:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Edit: I've just noticed that there's a second review cited in the article for a second book. Nevertheless, I still don't think that having authored two books each with a single review (on a website which seems to review a lot of classics books) is sufficient for GNG/NSCHOLAR/NAUTHOR.
WJ94 (
talk) 14:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn.
WJ94 (
talk)
09:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:SPORTCRIT #5, and violates
WP:NOTDATABASE. While the article was kept at a previous AfD on the basis that winning an award from a Danish tabloid met
WP:ANYBIO #1, and thus Leidersdorff was likely to be notable
, in the 18 months since that AfD no one has been able to find additional suitable sources.
Even if an award from a tabloid newspaper is a well-known and significant award
, an assertion that seems dubious to me, the failure to find any suitable sources is strong evidence that in this case it is not a predictor of notability. In addition meeting ANYBIO doesn't create an exception from the requirements of SPORTSCRIT #5, and thus if we cannot find any significant coverage we cannot keep the article.
BilledMammal (
talk)
10:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
12:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
We should be able to presume coverageIf we can find one example of WP:SIGCOV then we can. If we can't, then we are forbidden from doing so per WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, and a local consensus is not permitted to overrule that restriction - if you disagree with it, I suggest proposing that #5 is rescinded. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
[This] is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.BeanieFan11 ( talk) 13:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
"Nordics' foremost foil and saber fencer since 1935."Alvaldi ( talk) 09:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
[This] is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.Also FWIW, in my opinion if the proposal at that NSPORT2022 discussion was "all articles must have significant coverage or they must be deleted no matter how great their athletic achievements were even if coverage is impossible to find and we know it is near-certain to exist" it would have assuredly not achieved consensus. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 19:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus and no indication further input or source analysis is forthcoming Star Mississippi 12:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Not notable. There are no independent sources Mdggdj ( talk) 09:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For some input on the sources presented by Siroxo.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
12:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Cook Islands international footballers. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 04:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Cook Islands international footballers. Three appearances for the Cook Islands national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. Full name is "Ishaq Nazeem Mohammed" or some variation thereof. JTtheOG ( talk) 08:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
12:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to MFJ Enterprises. History remains should there be sourced info to merge Star Mississippi 12:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Stub about a company that manufactures antennas for ham radio. The only two sources cited are PR from the company itself and a WP:BEFORE search reveals only promotional information rather than any WP:SIGCOV. This company is likely notable within the ham radio hobbyist sphere, but I'm not seeing any justification for a Wikipedia article. Flip Format ( talk) 09:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
21:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)The result was delete. The redirect will be restored. ✗ plicit 05:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Not able to find much of anything about the topic. The phrase was coined by Laura Rockhold who doesn't appear notable herself nor a subject-matter expert. Topic doesn't appear to have any widespread usage. –– FormalDude (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: How about this suggestion, the current article is draftified and the redirect is restored?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. Star Mississippi 12:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails
WP:NPOL. The majority of the cited sources do not meet the credibility standards as per Wikipedia's Reliable Sources guideline (
WP:SIRS) Notability guidelines for people (
WP:BIO).
CGGCA201 (
talk)
16:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
04:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as I see no consensus. Would editors consider draftifying?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Marked for notability concerns 3.5 years ago. Unreliable sources used. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar ( talk) 04:08, 1 July 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!
04:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete per WP:G5 for Ajit Singh Bhati and Shambhujit Singh Bhati as article created by a Bensebgli sock with no significant contributions from others; and redirect to Dadri for Dargahi Singh Bhati. Abecedare ( talk) 18:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
There is no mention of them in the sources cited in these articles. One source is the book of an academic named Javaid Rahi, who is not independent because he is a Gujjar academic who only writes praise in his publications. Second, it is unknown whether these kings existed or were imaginary. Some such articles were created in the last two to three days using the Gazetteer as a source, but there is no mention of these names in it.
This nomination is also for:
You can see a short discussion here on my talk. DreamRimmer ( talk) 17:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
2023-06 ✍️ create
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
—ScottyWong—
05:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Some details about Javed Rahi's unreliable book
|
---|
The
Javaid Rahi's source is cited in all three articles. But it is edited by Javaid Rahi, a Gurjar activist who specialises in Kashmiri languages. So he is not even a historian. More importantly, the author (Rana Ali Hussan Chouhan) of the
cited pages was not even a scholar. He was a civil engineer belonging to the Gurjar caste himself. So this is a non-scholarly and
non-HISTRS source, which is not reliable for history-related details. BTW, the details of the author (Chauhan) are mainly available on
Gurjar promo sites, although his nephew also mentions
in this interview that Chauhan was a civil engineer in
Pakistan Public Works Department. Note that the 400-plus pages of Rahi's book, i.e.
pp. 243–728, are authored by this Gurjar engineer. As expected from a nonscholar, the content is full of fringe theories, e.g. Kolff's source mentions (on
page no. 151) that the subject of this AfD (Ajit Singh) died in 1812: " |
Rebuttal to NitinMlk's analysis of sources from أسامة بن عبد الله وليد and tangents about other articles signed, Rosguill talk 04:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate !votes, more arguments about other articles signed, Rosguill talk 04:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Firstly, you mentioned that Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan is not cited in the articles in question. But that's not true, as he is cited in all three articles even now: see
Ajit Singh Bhati's ref no. 4 and 6;
Shambhujit Singh Bhati's ref no. 4 and 7; and
Dargahi Singh Bhati's ref no. 4. All of them cite
page no. 589 and/or page no. 590, which are authored by Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan.
Secondly, I never " Thirdly, Dadri was never a princely state. So I pointed out that mistake, as estates and princely states are two different things. You can read princely state to know more about it. Fourthly, I mentioned, " Finally, please don't reply without reading my previous and this comment very carefully. Thanks. - NitinMlk ( talk) 21:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
|
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's have a relist not overwhelmed by walls of text from a sockpuppet
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
04:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see any consensus here. But, speaking as an uninvolved bystander, perhaps a move to Draft space would alleviate some concerns about sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 05:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
The disambiguation page is no longer necessary when the film had got a new English title "The Boy and the Heron". I suggest moving How Do You Live? (novel) to the " How Do You Live?" main title and add a hatnote in the article to point readers to the film. Explorer09 ( talk) 04:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Calgary Catholic School District. Star Mississippi 12:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
The school is not notable, the entire article relies soly on the school's own website, which isn't a reliable, secondary source. Luna <3 (She/Her) ( talk) 04:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Bones (TV series)#Main cast. (non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 00:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Sadly, as much as I love Bones, this character is not notable, and the article must be brought here. There are no good sources for the character. QuicoleJR ( talk) 03:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Ultra-short article on a Croation-Dutch architect. I suggest redirecting to Berlage Institute per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. gidonb ( talk) 02:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
02:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as some references have been added since nomination and no one has responded to the nominator's suggestion of redirection. But being a short article has never been a valid reason for deletion by itself alone and no other deletion rationale has been offered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Lack of notability, almost zero reliable sources mentioning this school. Ratnahastin ( talk) 01:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. However this does not preclude a merger conversation happening. It just means consensus will not develop to delete this, and therefore doesn't require continuation of the AfD. Star Mississippi 12:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Originally moved to draft space but was recreated in main space, fails WP:NFILM, no good results came from WP:BEFORE. ThisIsSeanJ ( talk) 01:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I get that some people have nostalgia for this film but the article has no reliable sources to establish notability (IMDb doesn't count nor do passing mentions). Is this Award considered notable? I'm relisting this discussion for another week but if there aren't usable sources located over the next few days, this discussion will either close as Delete or as Merge to
Okay Ka, Fairy Ko!.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NACTOR. No major roles in notable films or television shows and sources are spammy. DanCherek ( talk) 02:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Lack of reliable sources, most sources are user generated content Ratnahastin ( talk) 01:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to reassess new sources added to the article. Does the deletion rationale still fit?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:02, 15 July 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! 01:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Six official appearances for the United States Virgin Islands national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 01:11, 15 July 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! 01:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Three official appearances for the United States Virgin Islands national football team. He is not known to have continued playing past his college career. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 01:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. While promotional tone could be fixed editorially, consensus is depth of sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 12:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Unclear why this person is notable, doesn't pass the criteria at WP:BIO. No depth of coverage. Lots of minor positions such as local councillor or chair of various committees, but nothing that would automatically grant notability. cagliost ( talk) 19:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
21:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
"Available sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG.". I read each of the journalistic sources in the article and they do establish WP:GNG per Necrothesp. I did not read any of the other sources. Regards, -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 12:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
*Keep, don't getting why it failed
WP:GNG
Gerblinpete (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added
10:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
05:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. It does not contemplate that we would have a notable event and a person involved in it, and not have an article on either. So if 1E applies, and presuming that we are not going to have an article on the Resignation of Edward Lord or whatever, then 1E would suggest that the article on the individual should be kept. (I would preemptively note that I'm not actually convinced that 1E does apply here, and also that WP:BLP1E does not apply here at all for the reasons explained at WP:LPI.) (2) As a technical note, I believe the above citation to ANYBIO is actually meant to go to WP:NBASIC. (Which is good, since ANYBIO wouldn't actually apply here AFAICT.) (3) Absent some indication that a piece was taken down for substantive flaws, I am not sure why that would have any repercussions for our use of it here. It makes verification harder (the Wayback Machine only has some teaser text), but the hard copy of the Times is presumably still out there somewhere. (4) As NBASIC itself implies, there is a substantial gap between "not substantial" and "trivial". The best analysis of what a "trivial" mention is can probably be found at WP:GNG, which describes non-trivial (i.e. significant) coverage as having sufficient detail that
no original research is needed to extract the content. So if we were trying to piece this guy's life together from the various articles where he was quoted in passing as chair of the Inclusion Advisory Board, that would be a legitimate case of sourcing an article to trivial mentions. That doesn't seem to be what's going on here: articles like this and this, which are entirely devoted to the Wikipedia article subject, might still arguably be less than substantial, but they are certainly more than trivial. -- Visviva ( talk) 02:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Atypical third fourth relist due to the late swing toward deletion coupled with continued spirited counterargument from keep !voters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
01:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Narada Productions. Liz Read! Talk! 04:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable compilation album. Promotional lead copied from label's website. Fails NALBUM. The external links are related to the artists and not this album, and they do nothing to establish notability. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 20:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
00:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)#Recurring cast. Liz Read! Talk! 00:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR; none of his roles are significant enough. Being the son of Edward James Olmos does not make him notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. The Film Creator ( talk) 00:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)