The result was keep. The consensus is a clear keep (non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 19:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Lacks any significant, independent sources to justify a stand-alone article and pass WP:NSONGS. Pertinent info can be merged into Wild and Peaceful (Kool & the Gang album), and the article can be redirected there (or simply deleted since Funky Stuff had been previously created as a redirect). Chart info is presented in Kool & the Gang discography#Singles. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 23:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Paul Vaurie ( talk) 20:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
ethnocentric, promotes hate, highly disputable, lacks neutrality, uses questionable sources DanStevens ( talk) 23:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
treat everyone here with respect. When this AfD closes, please review the comments from other editors here and use them to learn how to approach an article deletion process and what articles qualify for the different deletion procedures. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 05:32, 31 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! 23:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
The subject earned at least three caps for the Dominican Republic women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 22:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 22:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Subject is an inspirational speaker and former charter school teacher who self-published a book about rising from homelessness. While inspirational, she does not seem to meet the WP:GNG. All sources in the article are dead (though archived), and there's little else available that I'm seeing. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:12, 27 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. Star Mississippi 20:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
All sources relate to Sriimurali (who is not in this film) releasing the film's poster. No independent notability/reviews. DareshMohan ( talk) 21:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 21:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Unreleased film for one year. This page should not be deleted. It should be draftified until release. The lead actor Mic Mohan had several box office hits during the 1980s in Tamil Nadu and this film is his comeback. Per this, such decisions must be made thru AFDs. DareshMohan ( talk) 19:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I am also including the following articles for the same reason. I want to draftify these articles, not delete them.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as additional articles were added to this nomination after it was first posted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 19:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Sheet music#20th century and early 21st century. (non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 20:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
I requested deletion on this once, and it was merged to Sheet music. A few years after, it was recreated - and it's been tagged as an essay for 9 years with basically no improvement. Some sections are completely uncited opinion, some refer to "newcomers" in 2014, and some summarize other articles that are tangential. Redirecting it back to sheet music might be better than deletion, but it shouldn't stand as it is. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
17:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)The result was delete. NFOOTY has been deprecated: notability in this case must rest on GNG once ROUTINE coverage has been excluded. Several sources have been presented here that could constitute SIGCOV, but I find the challenges to these sources convincing; specifically, that most of them constitute routine coverage in local newspapers, while the remainder are not substantive. When such challenges have been put forward, further arguments in favor of keeping per the sources found with no further detail do not strengthen the case to keep. I would also remind everybody that a specific AfD is not the place to relitigate NFOOTY, or the place to debate the proportion of women's biographies on Wikipedia. Vanamonde ( Talk) 21:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
American former college soccer player who earned at least one cap with the Saint Kitts and Nevis women's national football team. Lots of mentions from her college career, but a lot of them come from university athletics department press releases. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I am not at all against draftifying due to her college accomplishments, if anything. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
If a presumption of notability existed for national team footballers ... t would result in far more men's national team footballer articles than women's national team footballer articles- the data you give doesn't support that statement, though. You cite the existing articles for national team footballers, which reflect the status quo where editors don't accept a presumption of notability on this basis.
discussion of Spanish footballer article data
|
---|
Fortunately we have List of Spain international footballers and List of Spain women's international footballers, which offer reliable counts of men and women who have had 20 or more caps with each of the national teams. Based on these pages and the categories cited above, 151/151 men with 20 or more national team caps have articles, along with 58 out of 59 women with 20 or more caps. This means that, following the biases of the sources, we have 606 articles about national team men with fewer than 20 caps and only 79 articles about the equivalent. Assuming that the proportion of players with more than 20 caps is no lower for men than it is for women (and it is likely to be higher for men), that suggests that there are a minimum of 158 "missing" articles that could be created if a stronger presumption of notability were applied to national team footballers. |
However, it is my view that this is a tortured reading of WP:ROUTINE and runs counter to WP:GNG - the standard these editors are supposed to be applying - which is supposed to be based on, "are these reliable sources we can use to write an article?" and not, "do they demonstrate that the article's subject is somehow more important than other similar subjects?"Notability guidelines do not override the policy against routine coverage counting toward notability. Our prohibition against routine news is in fact a critical component of ensuring articles are not made on every high school gridiron coach or municipal employee or society leader who happens to live in a town with two newspapers. Recognizing what is routine in a particular field takes some time to figure out; I would recommend doing what I did before I started !voting and spending a few days reading the most recent 100+ athlete AfDs that generated 10kb+ discussions as well as browsing through all of the NSPORT talk archives.
policyare referring to here: WP:ROUTINE is a part of the guideline WP:NEVENTS, and the reference to "routine coverage" ar WP:N is a precis of the event guideline. As far as I can tell, the guideline text warning against "routine coverage" was intended to ensure that we don't have an article on each game covered in two or more reasonably detailed news reports; it was not intended to say that nothing in a report of a game can contribute to the Notability of players or of teams - which is why I referred to the latter reading of ROUTINE as
tortured.
rebuttable prediction of GNG sourcingis concerned, I am saying two things: (1) I think a stronger presumption for international footballers, rather than an easily rebuttable one, would produce more balanced and equitable Notability decisions and (2) the pincer movement by which presumptions are weakened or eliminated and at the same time sourcing requirements are ratcheted up seems designed to produce what I think I'll write an essay defining as "walled deserts" - areas where editors deliberately starve a domain (in this case, women's athletics) of coverage, based on some prior conviction that it isn't a "worthy" subject for an encyclopaedia. (Witness this IP, whose only activity on wiki has been the proposed deletion of 100 articles on female footballers.)
extended content on athletics coverage
|
---|
It seems to me that group of editors have decided that a certain group of potential biographical subjects, namely athletes, are less deserving of inclusion in an encyclopaedia than the sources support. These editors have twisted ROUTINE - which is supposed to be an exclusion of announcements similar in kind to the exclusion of press release content and of stories of extremely local stories, and the scope of which is limited to "events" - into a bar used to exclude world-wide coverage of the roles individuals play in highly visible global events, which I'm sure was never intended by the writers of ROUTINE. The same group of editors also attempts to exclude respected outlets publishing the work of professional journalists as "blogs" - seemingly confusing SPS with a particular publishing technology - from being considered reliable sources, and also bizarrely denies that the achievement-based criteria in ANYBIO should apply to athletes even at the same time that they argue that the only sports-based presumptions of Notability (weak as these are underdtood to be) should be based on achievement-based criteria. Apparently these editors believe they are contributing to the encyclopaedia through this pincer movement of eliminating consistent criteria for inclusion while restricting the range of relevant sources and raising the required threshold of significance in each source, but all this does is weaken the encyclopaedia by making the coverage of female athletes and of athletes from smaller, less wealthy and non-anglophone countries more inconsistent, sporadic and poor - creating walled deserts, as it were. And re: |
For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage (see WP:ROUTINE for more on this with regard to routine events).The "ROUTINE is for events" argument has been invalid for a long time at sportsperson AfDs, as evidenced by the NSPORT guideline referring multiple times to routine match coverage of athletes and the thousands of AfDs where that guidance is successfully invoked.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 19:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Vanamonde ( Talk) 21:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. If not deleted, may be a fit as a merge into the early life section of Galileo, or to Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, the latter of which is the article about the 1st source. Source 3 is an IP link. Gscholar reveals very little. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:39, 20 July 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! 19:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Sailing at the 1928 Summer Olympics – 6 Metre. Liz Read! Talk! 18:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NOLYMPICS, and a WP:BEFORE didn't produce much Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 18:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Labor history of the United States. The arguments to keep are very weak; the BLS is a reliable source, but it is a primary source, and statistics from it are insufficient to justify a standalone article. Arguments to delete based on NOTSTATS have not been rebutted. I do not doubt that the history of strikes in the US has received extensive coverage in reliable sources, but that is a different scope. There is a clear consensus against keeping this as a standalone page, but this discussion does not rule out related titles being split from the Labor history page. Vanamonde ( Talk) 21:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
This is a graph, with numbers below it. No context is given to the numbers (why are certain years higher than others? How did the labor movement evolve over this time period?). Not seeing notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
"Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list."
tatistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context.The "list" is statistics. I have no idea how this has captured the imagination of so many keep !voters when it absolutely completely clearly fails WP:NOT as a stand-alone article. I have absolutely no problem if it's merged and discussed somewhere, though. SportingFlyer T· C 21:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
"Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible."and
"Source information does not need to be in text form—any form of information, such as maps, charts, graphs, and tables may be used to provide source information. Routine interpretation of such media is not original research provided that there is consensus among editors that the techniques used are correctly applied and a meaningful reflection of the sources."(bolding added)
"No Federal agency collected national information on stoppages occurring during the 1906-13 period. In 1914, relying exclusively on printed sources, the Bureau of Labor Statistics attempted to compile a record of all strikes and lockouts during the year. In the following year, the Bureau inaugurated a method for the collection of strike and lockout material which has been followed, with modifications, since that time."
The result was speedy delete. The article has been speedy deleted by Jimfbleak as a G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion) violation. (non-admin closure) Hey man im josh ( talk) 19:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Flowery prose, sourced only to PR sites with puffy language. I find no sourcing for this person. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 18:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
This article is niche and un-notable in any circumstance, with only 13 Sources, some of which being irrelevant to the article in question. This article is about a subject that has no relevance to those other than the residents of Capitol Hill. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. I am taking the nominator's removal of their own notice as a withdrawal. If this is not the case, please revert my close. (non-admin closure) Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The statue fails WP:GNG, and there are no other sources I could find to expand this stub article. TarantulaTM ( speak with me) ( my legacy) 18:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 18:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how this person is notable per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The sources given are merely quick mentions of him, and the one with the most information is a university newsletter talking about another article published about him. Google search comes up with fewer than 100 results, mainly entries in directories and social media, and those "get in touch with us and we will interview you" type of sites. ... discospinster talk 16:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 18:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Does not pass the GNG as a nominee to be the United States Ambassador to Cape Verde. Appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Let'srun ( talk) 15:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 18:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Article about former footballer who made a few appearances in the Egyptian Premier League but which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. The only coverage I can find is routine transactional announcements like [9], match reports and statistics database entries. Consensus at the 2019 AfD was that the article failed the GNG, but it was kept due to the now-deprecated NFOOTBALL. Zero improvements have been made since 2019. Jogurney ( talk) 15:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Winnipeg–Churchill train. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm ( talk) 18:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
There exists only three sources for this page: One is a database which is also essentially a dead link, and the other two aren't independent (since they are made by Via Rail, operator of the Station), and in any case, those two sources don't assert the notability of the station either. I can't find more sources; Google search results are either Wikipedia, WP forks, or does not pertain to the station. Silcox ( talk) 15:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 21:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters. This discussion could be relisted a final week but this option has been mention and has been the most frequent outcome with characters from this TV series and occurs with characters of other TV shows as well. Liz Read! Talk! 18:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
This article was previously a Good Article, but it has since been delisted. Now I am nominating this for deletion as many of the sources used are primary and/or unreliable, other reliable sources seem to focus much on the character's departure. A quick Google search doesn't seem to give sources that prove the character's notability (per WP:FICT.) I am open to discussion, however, because the fact that fans of the character campaigned to keep Jorja Fox from leaving the show may be notable. Spinixster (chat!) 10:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 13:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting with a request that editors consider a Redirect which is frequently the outcome of AFDs involving fictional characters in all genres.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 14:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
A player with no professional career and no real media coverage available, the little of which is basically due to him being the grandson of Adriano Galliani.
All I could find were trivial coverage, transfer reports (mostly involving youth football) and little more: [11] Angelo ( talk) 14:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Lancaster, Lancashire. Liz Read! Talk! 20:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
This new article is an unnecessary split, or duplication, of the existing article Lancaster, Lancashire. If there was indeed an identifiable "Lancaster City Centre" separate from the city of Lancaster (the settlement, not the local authority), then it would not include Lancaster University or the Port of Lancaster. I see no purpose in this article, which will only lead to future problems when new content is added, or changes made, to this or the other or both. Pam D 11:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Firstly, Lancaster is a small city (with a big story to tell!) and can easily be explored on foot. The Bus Station is located in the city centre and Lancaster Railway station is just 5mins walk awaywhich implies (contrary to this article) that the railway station is not in the centre centre. a different page on the same website makes it clear that the Millennium Bridge and Skerton Bridge are not considered to be in the city centre, and describes the Aldcliffe Triangle as being about 10 minutes walk from the city centre. This article includes the Port of Lancaster, which is about 4 miles as the crow flies from the approximate centre of the central business district and over 2½ miles from the edge of the contiguous urban area (as they appear on Google Maps). In September 2020 Lancashire County Council launched a "Lancaster City Centre Movement and Public Realm Strategy" [17] that defined the city centre has having broad and core areas for the purposes of that study. The first is a wider area than the Visit Lancaster website does (see page 12 of the PDF), incorporating the Castle, Cathedral, railway station and both bridges mentioned above, but nowhere near as wide as including the University let alone Port. It also defines a "core area", within the A6 gyratory, which is a smaller area than the tourist information uses, excluding the castle and cathedral. All this leads me to the conclusion that it's no different to most cities in having a "city centre" that is just a vaguely defined central(ish) area of the city relevant to whatever the current context is. The article contains some good prose though that should be merged to the Lancaster, Lancashire article. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
the central part of the area, the boundaries of which are the railway on the west side, the Lancaster Canal on the south and east sides, and to the north, a line passing from west to east through the centre of Quay Meadow". I didn't recognise the name "Quay Meadow" but found Google maps identifies it as the park north of the priory, south of the riverside development. On that definition, Lancaster Royal Infirmary is not in the centre (south of the canal), nor the Custom House, Lancaster which is now the Maritime Museum (north of that midway line), nor Lancaster Cathedral (east of the canal). I can see that with some 330 listed buildings in the unparished area within City of Lancaster (but not to be confused with those in the Heysham unparished area), it was felt useful to create a split of some sort, but I don't think this can be used to justify the existence of the current Lancaster City Centre article. Pam D 12:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, just to be clear, editors are proposing a Merge with
Lancaster, Lancashire?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 14:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 19:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, WP:NJOURNALIST, or any other notability standard. No coverage outside the context of winning a reality TV show, a lot of promotional coverage but little in-depth. — Ganesha811 ( talk) 12:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous
WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 13:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Floods in the United States (2000–present). Delete !voters primarily expressed concerns regarding notability, which are also resolved with a merge & redirect. Feel free to proceed per this. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm ( talk) 18:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Fairly WP:ROUTINE summer flooding events that are commonplace around the country each year. Although supposedly "historic", many similar "historic" flooding events that occur have no articles here. This appeared to have fairly minor impact and seemingly resulted in no casualties. It would seemingly fail WP:N as routine weather is not generally deemed article-worthy. United States Man ( talk) 06:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 14:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado. Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
This article is currently tagged as relying heavily on primary sources. It fails WP:N as a little-known but routine product issued by the Storm Prediction Center and is a WP:CONTENTFORK of content that can easily be condensed and included in 2023 Rolling Fork—Silver City tornado. United States Man ( talk) 06:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 14:39, 27 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 14:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Dubious notability. Both references failed verification. Google search on term failed to find anything usable as a reference. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to New Town Central Park. The arguments to keep are extremely weak; even if an IAR claim to notability is accepted, there needs to be enough sourceable content to justify a standalone article, and this holds true for a merger as well. Those arguing to delete convincingly demonstrate that such sourcing has yet to be found. As there is no specific opposition to redirecting, that seems to be a valid ATD, but there is clear consensus against the standalone page. Vanamonde ( Talk) 21:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statue of Zhang Side, notability is not established with substantive sources. Existence of art outdoors is not automatic notability and no basis to remove a prod without addressing the unacceptable lack of sources and GNG failure. Features in a park can also be included in the park article without stand-alone articles. Reywas92 Talk 03:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a second time. There's still no clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 13:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was withdrawn. ✗ plicit 13:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR. Nevertheless, I am willing to withdraw the nomination if any enhancements are made to the article per the guidelines outlined in WP:HEY. RPSkokie ( talk) 13:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Article about semi-pro footballer which comprehensively fails WP:GNG; the only online coverage consists of match reports and statistical database entries. PROD was contested without making any effort to address the article's WP:SPORTCRIT failure. Jogurney ( talk) 13:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that this is out of Wikipedia's scope per NOTGUIDE. The dissents are unpersuasive in light of applicable policy: for "it's useful" see WP:ITSUSEFUL, and as regards the view "I imagine that competitive Mahjong rules would have received extensive coverage": we require specific sources, not imagined ones. Most people support a transwiki, so if somebody wants to do the work required for that, they can contact WP:REFUND and request userfication for that purpose. The same applies if somebody wants to use this as a basis for an article on competition mahjong or similar. Sandstein 08:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Someone at the help desk suggested that I come here and suggest transwiki. If that's not a good idea, then this article should be deleted.
This long article covers one set of rules for Mahjong, a specific kind of game. There are two reasons for deletion: (1) Wikipedia is not a game guide. It's good if an article discusses the basics of a game's rules, like Mahjong#Old Hong Kong mahjong rules, but a very long article giving lots of different scoring options and terminology, plus instructions ("If you can use a set to form both a high-score fan and a low-score fan, it is your right to choose the high-score fan.), is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. (2) The topic is already extensively covered in Mahjong#Rules, so there's no need to merge it there. 123.51.107.94 ( talk) 13:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit 13:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
This article has been proposed for deletion before but that was contested. It was also redirected and then that too was undone. The article currently has the same issues that the redirecter had concerns with. Kometalgreat ( talk) 23:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 13:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ✗ plicit 13:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable musician with no sourcing found. Does not appear to have met any criteria for musical artists. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 13:13, 27 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. Star Mississippi 19:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable film person. I'm sure the role of "little boy's father" was good, but they are all trivial roles. Nothing found for this individual for ACTOR. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 13:13, 27 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 13:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Appears to be a non-notable academic with routine listings in various school-specific sources. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 12:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The considerable effort put toward saving this actually makes the "delete" opinions stronger, as despite that effort, no clear evidence of an NACTOR or GNG pass has been found. I would be willing to provide a user/draft-space copy with anyone who will undertake to wait to recreate this until clearer evidence of notability is available. Vanamonde ( Talk) 21:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Appears non-notable, with only small parts in movies. I find no extensive sourcing (could be some in the native language). Oaktree b ( talk) 19:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 12:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Being an english wikipedia you need to give notable references written in english language and from reliable sources.is not completely correct. Reliable yes but not necessarily in English. The guideline makes that perfectly clear.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 03:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit 13:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. No indication the band passes WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 12:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:GNG. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and only newspaper listings on Newspapers.com. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable enough to pass WP:NEXIST. Per NEXIST, the sources have to be "suitable," and I don't think Horrorphilia is suitable enough. And even if it was, it's only ONE source (needs TWO OR MORE sources to pass NFO and NFSOURCES). The Film Creator ( talk) 16:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Keep. The reviews cited above appear to be sufficient to support an article. Eluchil404 ( talk) 07:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have three editors !voting keep and no other !votes other than the implied delete by the nom... I'd like some more input otherwise it'll be no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 12:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of Battlestar Galactica characters. Liz Read! Talk! 04:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I could not find a single decent source on the guy, let alone enough to meet WP:GNG. QuicoleJR ( talk) 16:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 12:37, 27 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 13:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Not meeting notability requirements for politicians; sourcing found is largely social media and routine descriptions (appearing at events, committee meetings). Oaktree b ( talk) 23:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 12:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to This Is My Truth Tell Me Yours. Star Mississippi 19:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't satisfy WP:NSONG, just as it didn't satisfy it in 2015. Restore Redirect to This Is My Truth Tell Me Yours. Muhandes ( talk) 15:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
— Note to closing admin: Apeholder ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
— 109.78.147.104 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Whether the singular !vote from the IP is included or not (as it's made few edits outside this discussion and page), there's still no consensus. Relisting for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 12:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Sourcing is PR and routine business items. Also reads like a resume. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We're equally split between keep and delete. Relisting for more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 12:35, 27 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 13:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Unreferenced for 14 years. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar ( talk) 12:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus that sources found indicate the subject is notable. (non-admin closure) — Ganesha811 ( talk) 18:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Insufficient WP:RS and WP:IS sources with WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 13:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Unsourced other than the book itself. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 12:11, 27 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: "Although Noah Wardrip-Fruin’s Expressive Processing: Digital Fictions, Computer Games, and Software Studies is probably best known at present for the author’s attempt to provoke a radically open form of peer review by submitting portions of his manuscript to the blog Grand Text Auto in advance of the final submission to MIT Press, the most potentially transformative legacy of the book is in its compelling call for universal software literacy."
The review notes: "The central thesis of this book is key for advancing twenty-first century digital literacy, and thus relevant to the digital humanities community. This thesis can be derived from one of the definitions Wardrip-Fruin gives of expressive processing: ‘. . . the possibility of creating new simulated machines, of defining new computational behaviors, as the great authoring opportunity that digital media offers' (p. 7). Wardrip-Fruin systematically explains this main thesis throughout the book by leading readers on a historical journey that evokes personal memories for the author (as it did for me), making the reading more enjoyable. ... In the same way, I believe that the groundbreaking approach this book offers will help humanists and computer scientists alike discover the potential of computational processes and digital media for the advancement of digital humanities. An invitation to embark in this fascinating journey is what Wardrip-Fruin accomplishes with Expressive Processing."
The review notes: "As such, this book is the perfect volume to begin the new publication series in the software studies. Rather than building the theory for software studies, it works as a model of how to do software studies. The wide variety of materials discussed, however, may be the Achilles’ Heel of the book. As we are all influenced by endless array of information technologies and their software processes, Expressive Processing is, in a way, including everybody in its audience. Still, restricting the target group by modestly limiting the topics covered might have made this book even better."
The review notes: "Through insightful examinations of media ranging from simulations to computer games, the author presents an intriguing and cogent argument. The book is by no means exhaustive in its coverage, but it does set the stage for further discussion and exploration. Although most references are defined, some familiarity with the various computer games examined in this work would be beneficial to the reader."
The review notes: "But Expressive Processing is aimed at those who already have secure understanding of the processes of software — the general public is still left out of the debate. Still, Expressive Processing stands as a welcome addition to the limited academic discussion about video games, because it delves deeper into complex issues that previously have only been lightly considered."
The review notes: "The book includes technical details on everything that can be included in the context of digital media. It is written in an easy-to-read style, with charming side notes that don’t interrupt reading. I highly recommend this book to digital media--games, movies, and fiction--creators, AI students, and engineers."
The review notes: "Noah Wardrip-Fruin’s Expressive Processing provides some of those tools. Wardrip-Fruin’s notion of “expressive processing” evokes two ideas at once. ... Expressive Processing also works through some of the key questions posed by those of us interested in a bigger tent for computer programming. While scholars of new media will no doubt find Wardrip-Fruin’s discussion useful, one goal of the text is to reach beyond the relatively small conversations of software studies (an emerging strand of new media scholarship) and digital fictions."
Keep per Cunard and WeirdNAnnoyed.
The result was keep. Some participants pointed out that the notability situation changed significantly during the discussion, with the nominator !voting to keep late in the discussion. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm ( talk) 18:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Appears to be largely a hoax supported by advertorial sources and paid editors. Forbes magazine has an article about the subject's attempts to be recognised as a billionaire]. Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
SourcesPeople are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
The article notes: "Lo, Regina and Francis’ only child, was born in Vancouver but spent his first nine years in Hong Kong before returning to Canada, where he later attended Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. He went back to Hong Kong in 1999 and began working with his mom at R.E. Lee International, rising to managing director in 2003 and eventually becoming CEO."
The article notes: "But the pitching was persistent, and as time went on, a slew of media outlets including the BBC, CNBC, the Daily Express, the Daily Mirror, the Financial Times, the Independent, Nikkei Asia, Reuters and the South China Morning Post ran stories calling Lo a billionaire, showcasing his views on everything from champagne to crypto. Many of these stories cited Forbes as a source, and one of Lo’s publicists sent emails claiming he was on the Forbes Billionaires list. An article had even run on the website of Forbes Middle East, one of our independently run licensed editions, that called him a billionaire; upon investigation, that “article” turned out to be a paid “advertorial” from Lo’s team, and it has since been taken down. He has never been on the Forbes list, and it’s past time to set the record straight."
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. Complex/ Rational 12:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. LibStar ( talk) 10:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. The "keep" !votes argue for notability under PROF or AUTHOR, whereas the "delete" !votes are mainly based on the subject's wishes. Everybody seems to agree that notability if not slam dunk. However, looking at the article's history, I see no evidence that scammers have been active here, only long-time editors in good standing. I suggest that people keep this article on their watchlists (I will do so myself), so that any would be scammer does not get any chance. I will also place this article on ECP. Meanwhile, if the subject provides us with evidence of errors/omissions that would potentially change the outcome of this AfD, I have no prejudice against another nomination as soon as that situation occurs. Randykitty ( talk) 18:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
I am a volunteer at WP:VRT. The subject of this article contacted VRT about a paid-editing scammer who offered to improve it for a fee. She said the article is full of errors and omissions, and she would prefer the article be deleted rather than paying the scammer. After examining the sources, I am not convinced she meets WP:NPROF criteria for inclusion. Several sources are merely announcements (from local papers, not national or even regional scope), many sources are not even about her, and three sources were written by her. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 02:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
A native of LaGrange, Georgia, Troxler holds a doctorate in history from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.I would expect this kind of source to be accurate for basic biographical details. Our article currently says
born in LaGrange, Georgia; I suppose "native of" and "born in" might not be interchangeable, if a person was actually born in a hospital the next town over or something like that. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱 08:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Complex/ Rational 12:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
The Land Is Inhospitable and So Are We
Unreleased album that does not satisfy any of the musical notability criteria (because it has not been released yet). A check of the references shows that they are advance announcements, or interviews with the artist. None of them are independent secondary coverage.
Reference Number | Reference | Comments | Independent | Significant | Reliable | Secondary |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | variety.com | Advance announcement of album | No | Yes | Yes | No |
2 | vulture.com | Another advance announcement of album | No | Yes | Yes | No |
3 | rollingstone.comn | Interview with the artist | No | Yes | Yes | No |
4 | pitchfork.com | Another interview | No | Yes | Yes | No |
There was also a draft, so that draftification is not a valid option. The draft has been blanked. Moving the article into draft space until the album is released is the most reasonable option. Robert McClenon ( talk) 08:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
The subject has earned at least six caps for the Liechtenstein women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 06:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Winston Churchill's pets are notable ?
Over to you, folks... Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 06:32, 27 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! 06:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable lobbyist. The article relies only on primary sources and has been tagged for this since 2008. Reason is there are no reliable secondary sources covering the guy. Central and Adams ( talk) 06:11, 27 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! 05:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON as far as I can tell. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. There are several versions of this article, which mentions the subject in the title but barely talks about her in the article itself. It's a republication from the national football federation, either way. Otherwise, there are just passing mentions like this. Please lmk if I'm missing any significant coverage. JTtheOG ( talk) 04:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 02:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
AfC guidance was that this article likely wouldn't survive an AfD and yet it was placed in mainspace all the same by its author. That's a shame, because I concur with the AfC comments - the club has heritage, but it plays in the seventh league with a ground capacity of 300. The coverage is mostly database entries, there is no national coverage from RS at all. With a mildly heavy heart, fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 05:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk 03:15, 27 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! 02:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
BEFORE shows no non-primary sources providing significant coverage. Appears to be an ad. AviationFreak 💬 02:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) WJ94 ( talk) 13:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
He has won three second prizes at international piano competitions, which meets criterion 8 of WP:MUSICBIO, but his notability otherwise seems dubious. I have done a Google search to see if this subject has received sustained coverage from reliable secondary sources, but all I could find were a few articles from small, local outlets. Six citations in this article are from the subject's website; one is from Amazon. CurryTime7-24 ( talk) 02:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 02:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. The subject earned at least one appearance for the Nicaragua women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 02:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Characters in the Metroid series#Metroids. Liz Read! Talk! 20:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Article is barely more than a stub, and hasn't seen improvement for the purposes of notability or SIGCOV since 2018. Trying to find sources to indicate it's important on its own has proven a bit fruitless which is, by and far, not helped by them sharing the series name. Ultimately I feel this would be better merged into the character list for now, the sources just aren't there. Kung Fu Man ( talk) 01:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because no one has specified a target article to Merge to. There is
Metroid,
Metroid (video game) and probably other articles related to this series. I'm happy to Merge once you identify the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 01:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. Former college soccer player who made at least one appearance for the Nicaragua women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I found this and this. JTtheOG ( talk) 02:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedily deleted. as WP:G11, unambiguous promotion. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 13:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable businessperson, flowery language in sources and nothing found in RS. Largely PROMO Oaktree b ( talk) 02:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable casino, nothing found in RS, other than the place being for sale. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Not-meeting notability for individuals or business people. Reads like a resume with flowery language. Non-notable per sources, none found we can use. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Same reasons as those in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the 2008 United States presidential election and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the 2020 United States presidential election. This page is a case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wow ( talk) 06:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 01:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Our notability criteria for Olympians has changed significantly over the years, and simply being one is no longer enough for an article. While I suspect there might be coverage in French that I am not seeing, my search for anything related to Guillon has turned up little more than stats pages, photographs, and brief mentions (i.e. WP:GNG does not appear to be met). The fr-Wiki article has more information but similar sourcing issues. Primefac ( talk) 07:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 01:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Battle of the Svatove–Kreminna line. Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
I think it is better for us to include all articles in the Svatove-Kreminna area into one single article. In other areas we've gotten messy articles such as Battles of Bohorodychne and Krasnopillia and Battles of the Donetsk suburbs. Also, this article is pretty short, the battle part only covers three paragraphs that can be easily integrated into Battle of the Svatove–Kreminna line. I also follow invasion news and there haven't been many reports of intense fighting at Dvorichna, these are minor skirmishes. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk) 08:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Now let me turn to the article Battle of Krasnopilia and Bogorodichnoe. That battle was extremely important above all for the Ukrainian army because that battle was the door to perhaps the main objective of the Russian army, which is the strategically important city and military center of Sloviansk. The battle was absolutely frontal and the fact that these two small places are geographically and demographically small does not detract from their military importance from a strategic point of view. The front near Krasnopolia and Bogorodichnoe served the Ukrainians just enough to defend the gates of Sloviansk, which is only 15-20 km from those two places. And for the battles in those two places, you have many more sources than for the Battle of Dvorichna, because I followed the events day by day, hour by hour, since the summer of last year, because then everything seemed that after the Battle of Lysychinsk, the Russians would go full force to finally break through the strong Ukrainian defense line at these two small and well-fortified places to begin the Battle of Sloviansk. However, the Russians began to relax and send their army on vacation, thus underestimating Ukraine's real strength while the Ukrainians heavily armed themselves and mobilized multiple times. The Russians were hit hard on the fronts near Dovhenka (Kharkov Oblast) and Krasnopilia and Bogorodichnoe (Donetsk Oblast) by the Ukrainian breakthrough near Balakleya, which started the great Ukrainian Kharkov counter-offensive on September 6, which broke the Russian partial siege of Sloviansk from the north. From the positional battles at those two places, the Russian pressure on Sloviansk during the 9th and 10th of September broke up with a panicked flight towards the town of Liman. The Ukrainian victory at those two places will certainly be among their greatest victories in this war, regardless of what its final outcome will be, because it was at that location that they stopped a much stronger enemy in the defense of Sloviansk. Last year, from April to July, battles were fought for many larger places with the aim of putting pressure on Sloviansk (Kreminna, Liman, Izhyum and Svyatogorsk) and they all fell like pears into Russian hands and very easily, but those two villages held their own and they were convenient for the defense of Sloviansk just enough to buy three months from June 7 to September 6 for the Ukrainians to arm themselves, train and send additional reinforcements, which happened. The siege was broken, and the enemy was pushed back over 100 km to the east. Let me look back once more at the place of Dvorichna (on the right bank of the river Oskil and not on the line Svatove-Kreminna) and the place of Dvorchne (on the left bank of the river Oskil and located on the line Svatove-Kreminna). They are not the same place, but they have a similar name. The place of Dvorichne was occupied by Russian forces back in May of this year after the start of their semi-counteroffensive on January 27. By moving to the right bank of the Oskil River on June 1, Russian forces broke through the Ukrainian defense line and began the first combat operations (at least positional battles) on the other side of the bank. Otherwise, I was very hesitant to write an article related to this small place, which before the Russian invasion of Ukraine demographically had more inhabitants than, say, Marinka near Donetsk, for which heavy fighting has been going on for a year and a half without stopping and it was literally burned and leveled with earth. Will the town of Dvorichna (in the Kupiansk reon) have the same role and fate as the towns of Marinka, Avdeevka, Soledar and Vuhledar (in the Donetsk region), Popasnaya (in the Luhansk region) and Pyatikhatka (in the Zaporizhia region) and will be razed to the ground in severe fighting will either play the role of the villages of Dovhenke, Krasnopilia and Bogorodichnoe and be the line of defense of Kupiansk, Izhyum and Kharkiv or will be surrendered without major battles to the Russians like the initial Russian captures at the beginning of the war of Russian surrender in Kherson and Kharkiv last fall, time will tell. Of course, those geographically and demographically small places can never be as important as the cities of Sieverodonetsk Lisichinsk, Sieversk, Bakhmut and Mariupol, but that does not mean that they have no military-strategic importance in this war. What will happen if the place of Dvorichna is taken by the Russians? Do you think I will stop there and not go to Kupiansk, Izhyum and Kharkiv? That I will again spend hours and hours staring at the screen and looking for sources again and creating a new article as you did to me with Vuhledar several times until the Russians finally launched a zero general assault on the city on January 24th? Believe me it doesn't cross my mind. But I certainly will not forget the importance of places like Krasnohorivka (in Donetsk region), Pyatihatka and Staromayorskoye (in Zaporizhia region) and Torske (in Luhansk region) because they are all extremely important places where the issue of the Ukrainian summer counter-offensive in the south and the Russian winter counter-offensive emerges in the north of the 800 km long front. — Baba Mica ( talk) 00:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 01:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
This substance does not exist. The current article is misleading. Theoretical studies only have passing mentions, and are mainly on the OF3+ ion. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 01:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Primary references include:
Secondary references include:
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG; is a case of WP:BLP1E. Let'srun ( talk) 01:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Article provides no evidence of notability per WP:NBAND, any information presented is solely relied on a regional news outlet. Magatta ( talk) 00:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 00:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 01:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
No notability for this American artist - the only potentially useable source, LA Weekly, is a press release. So is the second. So is the third. And so we fail WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 05:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a clearer and broader consensus.
BD2412
T 00:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:GNG. Significant coverage cannot be found. This is not significant coverage, and it is a primary source since it is a direct interview of the person in question. Something trivial that I will mention is that even if this was created at a time that WP:NFOOTY existed, it still fails NFOOTY. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 00:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. The consensus is a clear keep (non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 19:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Lacks any significant, independent sources to justify a stand-alone article and pass WP:NSONGS. Pertinent info can be merged into Wild and Peaceful (Kool & the Gang album), and the article can be redirected there (or simply deleted since Funky Stuff had been previously created as a redirect). Chart info is presented in Kool & the Gang discography#Singles. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 23:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Paul Vaurie ( talk) 20:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
ethnocentric, promotes hate, highly disputable, lacks neutrality, uses questionable sources DanStevens ( talk) 23:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
treat everyone here with respect. When this AfD closes, please review the comments from other editors here and use them to learn how to approach an article deletion process and what articles qualify for the different deletion procedures. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 05:32, 31 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! 23:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
The subject earned at least three caps for the Dominican Republic women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 22:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 22:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Subject is an inspirational speaker and former charter school teacher who self-published a book about rising from homelessness. While inspirational, she does not seem to meet the WP:GNG. All sources in the article are dead (though archived), and there's little else available that I'm seeing. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:12, 27 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. Star Mississippi 20:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
All sources relate to Sriimurali (who is not in this film) releasing the film's poster. No independent notability/reviews. DareshMohan ( talk) 21:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 21:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Unreleased film for one year. This page should not be deleted. It should be draftified until release. The lead actor Mic Mohan had several box office hits during the 1980s in Tamil Nadu and this film is his comeback. Per this, such decisions must be made thru AFDs. DareshMohan ( talk) 19:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I am also including the following articles for the same reason. I want to draftify these articles, not delete them.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as additional articles were added to this nomination after it was first posted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 19:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Sheet music#20th century and early 21st century. (non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 20:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
I requested deletion on this once, and it was merged to Sheet music. A few years after, it was recreated - and it's been tagged as an essay for 9 years with basically no improvement. Some sections are completely uncited opinion, some refer to "newcomers" in 2014, and some summarize other articles that are tangential. Redirecting it back to sheet music might be better than deletion, but it shouldn't stand as it is. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
17:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)The result was delete. NFOOTY has been deprecated: notability in this case must rest on GNG once ROUTINE coverage has been excluded. Several sources have been presented here that could constitute SIGCOV, but I find the challenges to these sources convincing; specifically, that most of them constitute routine coverage in local newspapers, while the remainder are not substantive. When such challenges have been put forward, further arguments in favor of keeping per the sources found with no further detail do not strengthen the case to keep. I would also remind everybody that a specific AfD is not the place to relitigate NFOOTY, or the place to debate the proportion of women's biographies on Wikipedia. Vanamonde ( Talk) 21:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
American former college soccer player who earned at least one cap with the Saint Kitts and Nevis women's national football team. Lots of mentions from her college career, but a lot of them come from university athletics department press releases. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I am not at all against draftifying due to her college accomplishments, if anything. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
If a presumption of notability existed for national team footballers ... t would result in far more men's national team footballer articles than women's national team footballer articles- the data you give doesn't support that statement, though. You cite the existing articles for national team footballers, which reflect the status quo where editors don't accept a presumption of notability on this basis.
discussion of Spanish footballer article data
|
---|
Fortunately we have List of Spain international footballers and List of Spain women's international footballers, which offer reliable counts of men and women who have had 20 or more caps with each of the national teams. Based on these pages and the categories cited above, 151/151 men with 20 or more national team caps have articles, along with 58 out of 59 women with 20 or more caps. This means that, following the biases of the sources, we have 606 articles about national team men with fewer than 20 caps and only 79 articles about the equivalent. Assuming that the proportion of players with more than 20 caps is no lower for men than it is for women (and it is likely to be higher for men), that suggests that there are a minimum of 158 "missing" articles that could be created if a stronger presumption of notability were applied to national team footballers. |
However, it is my view that this is a tortured reading of WP:ROUTINE and runs counter to WP:GNG - the standard these editors are supposed to be applying - which is supposed to be based on, "are these reliable sources we can use to write an article?" and not, "do they demonstrate that the article's subject is somehow more important than other similar subjects?"Notability guidelines do not override the policy against routine coverage counting toward notability. Our prohibition against routine news is in fact a critical component of ensuring articles are not made on every high school gridiron coach or municipal employee or society leader who happens to live in a town with two newspapers. Recognizing what is routine in a particular field takes some time to figure out; I would recommend doing what I did before I started !voting and spending a few days reading the most recent 100+ athlete AfDs that generated 10kb+ discussions as well as browsing through all of the NSPORT talk archives.
policyare referring to here: WP:ROUTINE is a part of the guideline WP:NEVENTS, and the reference to "routine coverage" ar WP:N is a precis of the event guideline. As far as I can tell, the guideline text warning against "routine coverage" was intended to ensure that we don't have an article on each game covered in two or more reasonably detailed news reports; it was not intended to say that nothing in a report of a game can contribute to the Notability of players or of teams - which is why I referred to the latter reading of ROUTINE as
tortured.
rebuttable prediction of GNG sourcingis concerned, I am saying two things: (1) I think a stronger presumption for international footballers, rather than an easily rebuttable one, would produce more balanced and equitable Notability decisions and (2) the pincer movement by which presumptions are weakened or eliminated and at the same time sourcing requirements are ratcheted up seems designed to produce what I think I'll write an essay defining as "walled deserts" - areas where editors deliberately starve a domain (in this case, women's athletics) of coverage, based on some prior conviction that it isn't a "worthy" subject for an encyclopaedia. (Witness this IP, whose only activity on wiki has been the proposed deletion of 100 articles on female footballers.)
extended content on athletics coverage
|
---|
It seems to me that group of editors have decided that a certain group of potential biographical subjects, namely athletes, are less deserving of inclusion in an encyclopaedia than the sources support. These editors have twisted ROUTINE - which is supposed to be an exclusion of announcements similar in kind to the exclusion of press release content and of stories of extremely local stories, and the scope of which is limited to "events" - into a bar used to exclude world-wide coverage of the roles individuals play in highly visible global events, which I'm sure was never intended by the writers of ROUTINE. The same group of editors also attempts to exclude respected outlets publishing the work of professional journalists as "blogs" - seemingly confusing SPS with a particular publishing technology - from being considered reliable sources, and also bizarrely denies that the achievement-based criteria in ANYBIO should apply to athletes even at the same time that they argue that the only sports-based presumptions of Notability (weak as these are underdtood to be) should be based on achievement-based criteria. Apparently these editors believe they are contributing to the encyclopaedia through this pincer movement of eliminating consistent criteria for inclusion while restricting the range of relevant sources and raising the required threshold of significance in each source, but all this does is weaken the encyclopaedia by making the coverage of female athletes and of athletes from smaller, less wealthy and non-anglophone countries more inconsistent, sporadic and poor - creating walled deserts, as it were. And re: |
For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage (see WP:ROUTINE for more on this with regard to routine events).The "ROUTINE is for events" argument has been invalid for a long time at sportsperson AfDs, as evidenced by the NSPORT guideline referring multiple times to routine match coverage of athletes and the thousands of AfDs where that guidance is successfully invoked.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 19:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Vanamonde ( Talk) 21:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. If not deleted, may be a fit as a merge into the early life section of Galileo, or to Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, the latter of which is the article about the 1st source. Source 3 is an IP link. Gscholar reveals very little. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:39, 20 July 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! 19:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Sailing at the 1928 Summer Olympics – 6 Metre. Liz Read! Talk! 18:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NOLYMPICS, and a WP:BEFORE didn't produce much Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 18:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Labor history of the United States. The arguments to keep are very weak; the BLS is a reliable source, but it is a primary source, and statistics from it are insufficient to justify a standalone article. Arguments to delete based on NOTSTATS have not been rebutted. I do not doubt that the history of strikes in the US has received extensive coverage in reliable sources, but that is a different scope. There is a clear consensus against keeping this as a standalone page, but this discussion does not rule out related titles being split from the Labor history page. Vanamonde ( Talk) 21:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
This is a graph, with numbers below it. No context is given to the numbers (why are certain years higher than others? How did the labor movement evolve over this time period?). Not seeing notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
"Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list."
tatistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context.The "list" is statistics. I have no idea how this has captured the imagination of so many keep !voters when it absolutely completely clearly fails WP:NOT as a stand-alone article. I have absolutely no problem if it's merged and discussed somewhere, though. SportingFlyer T· C 21:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
"Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible."and
"Source information does not need to be in text form—any form of information, such as maps, charts, graphs, and tables may be used to provide source information. Routine interpretation of such media is not original research provided that there is consensus among editors that the techniques used are correctly applied and a meaningful reflection of the sources."(bolding added)
"No Federal agency collected national information on stoppages occurring during the 1906-13 period. In 1914, relying exclusively on printed sources, the Bureau of Labor Statistics attempted to compile a record of all strikes and lockouts during the year. In the following year, the Bureau inaugurated a method for the collection of strike and lockout material which has been followed, with modifications, since that time."
The result was speedy delete. The article has been speedy deleted by Jimfbleak as a G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion) violation. (non-admin closure) Hey man im josh ( talk) 19:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Flowery prose, sourced only to PR sites with puffy language. I find no sourcing for this person. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 18:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
This article is niche and un-notable in any circumstance, with only 13 Sources, some of which being irrelevant to the article in question. This article is about a subject that has no relevance to those other than the residents of Capitol Hill. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. I am taking the nominator's removal of their own notice as a withdrawal. If this is not the case, please revert my close. (non-admin closure) Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The statue fails WP:GNG, and there are no other sources I could find to expand this stub article. TarantulaTM ( speak with me) ( my legacy) 18:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 18:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how this person is notable per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The sources given are merely quick mentions of him, and the one with the most information is a university newsletter talking about another article published about him. Google search comes up with fewer than 100 results, mainly entries in directories and social media, and those "get in touch with us and we will interview you" type of sites. ... discospinster talk 16:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 18:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Does not pass the GNG as a nominee to be the United States Ambassador to Cape Verde. Appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Let'srun ( talk) 15:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 18:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Article about former footballer who made a few appearances in the Egyptian Premier League but which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. The only coverage I can find is routine transactional announcements like [9], match reports and statistics database entries. Consensus at the 2019 AfD was that the article failed the GNG, but it was kept due to the now-deprecated NFOOTBALL. Zero improvements have been made since 2019. Jogurney ( talk) 15:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Winnipeg–Churchill train. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm ( talk) 18:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
There exists only three sources for this page: One is a database which is also essentially a dead link, and the other two aren't independent (since they are made by Via Rail, operator of the Station), and in any case, those two sources don't assert the notability of the station either. I can't find more sources; Google search results are either Wikipedia, WP forks, or does not pertain to the station. Silcox ( talk) 15:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 21:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters. This discussion could be relisted a final week but this option has been mention and has been the most frequent outcome with characters from this TV series and occurs with characters of other TV shows as well. Liz Read! Talk! 18:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
This article was previously a Good Article, but it has since been delisted. Now I am nominating this for deletion as many of the sources used are primary and/or unreliable, other reliable sources seem to focus much on the character's departure. A quick Google search doesn't seem to give sources that prove the character's notability (per WP:FICT.) I am open to discussion, however, because the fact that fans of the character campaigned to keep Jorja Fox from leaving the show may be notable. Spinixster (chat!) 10:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 13:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting with a request that editors consider a Redirect which is frequently the outcome of AFDs involving fictional characters in all genres.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 14:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
A player with no professional career and no real media coverage available, the little of which is basically due to him being the grandson of Adriano Galliani.
All I could find were trivial coverage, transfer reports (mostly involving youth football) and little more: [11] Angelo ( talk) 14:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Lancaster, Lancashire. Liz Read! Talk! 20:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
This new article is an unnecessary split, or duplication, of the existing article Lancaster, Lancashire. If there was indeed an identifiable "Lancaster City Centre" separate from the city of Lancaster (the settlement, not the local authority), then it would not include Lancaster University or the Port of Lancaster. I see no purpose in this article, which will only lead to future problems when new content is added, or changes made, to this or the other or both. Pam D 11:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Firstly, Lancaster is a small city (with a big story to tell!) and can easily be explored on foot. The Bus Station is located in the city centre and Lancaster Railway station is just 5mins walk awaywhich implies (contrary to this article) that the railway station is not in the centre centre. a different page on the same website makes it clear that the Millennium Bridge and Skerton Bridge are not considered to be in the city centre, and describes the Aldcliffe Triangle as being about 10 minutes walk from the city centre. This article includes the Port of Lancaster, which is about 4 miles as the crow flies from the approximate centre of the central business district and over 2½ miles from the edge of the contiguous urban area (as they appear on Google Maps). In September 2020 Lancashire County Council launched a "Lancaster City Centre Movement and Public Realm Strategy" [17] that defined the city centre has having broad and core areas for the purposes of that study. The first is a wider area than the Visit Lancaster website does (see page 12 of the PDF), incorporating the Castle, Cathedral, railway station and both bridges mentioned above, but nowhere near as wide as including the University let alone Port. It also defines a "core area", within the A6 gyratory, which is a smaller area than the tourist information uses, excluding the castle and cathedral. All this leads me to the conclusion that it's no different to most cities in having a "city centre" that is just a vaguely defined central(ish) area of the city relevant to whatever the current context is. The article contains some good prose though that should be merged to the Lancaster, Lancashire article. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
the central part of the area, the boundaries of which are the railway on the west side, the Lancaster Canal on the south and east sides, and to the north, a line passing from west to east through the centre of Quay Meadow". I didn't recognise the name "Quay Meadow" but found Google maps identifies it as the park north of the priory, south of the riverside development. On that definition, Lancaster Royal Infirmary is not in the centre (south of the canal), nor the Custom House, Lancaster which is now the Maritime Museum (north of that midway line), nor Lancaster Cathedral (east of the canal). I can see that with some 330 listed buildings in the unparished area within City of Lancaster (but not to be confused with those in the Heysham unparished area), it was felt useful to create a split of some sort, but I don't think this can be used to justify the existence of the current Lancaster City Centre article. Pam D 12:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, just to be clear, editors are proposing a Merge with
Lancaster, Lancashire?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 14:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 19:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, WP:NJOURNALIST, or any other notability standard. No coverage outside the context of winning a reality TV show, a lot of promotional coverage but little in-depth. — Ganesha811 ( talk) 12:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous
WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 13:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Floods in the United States (2000–present). Delete !voters primarily expressed concerns regarding notability, which are also resolved with a merge & redirect. Feel free to proceed per this. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm ( talk) 18:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Fairly WP:ROUTINE summer flooding events that are commonplace around the country each year. Although supposedly "historic", many similar "historic" flooding events that occur have no articles here. This appeared to have fairly minor impact and seemingly resulted in no casualties. It would seemingly fail WP:N as routine weather is not generally deemed article-worthy. United States Man ( talk) 06:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 14:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado. Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
This article is currently tagged as relying heavily on primary sources. It fails WP:N as a little-known but routine product issued by the Storm Prediction Center and is a WP:CONTENTFORK of content that can easily be condensed and included in 2023 Rolling Fork—Silver City tornado. United States Man ( talk) 06:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 14:39, 27 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 14:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Dubious notability. Both references failed verification. Google search on term failed to find anything usable as a reference. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to New Town Central Park. The arguments to keep are extremely weak; even if an IAR claim to notability is accepted, there needs to be enough sourceable content to justify a standalone article, and this holds true for a merger as well. Those arguing to delete convincingly demonstrate that such sourcing has yet to be found. As there is no specific opposition to redirecting, that seems to be a valid ATD, but there is clear consensus against the standalone page. Vanamonde ( Talk) 21:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statue of Zhang Side, notability is not established with substantive sources. Existence of art outdoors is not automatic notability and no basis to remove a prod without addressing the unacceptable lack of sources and GNG failure. Features in a park can also be included in the park article without stand-alone articles. Reywas92 Talk 03:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a second time. There's still no clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 13:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was withdrawn. ✗ plicit 13:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR. Nevertheless, I am willing to withdraw the nomination if any enhancements are made to the article per the guidelines outlined in WP:HEY. RPSkokie ( talk) 13:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Article about semi-pro footballer which comprehensively fails WP:GNG; the only online coverage consists of match reports and statistical database entries. PROD was contested without making any effort to address the article's WP:SPORTCRIT failure. Jogurney ( talk) 13:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that this is out of Wikipedia's scope per NOTGUIDE. The dissents are unpersuasive in light of applicable policy: for "it's useful" see WP:ITSUSEFUL, and as regards the view "I imagine that competitive Mahjong rules would have received extensive coverage": we require specific sources, not imagined ones. Most people support a transwiki, so if somebody wants to do the work required for that, they can contact WP:REFUND and request userfication for that purpose. The same applies if somebody wants to use this as a basis for an article on competition mahjong or similar. Sandstein 08:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Someone at the help desk suggested that I come here and suggest transwiki. If that's not a good idea, then this article should be deleted.
This long article covers one set of rules for Mahjong, a specific kind of game. There are two reasons for deletion: (1) Wikipedia is not a game guide. It's good if an article discusses the basics of a game's rules, like Mahjong#Old Hong Kong mahjong rules, but a very long article giving lots of different scoring options and terminology, plus instructions ("If you can use a set to form both a high-score fan and a low-score fan, it is your right to choose the high-score fan.), is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. (2) The topic is already extensively covered in Mahjong#Rules, so there's no need to merge it there. 123.51.107.94 ( talk) 13:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit 13:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
This article has been proposed for deletion before but that was contested. It was also redirected and then that too was undone. The article currently has the same issues that the redirecter had concerns with. Kometalgreat ( talk) 23:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 13:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ✗ plicit 13:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable musician with no sourcing found. Does not appear to have met any criteria for musical artists. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 13:13, 27 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. Star Mississippi 19:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable film person. I'm sure the role of "little boy's father" was good, but they are all trivial roles. Nothing found for this individual for ACTOR. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 13:13, 27 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 13:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Appears to be a non-notable academic with routine listings in various school-specific sources. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 12:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The considerable effort put toward saving this actually makes the "delete" opinions stronger, as despite that effort, no clear evidence of an NACTOR or GNG pass has been found. I would be willing to provide a user/draft-space copy with anyone who will undertake to wait to recreate this until clearer evidence of notability is available. Vanamonde ( Talk) 21:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Appears non-notable, with only small parts in movies. I find no extensive sourcing (could be some in the native language). Oaktree b ( talk) 19:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 12:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Being an english wikipedia you need to give notable references written in english language and from reliable sources.is not completely correct. Reliable yes but not necessarily in English. The guideline makes that perfectly clear.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 03:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit 13:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. No indication the band passes WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 12:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:GNG. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and only newspaper listings on Newspapers.com. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable enough to pass WP:NEXIST. Per NEXIST, the sources have to be "suitable," and I don't think Horrorphilia is suitable enough. And even if it was, it's only ONE source (needs TWO OR MORE sources to pass NFO and NFSOURCES). The Film Creator ( talk) 16:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Keep. The reviews cited above appear to be sufficient to support an article. Eluchil404 ( talk) 07:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have three editors !voting keep and no other !votes other than the implied delete by the nom... I'd like some more input otherwise it'll be no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 12:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of Battlestar Galactica characters. Liz Read! Talk! 04:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I could not find a single decent source on the guy, let alone enough to meet WP:GNG. QuicoleJR ( talk) 16:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 12:37, 27 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 13:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Not meeting notability requirements for politicians; sourcing found is largely social media and routine descriptions (appearing at events, committee meetings). Oaktree b ( talk) 23:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 12:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to This Is My Truth Tell Me Yours. Star Mississippi 19:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't satisfy WP:NSONG, just as it didn't satisfy it in 2015. Restore Redirect to This Is My Truth Tell Me Yours. Muhandes ( talk) 15:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
— Note to closing admin: Apeholder ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
— 109.78.147.104 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Whether the singular !vote from the IP is included or not (as it's made few edits outside this discussion and page), there's still no consensus. Relisting for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 12:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Sourcing is PR and routine business items. Also reads like a resume. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We're equally split between keep and delete. Relisting for more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 12:35, 27 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 13:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Unreferenced for 14 years. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar ( talk) 12:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus that sources found indicate the subject is notable. (non-admin closure) — Ganesha811 ( talk) 18:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Insufficient WP:RS and WP:IS sources with WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 13:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Unsourced other than the book itself. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 12:11, 27 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: "Although Noah Wardrip-Fruin’s Expressive Processing: Digital Fictions, Computer Games, and Software Studies is probably best known at present for the author’s attempt to provoke a radically open form of peer review by submitting portions of his manuscript to the blog Grand Text Auto in advance of the final submission to MIT Press, the most potentially transformative legacy of the book is in its compelling call for universal software literacy."
The review notes: "The central thesis of this book is key for advancing twenty-first century digital literacy, and thus relevant to the digital humanities community. This thesis can be derived from one of the definitions Wardrip-Fruin gives of expressive processing: ‘. . . the possibility of creating new simulated machines, of defining new computational behaviors, as the great authoring opportunity that digital media offers' (p. 7). Wardrip-Fruin systematically explains this main thesis throughout the book by leading readers on a historical journey that evokes personal memories for the author (as it did for me), making the reading more enjoyable. ... In the same way, I believe that the groundbreaking approach this book offers will help humanists and computer scientists alike discover the potential of computational processes and digital media for the advancement of digital humanities. An invitation to embark in this fascinating journey is what Wardrip-Fruin accomplishes with Expressive Processing."
The review notes: "As such, this book is the perfect volume to begin the new publication series in the software studies. Rather than building the theory for software studies, it works as a model of how to do software studies. The wide variety of materials discussed, however, may be the Achilles’ Heel of the book. As we are all influenced by endless array of information technologies and their software processes, Expressive Processing is, in a way, including everybody in its audience. Still, restricting the target group by modestly limiting the topics covered might have made this book even better."
The review notes: "Through insightful examinations of media ranging from simulations to computer games, the author presents an intriguing and cogent argument. The book is by no means exhaustive in its coverage, but it does set the stage for further discussion and exploration. Although most references are defined, some familiarity with the various computer games examined in this work would be beneficial to the reader."
The review notes: "But Expressive Processing is aimed at those who already have secure understanding of the processes of software — the general public is still left out of the debate. Still, Expressive Processing stands as a welcome addition to the limited academic discussion about video games, because it delves deeper into complex issues that previously have only been lightly considered."
The review notes: "The book includes technical details on everything that can be included in the context of digital media. It is written in an easy-to-read style, with charming side notes that don’t interrupt reading. I highly recommend this book to digital media--games, movies, and fiction--creators, AI students, and engineers."
The review notes: "Noah Wardrip-Fruin’s Expressive Processing provides some of those tools. Wardrip-Fruin’s notion of “expressive processing” evokes two ideas at once. ... Expressive Processing also works through some of the key questions posed by those of us interested in a bigger tent for computer programming. While scholars of new media will no doubt find Wardrip-Fruin’s discussion useful, one goal of the text is to reach beyond the relatively small conversations of software studies (an emerging strand of new media scholarship) and digital fictions."
Keep per Cunard and WeirdNAnnoyed.
The result was keep. Some participants pointed out that the notability situation changed significantly during the discussion, with the nominator !voting to keep late in the discussion. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm ( talk) 18:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Appears to be largely a hoax supported by advertorial sources and paid editors. Forbes magazine has an article about the subject's attempts to be recognised as a billionaire]. Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
SourcesPeople are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
The article notes: "Lo, Regina and Francis’ only child, was born in Vancouver but spent his first nine years in Hong Kong before returning to Canada, where he later attended Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. He went back to Hong Kong in 1999 and began working with his mom at R.E. Lee International, rising to managing director in 2003 and eventually becoming CEO."
The article notes: "But the pitching was persistent, and as time went on, a slew of media outlets including the BBC, CNBC, the Daily Express, the Daily Mirror, the Financial Times, the Independent, Nikkei Asia, Reuters and the South China Morning Post ran stories calling Lo a billionaire, showcasing his views on everything from champagne to crypto. Many of these stories cited Forbes as a source, and one of Lo’s publicists sent emails claiming he was on the Forbes Billionaires list. An article had even run on the website of Forbes Middle East, one of our independently run licensed editions, that called him a billionaire; upon investigation, that “article” turned out to be a paid “advertorial” from Lo’s team, and it has since been taken down. He has never been on the Forbes list, and it’s past time to set the record straight."
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. Complex/ Rational 12:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. LibStar ( talk) 10:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. The "keep" !votes argue for notability under PROF or AUTHOR, whereas the "delete" !votes are mainly based on the subject's wishes. Everybody seems to agree that notability if not slam dunk. However, looking at the article's history, I see no evidence that scammers have been active here, only long-time editors in good standing. I suggest that people keep this article on their watchlists (I will do so myself), so that any would be scammer does not get any chance. I will also place this article on ECP. Meanwhile, if the subject provides us with evidence of errors/omissions that would potentially change the outcome of this AfD, I have no prejudice against another nomination as soon as that situation occurs. Randykitty ( talk) 18:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
I am a volunteer at WP:VRT. The subject of this article contacted VRT about a paid-editing scammer who offered to improve it for a fee. She said the article is full of errors and omissions, and she would prefer the article be deleted rather than paying the scammer. After examining the sources, I am not convinced she meets WP:NPROF criteria for inclusion. Several sources are merely announcements (from local papers, not national or even regional scope), many sources are not even about her, and three sources were written by her. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 02:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
A native of LaGrange, Georgia, Troxler holds a doctorate in history from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.I would expect this kind of source to be accurate for basic biographical details. Our article currently says
born in LaGrange, Georgia; I suppose "native of" and "born in" might not be interchangeable, if a person was actually born in a hospital the next town over or something like that. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱 08:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Complex/ Rational 12:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
The Land Is Inhospitable and So Are We
Unreleased album that does not satisfy any of the musical notability criteria (because it has not been released yet). A check of the references shows that they are advance announcements, or interviews with the artist. None of them are independent secondary coverage.
Reference Number | Reference | Comments | Independent | Significant | Reliable | Secondary |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | variety.com | Advance announcement of album | No | Yes | Yes | No |
2 | vulture.com | Another advance announcement of album | No | Yes | Yes | No |
3 | rollingstone.comn | Interview with the artist | No | Yes | Yes | No |
4 | pitchfork.com | Another interview | No | Yes | Yes | No |
There was also a draft, so that draftification is not a valid option. The draft has been blanked. Moving the article into draft space until the album is released is the most reasonable option. Robert McClenon ( talk) 08:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
The subject has earned at least six caps for the Liechtenstein women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 06:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Winston Churchill's pets are notable ?
Over to you, folks... Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 06:32, 27 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! 06:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable lobbyist. The article relies only on primary sources and has been tagged for this since 2008. Reason is there are no reliable secondary sources covering the guy. Central and Adams ( talk) 06:11, 27 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! 05:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON as far as I can tell. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. There are several versions of this article, which mentions the subject in the title but barely talks about her in the article itself. It's a republication from the national football federation, either way. Otherwise, there are just passing mentions like this. Please lmk if I'm missing any significant coverage. JTtheOG ( talk) 04:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 02:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
AfC guidance was that this article likely wouldn't survive an AfD and yet it was placed in mainspace all the same by its author. That's a shame, because I concur with the AfC comments - the club has heritage, but it plays in the seventh league with a ground capacity of 300. The coverage is mostly database entries, there is no national coverage from RS at all. With a mildly heavy heart, fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 05:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk 03:15, 27 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! 02:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
BEFORE shows no non-primary sources providing significant coverage. Appears to be an ad. AviationFreak 💬 02:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) WJ94 ( talk) 13:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
He has won three second prizes at international piano competitions, which meets criterion 8 of WP:MUSICBIO, but his notability otherwise seems dubious. I have done a Google search to see if this subject has received sustained coverage from reliable secondary sources, but all I could find were a few articles from small, local outlets. Six citations in this article are from the subject's website; one is from Amazon. CurryTime7-24 ( talk) 02:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 02:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. The subject earned at least one appearance for the Nicaragua women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 02:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Characters in the Metroid series#Metroids. Liz Read! Talk! 20:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Article is barely more than a stub, and hasn't seen improvement for the purposes of notability or SIGCOV since 2018. Trying to find sources to indicate it's important on its own has proven a bit fruitless which is, by and far, not helped by them sharing the series name. Ultimately I feel this would be better merged into the character list for now, the sources just aren't there. Kung Fu Man ( talk) 01:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because no one has specified a target article to Merge to. There is
Metroid,
Metroid (video game) and probably other articles related to this series. I'm happy to Merge once you identify the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 01:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. Former college soccer player who made at least one appearance for the Nicaragua women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I found this and this. JTtheOG ( talk) 02:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedily deleted. as WP:G11, unambiguous promotion. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 13:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable businessperson, flowery language in sources and nothing found in RS. Largely PROMO Oaktree b ( talk) 02:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable casino, nothing found in RS, other than the place being for sale. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Not-meeting notability for individuals or business people. Reads like a resume with flowery language. Non-notable per sources, none found we can use. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Same reasons as those in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the 2008 United States presidential election and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the 2020 United States presidential election. This page is a case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wow ( talk) 06:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 01:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Our notability criteria for Olympians has changed significantly over the years, and simply being one is no longer enough for an article. While I suspect there might be coverage in French that I am not seeing, my search for anything related to Guillon has turned up little more than stats pages, photographs, and brief mentions (i.e. WP:GNG does not appear to be met). The fr-Wiki article has more information but similar sourcing issues. Primefac ( talk) 07:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 01:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Battle of the Svatove–Kreminna line. Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
I think it is better for us to include all articles in the Svatove-Kreminna area into one single article. In other areas we've gotten messy articles such as Battles of Bohorodychne and Krasnopillia and Battles of the Donetsk suburbs. Also, this article is pretty short, the battle part only covers three paragraphs that can be easily integrated into Battle of the Svatove–Kreminna line. I also follow invasion news and there haven't been many reports of intense fighting at Dvorichna, these are minor skirmishes. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk) 08:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Now let me turn to the article Battle of Krasnopilia and Bogorodichnoe. That battle was extremely important above all for the Ukrainian army because that battle was the door to perhaps the main objective of the Russian army, which is the strategically important city and military center of Sloviansk. The battle was absolutely frontal and the fact that these two small places are geographically and demographically small does not detract from their military importance from a strategic point of view. The front near Krasnopolia and Bogorodichnoe served the Ukrainians just enough to defend the gates of Sloviansk, which is only 15-20 km from those two places. And for the battles in those two places, you have many more sources than for the Battle of Dvorichna, because I followed the events day by day, hour by hour, since the summer of last year, because then everything seemed that after the Battle of Lysychinsk, the Russians would go full force to finally break through the strong Ukrainian defense line at these two small and well-fortified places to begin the Battle of Sloviansk. However, the Russians began to relax and send their army on vacation, thus underestimating Ukraine's real strength while the Ukrainians heavily armed themselves and mobilized multiple times. The Russians were hit hard on the fronts near Dovhenka (Kharkov Oblast) and Krasnopilia and Bogorodichnoe (Donetsk Oblast) by the Ukrainian breakthrough near Balakleya, which started the great Ukrainian Kharkov counter-offensive on September 6, which broke the Russian partial siege of Sloviansk from the north. From the positional battles at those two places, the Russian pressure on Sloviansk during the 9th and 10th of September broke up with a panicked flight towards the town of Liman. The Ukrainian victory at those two places will certainly be among their greatest victories in this war, regardless of what its final outcome will be, because it was at that location that they stopped a much stronger enemy in the defense of Sloviansk. Last year, from April to July, battles were fought for many larger places with the aim of putting pressure on Sloviansk (Kreminna, Liman, Izhyum and Svyatogorsk) and they all fell like pears into Russian hands and very easily, but those two villages held their own and they were convenient for the defense of Sloviansk just enough to buy three months from June 7 to September 6 for the Ukrainians to arm themselves, train and send additional reinforcements, which happened. The siege was broken, and the enemy was pushed back over 100 km to the east. Let me look back once more at the place of Dvorichna (on the right bank of the river Oskil and not on the line Svatove-Kreminna) and the place of Dvorchne (on the left bank of the river Oskil and located on the line Svatove-Kreminna). They are not the same place, but they have a similar name. The place of Dvorichne was occupied by Russian forces back in May of this year after the start of their semi-counteroffensive on January 27. By moving to the right bank of the Oskil River on June 1, Russian forces broke through the Ukrainian defense line and began the first combat operations (at least positional battles) on the other side of the bank. Otherwise, I was very hesitant to write an article related to this small place, which before the Russian invasion of Ukraine demographically had more inhabitants than, say, Marinka near Donetsk, for which heavy fighting has been going on for a year and a half without stopping and it was literally burned and leveled with earth. Will the town of Dvorichna (in the Kupiansk reon) have the same role and fate as the towns of Marinka, Avdeevka, Soledar and Vuhledar (in the Donetsk region), Popasnaya (in the Luhansk region) and Pyatikhatka (in the Zaporizhia region) and will be razed to the ground in severe fighting will either play the role of the villages of Dovhenke, Krasnopilia and Bogorodichnoe and be the line of defense of Kupiansk, Izhyum and Kharkiv or will be surrendered without major battles to the Russians like the initial Russian captures at the beginning of the war of Russian surrender in Kherson and Kharkiv last fall, time will tell. Of course, those geographically and demographically small places can never be as important as the cities of Sieverodonetsk Lisichinsk, Sieversk, Bakhmut and Mariupol, but that does not mean that they have no military-strategic importance in this war. What will happen if the place of Dvorichna is taken by the Russians? Do you think I will stop there and not go to Kupiansk, Izhyum and Kharkiv? That I will again spend hours and hours staring at the screen and looking for sources again and creating a new article as you did to me with Vuhledar several times until the Russians finally launched a zero general assault on the city on January 24th? Believe me it doesn't cross my mind. But I certainly will not forget the importance of places like Krasnohorivka (in Donetsk region), Pyatihatka and Staromayorskoye (in Zaporizhia region) and Torske (in Luhansk region) because they are all extremely important places where the issue of the Ukrainian summer counter-offensive in the south and the Russian winter counter-offensive emerges in the north of the 800 km long front. — Baba Mica ( talk) 00:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 01:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
This substance does not exist. The current article is misleading. Theoretical studies only have passing mentions, and are mainly on the OF3+ ion. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 01:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Primary references include:
Secondary references include:
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG; is a case of WP:BLP1E. Let'srun ( talk) 01:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Article provides no evidence of notability per WP:NBAND, any information presented is solely relied on a regional news outlet. Magatta ( talk) 00:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 00:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 01:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
No notability for this American artist - the only potentially useable source, LA Weekly, is a press release. So is the second. So is the third. And so we fail WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 05:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a clearer and broader consensus.
BD2412
T 00:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:GNG. Significant coverage cannot be found. This is not significant coverage, and it is a primary source since it is a direct interview of the person in question. Something trivial that I will mention is that even if this was created at a time that WP:NFOOTY existed, it still fails NFOOTY. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 00:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)