![]() |
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
This article stub ( Japanese Occupation Of German Pacific Islands) provides no new information, and is covered in much better detail in the articles Japanese entry into World War I and Japan during World War I. It doesn't even provide any real information on the occupation of German territories, which is the title of the article. Boneyard90 ( talk) 23:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that this is substantially a WP:CFORK of metagame, and that this particular description or definition of the concept is difficult to verify. Sandstein 07:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
"Most effective tactics available" is not what "meta" stands for, but metagame. It seems like a backronym of some kind. See [1]. That makes this article something of a hoax at best. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 23:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
In essence, a "meta" in gaming terminology is a generally agreed upon strategy by the community.
The Representation of Meta in Gaming Today
Meta in gaming is used to describe the latest strategic methods and trends among those who play a particular game.
The meta, or the metagame, is a huge part of competitive gaming that refers to a number of things depending on the game that you play.
The term has become more commonplace in esports, with casters and developers using it to describe what is powerful, or overpowered, in matches.
In the world of gaming, meta is used in two ways. Meta can be used as an acronym for “most effective tactics available,” and calling something “meta” means that it’s an effective way to achieve the goal of the game, whether it’s to beat other players or beat the game itself. Meta can also be short for metagame, which is using information about the game, derived from the world beyond the game or its rules, to influence the outcome of the game or gain a competitive edge.
an approach to a game that transcends or operates outside of the prescribed rules of the game, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game.) in different contexts. I don't think that the idea of using the best strategies is distinct enough from metagaming in general to warrant its own article, and the sourcing on the term "Most effective tactics available" is dubious, but there might be enough to include a sentence or two about it in the etymology section. At the very least all three articles need some cleanup to define their scope. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 19:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
the sourcing on the term "Most effective tactics available" is dubious
All three of Metagame, Metagaming (role-playing games), and Most effective tactics available are discussing the same concept
an approach to a game that transcends or operates outside of the prescribed rules of the gameis very different from
the best way to play a game(definition of meta). Operating outside of the rules is the direct opposite to being the best at a game. In fact, people engage in "metagaming" due to being bored with trying to play the "meta". Kate the mochii ( talk) 02:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
This article begins by defining metagaming as things done outside of the intended rules of the game, but several of the examples and much of the body text in the article define metagaming as simply advanced strategy within the intended rules of a game. Ideally, someone should find a reliable source on what metagaming is, cite it, and rewrite the article to match it. In the worst case, this article should be nominated for deletion as original research until someone can find a clear definition.
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable organization. Mooonswimmer 23:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of first women lawyers and judges in Arizona#State Bar of Arizona. Star Mississippi 20:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. WP:BEFORE check comes up empty regarding secondary sources. Let'srun ( talk) 22:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
People 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.(I am tempted to make an argument that WP:ACADEMIC applies because Arizona law, like the law of any US state, is a distinct field of scholarly work and inquiry, but I'll save my breath.) WP:DGFA reminds us
when in doubt, don't delete, and WP:PRESERVE highlights the importance of keeping content within the positive-sum wiki process whenever possible. Sources: I am not quite persuaded by the other participants' negative view of the sources, for example [10] seems to have a nontrivial amount of secondary content despite also containing interview excerpts, and is from 15 years before Loo became head of the Arizona Bar Association so would appear to be independent. Nonetheless I don't really see a critical mass of coverage here. Conclusion: Suitable for redirection. -- Visviva ( talk) 20:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
lack of any direct influence with the subjects involvedrequirement suggested by the Wikipedia:Independent sources essay. -- Visviva ( talk) 03:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 05:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
This seems absurdly broad in scope when various categories exist. Obviously the list is currently incomplete, but if it were it would cover everything in the Eagle, Beano, Dandy, 2000AD, Viz, Lion, Buster, Battle and Tammy for starters, which I'd estimate at around a thousand plus strips instantly. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 20:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
:Delete I’m sure someone is going to show up and start waving
WP:NLIST and “valid navigational lists” around shortly, but I’m voting per
WP:IAR. Nobody maintains these, they’re wildly over-broad in scope, and most readers arrive from internal links in prose articles and internal/external searches anyway so the benefit of a “navigational” list is negligible. Replace per Thryduulf. Pointless duplicate of existing lists.
Dronebogus (
talk) 23:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Fairy chess piece. Star Mississippi 20:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
A particular piece from a not particularly significant commercial chess variant. Only sources are WP:UGC. A discussion at the chess wikiproject didn't suggest anything promising, and the article creator never responded to this. This New York Times article (which is not in our article) is probably the best thing that's out there, and it's the epitome of a passing mention. PROD on Wizard removed without a substantive justification. I am also nominating the following related page, which suffers from exactly the same issues:
-- JBL ( talk) 17:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Wizard in chess
and Fool in chess
(as searchers are not likely to use parentheses) and the Omega results were in the top 3 or 4 (and so was Potter), which would argue for deletion, unless we're certain what users are searching for.
Mathglot (
talk) 20:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:38, 9 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 20:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I cannot find any significant coverage of this actor, even going back to coverage of In the Heat of the Night. (He was a recurring character, not "co-star" as stated in article.) The sources dumped in the reference section are bare mentions. Most of the article is unsourced, and has been tagged since 2012. Schazjmd (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Another non-notable game show. According to TenPoundHammer ( talk · contribs):
Only 32 hits on Google for "Beach Clash" + "David Hirsch", and the Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows is the only one on GBooks. Newspapers.com only turned up TV Guide listings.
A ProQuest search for "Beach Clash" + Tv show returned only passing mentions, one-sentence announcements, and TV listings. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 14:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
The book provides 237 words of coverage about the subject. The book notes: ""Beach Clash" was a weekly one-hour competition, taped on the beach at Malibu, California that tested the skill, strength, and endurance of two teams of players. Each team was made up of four players, two contenders (one male and one female) and two "hardbodies," show regulars with names like "Sandy," "Breeze," "Ripper," and "Zuma." ... David Hirsch, who had replaced Dick Clark as host on "American Bandstand" and Alison Armitage of the TV series “Acapulco H.E.A.T." co-hosted, with Olympic Gold Medalist Sherri Howard serving as referee. The teams competed in ten events staged on the sand and in the water including "Hot Air Climb," "Bungee Basketball," "King of the Raft," "Beach Bout," and a "Crash and Burn" finale that included a variety of challenges such as a hill climb, a two-person kayak maneuvering a wave-runner around a course, a sprint and sand-crawl and a rope-swing into a pool."
The review provides 204 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "About Beach Clash, for instance, starring muscle-headed "Hardbodies" Ripper, Sandy, Zuma and Breeze. ... Beach Clash (midnight Sundays, Channel 11) - The producers must have their heads in the sand. In other words, don't believe co-host Alison Armitage when she says ... Not to brag, but I do more amazing things with my body by rolling out of bed most days. These competitions, ranging from Hill Climb to Beach Bout, are strictly Dullsville, man. ... Beach Clash's other host, David Hirsch, plays the role of a geek seeking a physique. Ms. Armitage's principal contribution is to giggle at his attempts to be a hardbody in mind, if not body."
The article provides 61 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Beach Clash (syndicated). The Idea: Gladiators meets Baywatch. Sample Games: Hard-bodied contestants have a midsurf tug-of-war and drop from a parasail onto a floating target. The Getup: R-rated bikinis. Filler: Learn about contestants’ career goals while watching them frolic in slow-motion. Fun Bonus: Gratuitous shots of swimsuit-clad women in the shower. Bottom Line: This T&A fest would make Aaron Spelling blush."
The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "After all, what are shows like American Gladiators and Beach Clash if not genially decadent versions of overbuffed Greek gods and goddesses bulging and sweating for the amusement of us rabble?"
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review new sources located.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Morigaon without prejudice to editors creating a new redirect at Ahaturi Natua Gaon. Redirects are not typically moved. signed, Rosguill talk 03:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The article does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG (General Notability Guideline) and the place itself lacks sufficient notability. Saurabh Saha 14:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Can you simplify the ATD proposed?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus for notability, and sources linked show clearly meeting GEOLAND. (non-admin closure) AviationFreak 💬 15:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Article has been flagged as "local" for more than a decade with little improvement. I wasn't able to find anything substantive on Google, though the name may be complicating that search. I would normally suggest merging to Makadara, which is also barely a stub, but the material (e.g. list of hospitals) isn't cited anyway. Matt Deres ( talk) 13:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 08:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd like to hear from more editors who are familiar with
WP:GEOLAND.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to KDE Education Project. Liz Read! Talk! 05:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Most of the content is uncited and promotional. Has been tagged since 2014 without improvement. Cannot find much in the way of sourcing to establish notability. Greenman ( talk) 08:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 08:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
23:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)The result was redirect to List of Sikkim cricketers. Star Mississippi 20:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCRIC PARVAGE talk! 22:02, 9 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. Joyous! Noise! 22:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 21:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! Noise! 22:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 21:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 20:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I think this page is a work of self-promotion and publicity. There are no reliable sources about the subject Soulreaper ( talk) 21:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to The Worst Witch (1998 TV series). Joyous! Noise! 22:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Does not appear to pass WP:GNG, unsourced since 2006. PROD removed with no improvements to address concern DonaldD23 talk to me 21:33, 9 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. Joyous! Noise! 21:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
non notable local company. the cited references are trivial coverage on Curotek and fails NCORP. Graywalls ( talk) 21:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Delete - nothing out there. They haven't even made it into the local newspaper, The Oregonian. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 21:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Joyous! Noise! 21:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
BLP of a minor-league author whose main following seems to be on GoodReads. May be notable for his academic work; let's discuss. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 20:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 20:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Article fails WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Seems to only be of use to those intentionally keeping their PSP on an older version (jailbreaking reasons I assume?) but even that has been rendered pointless long ago. The content is simply a curiosity without encyclopedic relevance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 20:32, 9 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, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable mayor of a suburban town. A BEFORE search brings up only local coverage, and we traditionally do not keep articles on local politicians just because they have received coverage in the local paper per WP:NOT - otherwise every mayor for every town would have an article. SportingFlyer T· C 20:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. Joyous! Noise! 19:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
This was nominated and kept in 2022 based on several "Keep" !votes citing
WP:GEOLAND and
WP:NEXIST. The article meets neither of these guidelines as NEXIST requires sources that, well, exist and GEOLAND requires sources with "verifiable information beyond simple statistics"
. The only non-map/database source is a climber's guide which mentions the lake in passing as a landmark on the way to a destination. This isn't SIGCOV and it tells us nothing about the lake itself aside from its relative location. Given the lack of additional coverage, deletion is appropriate in this case. –
dlthewave
☎ 18:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography.The more general article exists and the lake is included in the redirect target. The difference between redirect or merge is whether to copy across the small amount of information on this page not found in the target. The information is from a trail guide, and WP:NOTGUIDE applies. I don't think Wikipedia articles should be reproducing trail information, although linking to it is fine, perhaps in external links. However I would not object to a considered consensus to merge. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 07:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. Joyous! Noise! 19:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails
WP:GEONATURAL which requires that ""information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist"
. BEFORE searched returned only passing mentions in hiking logs and various lists of natural features, none of which provide any information about the lake beyond its location and basic characteristics. –
dlthewave
☎ 18:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography.The more general article exists and the lake is included in the redirect target. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 22:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. There were a few suggestions to merge to the target article. Any editor is welcome to check over the revision history if they feel that there is some abandoned material that needs to be incorporated into the target. Joyous! Noise! 19:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails
WP:GEONATURAL which requires that ""information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist"
. BEFORE searched returned only passing mentions in hiking logs and various lists of natural features, none of which provide any information about the lake beyond its location and basic characteristics. –
dlthewave
☎ 18:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography.The more general article exists and the lake is included in the redirect target. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 22:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. Joyous! Noise! 19:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails
WP:GEONATURAL which requires that ""information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist"
. BEFORE searched returned only passing mentions in hiking logs and various lists of natural features, none of which provide any information about the lake beyond its location and basic characteristics. –
dlthewave
☎ 18:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography.The more general article exists and the lake is included in the redirect target. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 07:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. Joyous! Noise! 19:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails
WP:GEONATURAL which requires that ""information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist"
. BEFORE searched returned only passing mentions in hiking logs and various lists of natural features, none of which provide any information about the lake beyond its location and basic characteristics. –
dlthewave
☎ 18:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography.The more general article exists and the lake is included in the redirect target. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 22:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Joyous! Noise! 18:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP. Local coverage only. Would need wider coverage to meet WP:AUD. Fails WP:SIRS. scope_creep Talk 17:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
it is only pizza restuarant after all not the pentagonare not based in policy. Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 19:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Joyous! Noise! 18:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Upon closer inspection, the entire Wikipedia page is a promotional page, which is not allowed by Wikipedia itself under CSD G11. The biography refers to self-celebratory publications. The lady is not known in the country under the pseudonym Princess Bee, and the only article that mentions her is a self-published one. She has no publications, no recognitions, and there is no trace of her on the web except through paid advertising outlets.
(statement made at request of anonymous new user who came on #wikipedia-en-help, and who I guided through tagging the article for deletion; prima facie the sources don't look terribly impressive, but I'm not up for assessing them all to see if they're really that terrible.)
DS (
talk) 17:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Thursday (album). Joyous! Noise! 18:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Not every song by this artist is notable. This one has never charted and there are no reviews of the song. Nothing found for this particular musical work. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 14:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Wife of a local politician, with no notability otherwise. Zero sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of political parties in Turkey. History is there if there's sourced material worth merging. There is no consensus to do so at the moment, but the redirect is a viable ATD Star Mississippi 14:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Unsourced since creation over a decade ago, with no real content. Unlikely to be relevant. Vif12vf/Tiberius ( talk) 15:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 17:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 16:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. A clear case for WP:SNOW deletion. JBW ( talk) 09:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
AFD as PROD is contested. Seems to be breaking WP:NOTGUIDE, not encyclopedic, and unsuitable for Wikipedia. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Chittagong Development Authority. Viable ATD. Star Mississippi 14:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Only one primary source. Cannot find any significant coverage of this. Fails WP:SCH. Previous deletion discussion at: WP:Articles_for_deletion/CDA_Public_School_and_College. Qcne (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
No indication of notability; sources are only TikTok, which, besides being user-generated and unreliable, sort of counts as a primary source. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 12:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Editors arguing for delete base their position on the failure to drum up enough available sources to meet GNG; editors arguing for keep point to SNGs and the possibility of print coverage existing. Since we've also established that such coverage would not be accessible/requestable from a typical library, it is essentially impossible to refute either side's analysis. As editors are relatively evenly divided and the discussion is already so long as to dissuade further participation, I'm closing it now as no consensus rather than relist. signed, Rosguill talk 03:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable defunct LPTV station. No sources. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 12:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
While television channel and station articles, like all articles on Wikipedia, must meet the general notability guideline.... This 2021 RfC attempted to make something similar to WP:TVS/STDS into a notability guideline, the proposal was rejected. Hut 8.5 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is the main standard used for determining notability on Wikipedia (and the only standard if the topic doesn't have a more specific guideline, as is the case for broadcast outlets). The subject of this article fails this test - the sources cited are either not reliable, not independent of the subject, or don't present significant coverage of the subject. It's OK if the article cites sources which don't pass all three of these tests, but there does need to be a source which does for the subject to be notable. Yes, it's fine to cite the station website for what that station broadcasts, but the fact you can do that doesn't show it meets the general notability guideline, because it's not an independent source. It's also very much not OK to write an article primarily based on sources which aren't independent of the subject - see the verifiability policy. The obituary also fails this test - it doesn't show significant coverage of the subject (the TV station gets one sentence in it) and it doesn't appear to be a reliable source. It certainly is not the case that all news outlets are reliable sources, and this obituary doesn't appear to have been written by the news site themselves anyway.
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Routine coverage here fails WP:GNG. Uhooep ( talk) 12:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Most of the coverage is based on primary sources: either her speaking as a subject-matter expert or giving interviews. In-depth secondary sources are lacking, and therefore, it fails to meet the WP:GNG criteria. I managed to find this article, but it's of low quality and only discusses her event. I also failed to find independent reviews of her so-called best-selling books. Mercenf ( talk) 10:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Sin (video game). Sourcing is of insufficient depth to support a standalone article Star Mississippi 14:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I really was hoping this article would survive because from the heavy sourcing, one would assume there's meat there. However 99% of the sources all say the same thing: "she's sexy", with about that much depth. There is one character analysis in a scholarly paper and a book excerpt that examines her role as the protagonist' shadow in the first game, but those by themselves are not enough to carry the article. Other book mentions are trivial and list her alongside other characters in the vein of "Lara Croft led to this". In the end, it's another Niemti Special, complete with some sources that don't actually say what they're cited for, and magazines not fully cited so I can't verify their contents. Kung Fu Man ( talk) 09:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy close, as a bold move because it is unclear if the nomination is really about The Myth or about a vandalized version of the article that has since been reverted (see below). Also, the article does indeed have a source. User:QuickQuokka is welcome to re-nominate The Myth for deletion if that was the original intention, but a more descriptive rationale should be included. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC) ( non-admin closure)
Not notable, no sources, just seems like fancruft QuickQuokka [ talk • contribs 08:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 09:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
The page was apparently created by the subject (Dsarma23). It has been speedy-nominated once 10 years ago and PRODed 4 years ago. See: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=iRIZTYAAAAAJ&hl=en. I agree with the PROD nominator, who said "Does not appear to meet notability guidelines for academics, authors, or even simply the general notability guidelines." Chamaemelum ( talk) 08:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. I just want to add to the enthusiastic page creator that editors here are saying WP:TOOSOON which doesn't mean NEVER, it just means NOTRIGHTNOW. If you need a copy of this article, contact me or go to WP:REFUND or talk with another administrator. Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
This page appears to be self-proclaimed OR: User Gigitoe says elsewhere (Reddit) that he made up the name. So this surely does not belong in WP, at least for a few years. Imaginatorium ( talk) 07:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This is despite scoring five international goals, albeit for the Papua New Guinea national football team. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
NYC Guru (
talk) 07:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, may help in this case? — siro χ o 09:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
People 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, and that
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.In turn, WP:SIGCOV states that
significant coverageaddresses the topic sufficiently directly and in sufficient detail that
no original research is needed to extract the content.It also clarifies that the article subject
does not need to be the main topic of the source material.Second, the relevant sources: Among sources cited here and in the article, we have some articles for which Ati Kepo makes up 1/4 to 1/2 of the article topic, and which contain substantial biographical information about him in particular: [34], [35], [36]. As the biographical content can be extracted without any hint of original research, these are squarely within both the letter and the spirit of SIGCOV. We also have some articles in which Kepo makes up 1/4-1/2 of the article topic but which do not contain much biographical information: e.g. [37], [38]. We also have at least two RS articles in which Ati Kepo is the main topic, but with little biographical information: [39], [40]. These latter sources also appear to be plainly within the letter of WP:SIGCOV, although perhaps not within its spirit (since they furnish little in the way of article material). (These latter articles also go to show that Kepo is "notable" in the colloquial sense of "important", which is not relevant under policy but for some reason has often proven relevant to AFD outcomes.)Conclusion: Even applying the rules with the greatest rigidity (which is rarely required), this article still qualifies under NBIO because the article subject has
received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. -- Visviva ( talk) 22:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Most of this article is based on one restaurant review from Sydney Morning Herald. I'm not sure if Broadsheet is a reliable source but it's another review. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar ( talk) 04:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
"the reviews must be published outside of purely local ... interest publications", and then links to WP:AUD, which states that
"attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". The Sydney Morning Herald is a generally local newspaper, and so is the Herald Sun, which focuses on Melbourne. While both newspapers are located in different cities (Pretty Little is located in Victoria), I'm not convinced that reviewers for two local newspapers publishing non-SIGCOV articles on restaurants in different cities is enough. In addition, most of the material in the sources isn't SIGCOV and, thus, I don't believe the restaurant passes the GNG. This is reflected in the article, which is composed mostly of "description" and "reception". The "description" section is unnecessarily detailed and seems entirely trivial. The "reception" section is also quite trivial; actual good information, such as history, is limited. And the restaurant opened fairly recently, in 2019, so there's no historical value in this article either. Nythar ( 💬- 🍀) 19:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. The consensus is to Keep this article but the nominator has taken issue with the sources presented. However, there is no support for deleting this article so I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable film. Was made by an editor blocked for sockpuppeting. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM as it has not received 2 reviews from major publications considered reliable by our standards. Jupitus Smart 03:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Characters of The Legend of Zelda. Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Just like Daruk, which is already nominated for deletion, this character very likely fails GNG. All sources in the Reception section are either Velnet lists (ignored for notability discussions, even more so because they are lists) or discussing wanting the Champions (note the plural) in Smash Ultimate. Outside of the reception section, 7 of the articles sources are primary, most from the same book, and yet even more Velnet, and what isn't Velnet doesn't talk about Revali enough to warrant anything outside of a section in Characters of The Legend of Zelda. This article should be merged into it. Mipha and Urbosa might have potential, though, especially Urbosa. NegativeMP1 ( talk) 05:28, 9 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! 04:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Six appearances for the Belize national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 04:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Coverage is routine funding announcements and PR items, I find nothing about them otherwise. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Overly wordy article for what appears to be a very regional phenomenon. Only RS is the Oregonian article, cited a half-dozen times. Rest are trivial mentions or non RS. Nothing found for this individual, only for the phase. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:07, 9 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! 03:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable musical performer. Article is rife with puffy language. There are no sources that mention her, that aren't PR or paid pieces. Gsearch is straight to social media. This is about all there is for coverage [43]. Perhaps TOOSOON for this artist. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Dalek. Star Mississippi 01:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
As written, this is just a list of non-notable characters that does not go beyond a plot summary - there is nothing to suggest this grouping meets WP:GNG. My BEFORE did not find anything that goes beyond a plot summary, so the best WP:SOFTFDEL alternative I can think of would be to redirect this to Dalek. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023. Liz Read! Talk! 03:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Commonplace shooting in the United States. Article has not progressed from a stub. The content can easily be accommodated in List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023. WWGB ( talk) 03:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2023. The statistics and location are already at that target. Joyous! Noise! 18:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable web-series. Did not receive any reviews from major publications. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Jupitus Smart 02:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
— theMainLogan ( t• c) 03:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. This is a close call, but essentially all of the views to keep have been adequately refuted after several relists, while the arguments to delete, explaining why there is an insufficient amount of sourcing to write a fully-fledged article, have held their ground. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOLYMPICS and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 16:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 19:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk 02:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. There have been no further comments since the last relist, indicating the discussion has run out of steam. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Basically, a list of friendly matches between neighbouring very small islands (Bonaire has some 20000 inhabitants), not between nations but between parts of the same nation. No evidence of notability. Fram ( talk) 07:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0 (
talk) 19:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion of sources is needed. In particular, claims of unreferenced and potentially unverifiable information need to be addressed, as the keep argument at this point is that this and other similar article comprise a useful primary source by providing a complete account of the sport.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk 02:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Was PRODDED by User:Donaldd23 with the rationale "Appears to fail WP:NALBUM", and redirected to another article by Explicit after the PROD expired. However an IP restored the content, claiming that WP:NALBUM doesn't apply to EPs (it does), and invoking WP:OTHERSTUFF. So now we have to come here. This is separate from the "Analogue Bubblebath IV" AfD, but the same sequence of events has brought it here. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 01:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 01:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 01:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
User:Miraclepine, if you have changed the outcome you seek, please cross out the one that no longer reflects your opinion so things are absolutely clear to the next admin who reviews this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 01:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The recording has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it. The guideline further clarifies that
This criterion includes published works in all formsexcepting only school newspapers and press releases. Confusingly, NALBUM seems be operating from a different understanding of what notability is than WP:N, as it goes on to state that
Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article(my emphasis). Thinking too hard about the intended relationship between these guidelines is giving me a headache, so I'll just leave it there. In addition, WP:EDITCONSENSUS reminds us that
Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted.Next, the sources: The sources actually cited/linked in the article are either UGC or self-published. But the above-cited sources seem much better: [51], [52] and [53] are three articles that appear to be entirely about the article subject and to be published in independent reliable sources. In addition, this piece is not wholly about the article subject but has a solid paragraph of coverage, which clears the "nontrivial" bar of NALBUM and the GNG. In sum, the article subject seems to solidly meet the requirements of NALBUM point 1.Conclusion: The article should probably be kept, under both NALBUM and the GNG, because the EP has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works in what appear to be reliable independent sources. However, NALBUM also calls on us to think hard about whether we really have enough material to support a substantial article here. In this respect I would lean toward merging/redirection, as the total sum of information that can be harvested from these sources is not all that large. But I think there is an overriding concern here. Dismissing the anon's argument as WP:OTHERSTUFF misses the mark. As EDITCONSENSUS recognizes, our best guide to the consensus forged over time among knowledgeable editors as to how coverage in this area should be organized is how editors have actually organized that coverage. The existence of similar articles might reasonably be discounted when considering whether to delete or keep, but is worthy of considerable weight when considering whether to keep or merge/redirect. Therefore I believe a keep is preferable to a redirect here. -- Visviva ( talk) 01:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 01:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Procedural nomination per this discussion at RfD. Page was previously a stub article created in 2017, before being BLARred without consensus in 2022. CycloneYoris talk! 01:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
The article primarily uses primary sources and reviews of the series in general, a quick Google search doesn't give sources that prove the character's notability. Spinixster (chat!) 01:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. and Redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Consists entirely of an unsourced plot summary. I was unable to find any sources that prove notability. QuicoleJR ( talk) 01:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
This article stub ( Japanese Occupation Of German Pacific Islands) provides no new information, and is covered in much better detail in the articles Japanese entry into World War I and Japan during World War I. It doesn't even provide any real information on the occupation of German territories, which is the title of the article. Boneyard90 ( talk) 23:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that this is substantially a WP:CFORK of metagame, and that this particular description or definition of the concept is difficult to verify. Sandstein 07:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
"Most effective tactics available" is not what "meta" stands for, but metagame. It seems like a backronym of some kind. See [1]. That makes this article something of a hoax at best. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 23:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
In essence, a "meta" in gaming terminology is a generally agreed upon strategy by the community.
The Representation of Meta in Gaming Today
Meta in gaming is used to describe the latest strategic methods and trends among those who play a particular game.
The meta, or the metagame, is a huge part of competitive gaming that refers to a number of things depending on the game that you play.
The term has become more commonplace in esports, with casters and developers using it to describe what is powerful, or overpowered, in matches.
In the world of gaming, meta is used in two ways. Meta can be used as an acronym for “most effective tactics available,” and calling something “meta” means that it’s an effective way to achieve the goal of the game, whether it’s to beat other players or beat the game itself. Meta can also be short for metagame, which is using information about the game, derived from the world beyond the game or its rules, to influence the outcome of the game or gain a competitive edge.
an approach to a game that transcends or operates outside of the prescribed rules of the game, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game.) in different contexts. I don't think that the idea of using the best strategies is distinct enough from metagaming in general to warrant its own article, and the sourcing on the term "Most effective tactics available" is dubious, but there might be enough to include a sentence or two about it in the etymology section. At the very least all three articles need some cleanup to define their scope. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 19:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
the sourcing on the term "Most effective tactics available" is dubious
All three of Metagame, Metagaming (role-playing games), and Most effective tactics available are discussing the same concept
an approach to a game that transcends or operates outside of the prescribed rules of the gameis very different from
the best way to play a game(definition of meta). Operating outside of the rules is the direct opposite to being the best at a game. In fact, people engage in "metagaming" due to being bored with trying to play the "meta". Kate the mochii ( talk) 02:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
This article begins by defining metagaming as things done outside of the intended rules of the game, but several of the examples and much of the body text in the article define metagaming as simply advanced strategy within the intended rules of a game. Ideally, someone should find a reliable source on what metagaming is, cite it, and rewrite the article to match it. In the worst case, this article should be nominated for deletion as original research until someone can find a clear definition.
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable organization. Mooonswimmer 23:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of first women lawyers and judges in Arizona#State Bar of Arizona. Star Mississippi 20:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. WP:BEFORE check comes up empty regarding secondary sources. Let'srun ( talk) 22:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
People 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.(I am tempted to make an argument that WP:ACADEMIC applies because Arizona law, like the law of any US state, is a distinct field of scholarly work and inquiry, but I'll save my breath.) WP:DGFA reminds us
when in doubt, don't delete, and WP:PRESERVE highlights the importance of keeping content within the positive-sum wiki process whenever possible. Sources: I am not quite persuaded by the other participants' negative view of the sources, for example [10] seems to have a nontrivial amount of secondary content despite also containing interview excerpts, and is from 15 years before Loo became head of the Arizona Bar Association so would appear to be independent. Nonetheless I don't really see a critical mass of coverage here. Conclusion: Suitable for redirection. -- Visviva ( talk) 20:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
lack of any direct influence with the subjects involvedrequirement suggested by the Wikipedia:Independent sources essay. -- Visviva ( talk) 03:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 05:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
This seems absurdly broad in scope when various categories exist. Obviously the list is currently incomplete, but if it were it would cover everything in the Eagle, Beano, Dandy, 2000AD, Viz, Lion, Buster, Battle and Tammy for starters, which I'd estimate at around a thousand plus strips instantly. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 20:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
:Delete I’m sure someone is going to show up and start waving
WP:NLIST and “valid navigational lists” around shortly, but I’m voting per
WP:IAR. Nobody maintains these, they’re wildly over-broad in scope, and most readers arrive from internal links in prose articles and internal/external searches anyway so the benefit of a “navigational” list is negligible. Replace per Thryduulf. Pointless duplicate of existing lists.
Dronebogus (
talk) 23:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Fairy chess piece. Star Mississippi 20:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
A particular piece from a not particularly significant commercial chess variant. Only sources are WP:UGC. A discussion at the chess wikiproject didn't suggest anything promising, and the article creator never responded to this. This New York Times article (which is not in our article) is probably the best thing that's out there, and it's the epitome of a passing mention. PROD on Wizard removed without a substantive justification. I am also nominating the following related page, which suffers from exactly the same issues:
-- JBL ( talk) 17:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Wizard in chess
and Fool in chess
(as searchers are not likely to use parentheses) and the Omega results were in the top 3 or 4 (and so was Potter), which would argue for deletion, unless we're certain what users are searching for.
Mathglot (
talk) 20:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:38, 9 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 20:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I cannot find any significant coverage of this actor, even going back to coverage of In the Heat of the Night. (He was a recurring character, not "co-star" as stated in article.) The sources dumped in the reference section are bare mentions. Most of the article is unsourced, and has been tagged since 2012. Schazjmd (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Another non-notable game show. According to TenPoundHammer ( talk · contribs):
Only 32 hits on Google for "Beach Clash" + "David Hirsch", and the Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows is the only one on GBooks. Newspapers.com only turned up TV Guide listings.
A ProQuest search for "Beach Clash" + Tv show returned only passing mentions, one-sentence announcements, and TV listings. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 14:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
The book provides 237 words of coverage about the subject. The book notes: ""Beach Clash" was a weekly one-hour competition, taped on the beach at Malibu, California that tested the skill, strength, and endurance of two teams of players. Each team was made up of four players, two contenders (one male and one female) and two "hardbodies," show regulars with names like "Sandy," "Breeze," "Ripper," and "Zuma." ... David Hirsch, who had replaced Dick Clark as host on "American Bandstand" and Alison Armitage of the TV series “Acapulco H.E.A.T." co-hosted, with Olympic Gold Medalist Sherri Howard serving as referee. The teams competed in ten events staged on the sand and in the water including "Hot Air Climb," "Bungee Basketball," "King of the Raft," "Beach Bout," and a "Crash and Burn" finale that included a variety of challenges such as a hill climb, a two-person kayak maneuvering a wave-runner around a course, a sprint and sand-crawl and a rope-swing into a pool."
The review provides 204 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "About Beach Clash, for instance, starring muscle-headed "Hardbodies" Ripper, Sandy, Zuma and Breeze. ... Beach Clash (midnight Sundays, Channel 11) - The producers must have their heads in the sand. In other words, don't believe co-host Alison Armitage when she says ... Not to brag, but I do more amazing things with my body by rolling out of bed most days. These competitions, ranging from Hill Climb to Beach Bout, are strictly Dullsville, man. ... Beach Clash's other host, David Hirsch, plays the role of a geek seeking a physique. Ms. Armitage's principal contribution is to giggle at his attempts to be a hardbody in mind, if not body."
The article provides 61 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Beach Clash (syndicated). The Idea: Gladiators meets Baywatch. Sample Games: Hard-bodied contestants have a midsurf tug-of-war and drop from a parasail onto a floating target. The Getup: R-rated bikinis. Filler: Learn about contestants’ career goals while watching them frolic in slow-motion. Fun Bonus: Gratuitous shots of swimsuit-clad women in the shower. Bottom Line: This T&A fest would make Aaron Spelling blush."
The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "After all, what are shows like American Gladiators and Beach Clash if not genially decadent versions of overbuffed Greek gods and goddesses bulging and sweating for the amusement of us rabble?"
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review new sources located.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Morigaon without prejudice to editors creating a new redirect at Ahaturi Natua Gaon. Redirects are not typically moved. signed, Rosguill talk 03:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The article does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG (General Notability Guideline) and the place itself lacks sufficient notability. Saurabh Saha 14:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Can you simplify the ATD proposed?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus for notability, and sources linked show clearly meeting GEOLAND. (non-admin closure) AviationFreak 💬 15:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Article has been flagged as "local" for more than a decade with little improvement. I wasn't able to find anything substantive on Google, though the name may be complicating that search. I would normally suggest merging to Makadara, which is also barely a stub, but the material (e.g. list of hospitals) isn't cited anyway. Matt Deres ( talk) 13:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 08:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd like to hear from more editors who are familiar with
WP:GEOLAND.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to KDE Education Project. Liz Read! Talk! 05:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Most of the content is uncited and promotional. Has been tagged since 2014 without improvement. Cannot find much in the way of sourcing to establish notability. Greenman ( talk) 08:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 08:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
23:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)The result was redirect to List of Sikkim cricketers. Star Mississippi 20:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCRIC PARVAGE talk! 22:02, 9 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. Joyous! Noise! 22:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 21:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! Noise! 22:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 21:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 20:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I think this page is a work of self-promotion and publicity. There are no reliable sources about the subject Soulreaper ( talk) 21:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to The Worst Witch (1998 TV series). Joyous! Noise! 22:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Does not appear to pass WP:GNG, unsourced since 2006. PROD removed with no improvements to address concern DonaldD23 talk to me 21:33, 9 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. Joyous! Noise! 21:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
non notable local company. the cited references are trivial coverage on Curotek and fails NCORP. Graywalls ( talk) 21:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Delete - nothing out there. They haven't even made it into the local newspaper, The Oregonian. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 21:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Joyous! Noise! 21:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
BLP of a minor-league author whose main following seems to be on GoodReads. May be notable for his academic work; let's discuss. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 20:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 20:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Article fails WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Seems to only be of use to those intentionally keeping their PSP on an older version (jailbreaking reasons I assume?) but even that has been rendered pointless long ago. The content is simply a curiosity without encyclopedic relevance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 20:32, 9 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, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable mayor of a suburban town. A BEFORE search brings up only local coverage, and we traditionally do not keep articles on local politicians just because they have received coverage in the local paper per WP:NOT - otherwise every mayor for every town would have an article. SportingFlyer T· C 20:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. Joyous! Noise! 19:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
This was nominated and kept in 2022 based on several "Keep" !votes citing
WP:GEOLAND and
WP:NEXIST. The article meets neither of these guidelines as NEXIST requires sources that, well, exist and GEOLAND requires sources with "verifiable information beyond simple statistics"
. The only non-map/database source is a climber's guide which mentions the lake in passing as a landmark on the way to a destination. This isn't SIGCOV and it tells us nothing about the lake itself aside from its relative location. Given the lack of additional coverage, deletion is appropriate in this case. –
dlthewave
☎ 18:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography.The more general article exists and the lake is included in the redirect target. The difference between redirect or merge is whether to copy across the small amount of information on this page not found in the target. The information is from a trail guide, and WP:NOTGUIDE applies. I don't think Wikipedia articles should be reproducing trail information, although linking to it is fine, perhaps in external links. However I would not object to a considered consensus to merge. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 07:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. Joyous! Noise! 19:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails
WP:GEONATURAL which requires that ""information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist"
. BEFORE searched returned only passing mentions in hiking logs and various lists of natural features, none of which provide any information about the lake beyond its location and basic characteristics. –
dlthewave
☎ 18:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography.The more general article exists and the lake is included in the redirect target. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 22:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. There were a few suggestions to merge to the target article. Any editor is welcome to check over the revision history if they feel that there is some abandoned material that needs to be incorporated into the target. Joyous! Noise! 19:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails
WP:GEONATURAL which requires that ""information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist"
. BEFORE searched returned only passing mentions in hiking logs and various lists of natural features, none of which provide any information about the lake beyond its location and basic characteristics. –
dlthewave
☎ 18:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography.The more general article exists and the lake is included in the redirect target. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 22:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. Joyous! Noise! 19:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails
WP:GEONATURAL which requires that ""information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist"
. BEFORE searched returned only passing mentions in hiking logs and various lists of natural features, none of which provide any information about the lake beyond its location and basic characteristics. –
dlthewave
☎ 18:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography.The more general article exists and the lake is included in the redirect target. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 07:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. Joyous! Noise! 19:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails
WP:GEONATURAL which requires that ""information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist"
. BEFORE searched returned only passing mentions in hiking logs and various lists of natural features, none of which provide any information about the lake beyond its location and basic characteristics. –
dlthewave
☎ 18:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography.The more general article exists and the lake is included in the redirect target. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 22:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Joyous! Noise! 18:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP. Local coverage only. Would need wider coverage to meet WP:AUD. Fails WP:SIRS. scope_creep Talk 17:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
it is only pizza restuarant after all not the pentagonare not based in policy. Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 19:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Joyous! Noise! 18:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Upon closer inspection, the entire Wikipedia page is a promotional page, which is not allowed by Wikipedia itself under CSD G11. The biography refers to self-celebratory publications. The lady is not known in the country under the pseudonym Princess Bee, and the only article that mentions her is a self-published one. She has no publications, no recognitions, and there is no trace of her on the web except through paid advertising outlets.
(statement made at request of anonymous new user who came on #wikipedia-en-help, and who I guided through tagging the article for deletion; prima facie the sources don't look terribly impressive, but I'm not up for assessing them all to see if they're really that terrible.)
DS (
talk) 17:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Thursday (album). Joyous! Noise! 18:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Not every song by this artist is notable. This one has never charted and there are no reviews of the song. Nothing found for this particular musical work. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 14:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Wife of a local politician, with no notability otherwise. Zero sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of political parties in Turkey. History is there if there's sourced material worth merging. There is no consensus to do so at the moment, but the redirect is a viable ATD Star Mississippi 14:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Unsourced since creation over a decade ago, with no real content. Unlikely to be relevant. Vif12vf/Tiberius ( talk) 15:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 17:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 16:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. A clear case for WP:SNOW deletion. JBW ( talk) 09:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
AFD as PROD is contested. Seems to be breaking WP:NOTGUIDE, not encyclopedic, and unsuitable for Wikipedia. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Chittagong Development Authority. Viable ATD. Star Mississippi 14:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Only one primary source. Cannot find any significant coverage of this. Fails WP:SCH. Previous deletion discussion at: WP:Articles_for_deletion/CDA_Public_School_and_College. Qcne (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
No indication of notability; sources are only TikTok, which, besides being user-generated and unreliable, sort of counts as a primary source. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 12:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Editors arguing for delete base their position on the failure to drum up enough available sources to meet GNG; editors arguing for keep point to SNGs and the possibility of print coverage existing. Since we've also established that such coverage would not be accessible/requestable from a typical library, it is essentially impossible to refute either side's analysis. As editors are relatively evenly divided and the discussion is already so long as to dissuade further participation, I'm closing it now as no consensus rather than relist. signed, Rosguill talk 03:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable defunct LPTV station. No sources. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 12:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
While television channel and station articles, like all articles on Wikipedia, must meet the general notability guideline.... This 2021 RfC attempted to make something similar to WP:TVS/STDS into a notability guideline, the proposal was rejected. Hut 8.5 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is the main standard used for determining notability on Wikipedia (and the only standard if the topic doesn't have a more specific guideline, as is the case for broadcast outlets). The subject of this article fails this test - the sources cited are either not reliable, not independent of the subject, or don't present significant coverage of the subject. It's OK if the article cites sources which don't pass all three of these tests, but there does need to be a source which does for the subject to be notable. Yes, it's fine to cite the station website for what that station broadcasts, but the fact you can do that doesn't show it meets the general notability guideline, because it's not an independent source. It's also very much not OK to write an article primarily based on sources which aren't independent of the subject - see the verifiability policy. The obituary also fails this test - it doesn't show significant coverage of the subject (the TV station gets one sentence in it) and it doesn't appear to be a reliable source. It certainly is not the case that all news outlets are reliable sources, and this obituary doesn't appear to have been written by the news site themselves anyway.
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Routine coverage here fails WP:GNG. Uhooep ( talk) 12:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Most of the coverage is based on primary sources: either her speaking as a subject-matter expert or giving interviews. In-depth secondary sources are lacking, and therefore, it fails to meet the WP:GNG criteria. I managed to find this article, but it's of low quality and only discusses her event. I also failed to find independent reviews of her so-called best-selling books. Mercenf ( talk) 10:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Sin (video game). Sourcing is of insufficient depth to support a standalone article Star Mississippi 14:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I really was hoping this article would survive because from the heavy sourcing, one would assume there's meat there. However 99% of the sources all say the same thing: "she's sexy", with about that much depth. There is one character analysis in a scholarly paper and a book excerpt that examines her role as the protagonist' shadow in the first game, but those by themselves are not enough to carry the article. Other book mentions are trivial and list her alongside other characters in the vein of "Lara Croft led to this". In the end, it's another Niemti Special, complete with some sources that don't actually say what they're cited for, and magazines not fully cited so I can't verify their contents. Kung Fu Man ( talk) 09:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy close, as a bold move because it is unclear if the nomination is really about The Myth or about a vandalized version of the article that has since been reverted (see below). Also, the article does indeed have a source. User:QuickQuokka is welcome to re-nominate The Myth for deletion if that was the original intention, but a more descriptive rationale should be included. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC) ( non-admin closure)
Not notable, no sources, just seems like fancruft QuickQuokka [ talk • contribs 08:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 09:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
The page was apparently created by the subject (Dsarma23). It has been speedy-nominated once 10 years ago and PRODed 4 years ago. See: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=iRIZTYAAAAAJ&hl=en. I agree with the PROD nominator, who said "Does not appear to meet notability guidelines for academics, authors, or even simply the general notability guidelines." Chamaemelum ( talk) 08:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. I just want to add to the enthusiastic page creator that editors here are saying WP:TOOSOON which doesn't mean NEVER, it just means NOTRIGHTNOW. If you need a copy of this article, contact me or go to WP:REFUND or talk with another administrator. Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
This page appears to be self-proclaimed OR: User Gigitoe says elsewhere (Reddit) that he made up the name. So this surely does not belong in WP, at least for a few years. Imaginatorium ( talk) 07:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This is despite scoring five international goals, albeit for the Papua New Guinea national football team. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
NYC Guru (
talk) 07:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, may help in this case? — siro χ o 09:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
People 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, and that
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.In turn, WP:SIGCOV states that
significant coverageaddresses the topic sufficiently directly and in sufficient detail that
no original research is needed to extract the content.It also clarifies that the article subject
does not need to be the main topic of the source material.Second, the relevant sources: Among sources cited here and in the article, we have some articles for which Ati Kepo makes up 1/4 to 1/2 of the article topic, and which contain substantial biographical information about him in particular: [34], [35], [36]. As the biographical content can be extracted without any hint of original research, these are squarely within both the letter and the spirit of SIGCOV. We also have some articles in which Kepo makes up 1/4-1/2 of the article topic but which do not contain much biographical information: e.g. [37], [38]. We also have at least two RS articles in which Ati Kepo is the main topic, but with little biographical information: [39], [40]. These latter sources also appear to be plainly within the letter of WP:SIGCOV, although perhaps not within its spirit (since they furnish little in the way of article material). (These latter articles also go to show that Kepo is "notable" in the colloquial sense of "important", which is not relevant under policy but for some reason has often proven relevant to AFD outcomes.)Conclusion: Even applying the rules with the greatest rigidity (which is rarely required), this article still qualifies under NBIO because the article subject has
received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. -- Visviva ( talk) 22:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Most of this article is based on one restaurant review from Sydney Morning Herald. I'm not sure if Broadsheet is a reliable source but it's another review. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar ( talk) 04:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
"the reviews must be published outside of purely local ... interest publications", and then links to WP:AUD, which states that
"attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". The Sydney Morning Herald is a generally local newspaper, and so is the Herald Sun, which focuses on Melbourne. While both newspapers are located in different cities (Pretty Little is located in Victoria), I'm not convinced that reviewers for two local newspapers publishing non-SIGCOV articles on restaurants in different cities is enough. In addition, most of the material in the sources isn't SIGCOV and, thus, I don't believe the restaurant passes the GNG. This is reflected in the article, which is composed mostly of "description" and "reception". The "description" section is unnecessarily detailed and seems entirely trivial. The "reception" section is also quite trivial; actual good information, such as history, is limited. And the restaurant opened fairly recently, in 2019, so there's no historical value in this article either. Nythar ( 💬- 🍀) 19:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. The consensus is to Keep this article but the nominator has taken issue with the sources presented. However, there is no support for deleting this article so I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable film. Was made by an editor blocked for sockpuppeting. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM as it has not received 2 reviews from major publications considered reliable by our standards. Jupitus Smart 03:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Characters of The Legend of Zelda. Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Just like Daruk, which is already nominated for deletion, this character very likely fails GNG. All sources in the Reception section are either Velnet lists (ignored for notability discussions, even more so because they are lists) or discussing wanting the Champions (note the plural) in Smash Ultimate. Outside of the reception section, 7 of the articles sources are primary, most from the same book, and yet even more Velnet, and what isn't Velnet doesn't talk about Revali enough to warrant anything outside of a section in Characters of The Legend of Zelda. This article should be merged into it. Mipha and Urbosa might have potential, though, especially Urbosa. NegativeMP1 ( talk) 05:28, 9 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! 04:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Six appearances for the Belize national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 04:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Coverage is routine funding announcements and PR items, I find nothing about them otherwise. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Overly wordy article for what appears to be a very regional phenomenon. Only RS is the Oregonian article, cited a half-dozen times. Rest are trivial mentions or non RS. Nothing found for this individual, only for the phase. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:07, 9 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! 03:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable musical performer. Article is rife with puffy language. There are no sources that mention her, that aren't PR or paid pieces. Gsearch is straight to social media. This is about all there is for coverage [43]. Perhaps TOOSOON for this artist. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Dalek. Star Mississippi 01:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
As written, this is just a list of non-notable characters that does not go beyond a plot summary - there is nothing to suggest this grouping meets WP:GNG. My BEFORE did not find anything that goes beyond a plot summary, so the best WP:SOFTFDEL alternative I can think of would be to redirect this to Dalek. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023. Liz Read! Talk! 03:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Commonplace shooting in the United States. Article has not progressed from a stub. The content can easily be accommodated in List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023. WWGB ( talk) 03:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2023. The statistics and location are already at that target. Joyous! Noise! 18:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable web-series. Did not receive any reviews from major publications. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Jupitus Smart 02:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
— theMainLogan ( t• c) 03:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. This is a close call, but essentially all of the views to keep have been adequately refuted after several relists, while the arguments to delete, explaining why there is an insufficient amount of sourcing to write a fully-fledged article, have held their ground. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOLYMPICS and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 16:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 19:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk 02:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. There have been no further comments since the last relist, indicating the discussion has run out of steam. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Basically, a list of friendly matches between neighbouring very small islands (Bonaire has some 20000 inhabitants), not between nations but between parts of the same nation. No evidence of notability. Fram ( talk) 07:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0 (
talk) 19:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion of sources is needed. In particular, claims of unreferenced and potentially unverifiable information need to be addressed, as the keep argument at this point is that this and other similar article comprise a useful primary source by providing a complete account of the sport.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk 02:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Was PRODDED by User:Donaldd23 with the rationale "Appears to fail WP:NALBUM", and redirected to another article by Explicit after the PROD expired. However an IP restored the content, claiming that WP:NALBUM doesn't apply to EPs (it does), and invoking WP:OTHERSTUFF. So now we have to come here. This is separate from the "Analogue Bubblebath IV" AfD, but the same sequence of events has brought it here. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 01:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 01:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 01:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
User:Miraclepine, if you have changed the outcome you seek, please cross out the one that no longer reflects your opinion so things are absolutely clear to the next admin who reviews this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 01:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The recording has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it. The guideline further clarifies that
This criterion includes published works in all formsexcepting only school newspapers and press releases. Confusingly, NALBUM seems be operating from a different understanding of what notability is than WP:N, as it goes on to state that
Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article(my emphasis). Thinking too hard about the intended relationship between these guidelines is giving me a headache, so I'll just leave it there. In addition, WP:EDITCONSENSUS reminds us that
Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted.Next, the sources: The sources actually cited/linked in the article are either UGC or self-published. But the above-cited sources seem much better: [51], [52] and [53] are three articles that appear to be entirely about the article subject and to be published in independent reliable sources. In addition, this piece is not wholly about the article subject but has a solid paragraph of coverage, which clears the "nontrivial" bar of NALBUM and the GNG. In sum, the article subject seems to solidly meet the requirements of NALBUM point 1.Conclusion: The article should probably be kept, under both NALBUM and the GNG, because the EP has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works in what appear to be reliable independent sources. However, NALBUM also calls on us to think hard about whether we really have enough material to support a substantial article here. In this respect I would lean toward merging/redirection, as the total sum of information that can be harvested from these sources is not all that large. But I think there is an overriding concern here. Dismissing the anon's argument as WP:OTHERSTUFF misses the mark. As EDITCONSENSUS recognizes, our best guide to the consensus forged over time among knowledgeable editors as to how coverage in this area should be organized is how editors have actually organized that coverage. The existence of similar articles might reasonably be discounted when considering whether to delete or keep, but is worthy of considerable weight when considering whether to keep or merge/redirect. Therefore I believe a keep is preferable to a redirect here. -- Visviva ( talk) 01:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 01:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Procedural nomination per this discussion at RfD. Page was previously a stub article created in 2017, before being BLARred without consensus in 2022. CycloneYoris talk! 01:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
The article primarily uses primary sources and reviews of the series in general, a quick Google search doesn't give sources that prove the character's notability. Spinixster (chat!) 01:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. and Redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Consists entirely of an unsourced plot summary. I was unable to find any sources that prove notability. QuicoleJR ( talk) 01:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)