![]() |
The result was keep. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 05:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Most presidential children are not notable in their own right. Interstellarity ( talk) 23:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Final Fight (video game). I assume this is the correct Merge target. Please be specific when requesting a Redirect or Merge. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Sane with Robert Garcia (Art of Fighting). This is just another minor character clearly fails WP:GNG. Despite being written long, sources were mostly from trivia mentions and listicles. Showing zero WP:SIGCOV afterall as per WP:BEFORE. GlatorNator ( ᴛ) 22:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Not the type of "Place of Interest" that belongs to Wikipedia. No references either. Citations101 ( talk) 21:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
The article only provides one source for the subject’s biography, which is a web article from HotRod.com. This source may not be considered reliable or independent, as it is a website that focuses on automotive topics and may have a conflict of interest or bias towards the subject. The article does not provide any other sources that cover the subject’s life, career, achievements, awards, or impact. Therefore, the article may not show that the subject meets the notability criteria for people. DarklarkOxs ( talk) 21:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
many of which are more about the cars rather than the manYes, I addressed this above. I think the most appropriate notability guideline to apply here is WP:CREATIVE, which states a person in a creative profession is notable if
The person's work (or works) has: ... (c) won significant critical attention. His car builds have received coverage in motoring related journalism and have won awards, this implies he has received critical attention and is therefore notable.
the article body is all of 3 choppy sentencesthe content in or state of the article does not determine notability. WP:ARTN.
Is this about proving a point?Why have you immediately jumped to assumptions of bad faith? Once you voted delete I did a few searches and very quickly found multiple full length pieces of coverage of his work, implying he was notable, and accordingly provided a few example links while voting keep. 192.76.8.86 ( talk) 01:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Perfection is not requiredand
Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.are part of the core editing policy ( WP:IMPERFECT)? Because the point of AFD is to evaluate whether a topic is suitable for inclusion, not to improve pages ( WP:NOTCLEANUP)? Because you have no right whatsoever to make demands on how other volunteers should spend their time ( WP:NOTCOMPULSORY)? 192.76.8.86 ( talk) 01:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Courcelles ( talk) 21:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The article did not show that the team has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The only sources you provided were CricketArchive and Scores & Biographies, which are not considered reliable or independent for this purpose. You also did not provide any context or history of the team, or explain why it is notable or relevant. DarklarkOxs ( talk) 21:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
The article is clearly not notable. It was created in 2005, but still cites no WP:RS. The only reference is to the webpage of the original article creator, Stephen George Bailey. It is not listed in any major sources like Parlett or McLeod ( pagat.com) and the only online references cite the same web page by Bailey. Unless WP:RS can be found it should be deleted. Bermicourt ( talk) 20:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
No evidence of any notability. Most of the refs are download sites and the only reviews are trivial media sources listing games available.Fails WP:GNG. Searches found nothing better. Velella Velella Talk 20:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Article about a Youtuber or content creator that doesn't meet our WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV criteria. Jamiebuba ( talk) 20:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes I am aware, fixing it now — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarklarkOxs ( talk • contribs) 20:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
unreliable sites and social media. WP:NN. Dorsetonian ( talk) 20:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I believe this page should be deleted because no clear consensus has been formed on what its purpose should be. It has numerous issues that have persisted over the years, and a variety of editors have created conflicting and confusing edits and redirects. In addition, this page is highly repetitive with numerous other pages that list and discuss D&D monsters in various contexts.
I originally wrote this page to be a holistic explanation of D&D monsters--an attempt to create a high-level overview. As an example, the page currently includes some discussion of the belief that monster-fighting is itself "sociopathic." This discussion is not about any specific monster per se, but rather the concept of fighting monsters to gain experience. At the time I created the page, this discussion seemed noteworthy but did not clearly fit in existing pages.
However, it is clear that the D&D pages are organized differently, and this page does not fit into the overall D&D project. This page has created more problems than it has solved, and I believe its existence lowers the quality and clarity of all D&D pages. The talk page for this article is, in my view, a record of this article's confused purpose, the errors it's generated, etc.
Attempts have been made to fix these problems through edits, but this has resulted in stagnant editor conflicts while the article itself has only gotten worse--less clarity of purpose, more confusing edits, etc. So I propose deleting outright.
My rationale in bullet point:
Geethree ( talk) 19:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. – Joe ( talk) 07:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Contested draftification without improvement. Not a single in-depth source so fails WP:GNG, and no sourcing to show this meets WP:GEOLAND. Onel5969 TT me 12:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bruxton (
talk)
04:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
14:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Guerillero
Parlez Moi
19:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Prodded, then restored, currently not enough sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:VERIFY, and searches did not turn up enough to show it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 09:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Aoidh (
talk)
18:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Some debate that this may be a hoax. [14] I cannot say it is certainly a hoax, as the name may be properly Gaius Titus, which may possibly refer to Titus Quinctius Flamininus based on a source I placed on the talk page. Yet, if it is about Flamininus then we have a much better article on him, and there is literally nothing here we can merge as it is all uncited. No good source links the Latin phrase to him either. Thus this should just be deleted. It is either a hoax or else it is an ill informed duplicate of an existing page. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 18:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
No indication of being notable. Refs are a mix of 404's, profiles and blog entries for what is a WP:BLP. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep Talk 14:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Fictional alien race that has not met notability standards since its creation. Fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 14:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Transformers: Prime#Cast and characters. – Joe ( talk) 07:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Article is laking any WP:SIGCOV. It relies mostly on primary and CBR sources. Most are either listicles, rankings and passing mentions. WP:BEFORE shows nothing but full of trivial CBR sources. GlatorNator ( ᴛ) 13:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete based in part on the consensus reached in the last discussion and no suggestion that notability has since been established. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Previously deleted, the sourcing is dubious and unreliable (see the previous AfD discussion). Already covered somewhere else and only exist for a very brief amount of time and not notable as its immediatly transfered to Japanese control. Nyanardsan ( talk) 06:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
t
c
18:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable politician, fails WP:NPOL. Yasal Shahid ( talk) 12:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to GoldenPalace.com. ✗ plicit 13:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Previously deleted and recreated with no basis. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform, and there is no indication of why this hoax is important. Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Doesn't qualify for Unusual eBay listings since it was sold on Yahoo. See the similar and removed Among Us chicken nugget. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 12:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) Bruxton ( talk) 22:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
WP:OR. There was one, very obscure short film "The Mini-Killers". The claims about the series of 4 and the tank station use can apparently only be found at a youtube video (in itself probably a copyvio of the copyright owners of the movie) from a channel with 135 subscribers, with as far as I can tell a total lack of reliability. Removing these claims would leave a very short stub about a short film which received hardly any attention. A redirect to Diana Rigg may be a good WP:ATD. Fram ( talk) 12:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
round the same time she made the obscure foreign shorts – The Diadem and Mini-Killers, made in 1966 and 69 respectively – which played up to the sex bomb persona. Indeed, these shorts could be seen as unofficial Avengers episodes .... Distributed on 8mm, there’s a psychedelic, sleazy quality to them, and
“So far, nobody has come forward with an explanation of how either Das Diadem or The Mini-Killers came into being or how Rigg became involved with the projects,” wrote biographer Kathleen Tracy., and
Mini-Killers, made in Spain, looks like a bit more cash behind it .... It’s in colour, and has Bond-like aspirations with its exotic locales. The story is told in four parts: slinking around in various Sixties styles .... Rigg investigates a group of assassins who use a killer doll that sprays a poison from its eyes (Q Branch, this is not)., and
Mini-Killers directed by Wolfgang von Chmielewski, who was from the German TV station WDR, and co-starred José Nieto and Jack Rocha, who appeared in Spanish exploitation flicks. Versions of Mini-Killers range between 28 and 42 minutes, depending on if you're watching a slightly sped-up version.Skynxnex ( talk) 19:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
This was previously nominated for deletion in 2008 as part of a broad discussion of all similar list articles. I don't advocate that, but this list in particular is poorly sourced and has few links to existing articles. 331dot ( talk) 11:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Fails GNG and NBAD. No coverage seen, accomplishments not significant enough to guarantee presumed notability. Timothytyy ( talk) 11:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 13:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Fails GNG and SNG. No coverage found online. Timothytyy ( talk) 11:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 13:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
The article fails the notability test and may be WP:OR. It is entirely uncited despite being created over 15 years ago and I can find no mention of it either at pagat.com or in comprehensive sources like David Parlett's Penguin Book of Card Games (2008). Even an Internet search produced nothing concrete other than clones of this page. Unless someone can produce WP:RS to support it, it seems a clear candidate for deletion. Bermicourt ( talk) 10:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
No refs on the page for many years. I don't speak the relevant languages/dialects but I'm not seeing much that would count towards notability in AfD on en.wiki JMWt ( talk) 10:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Verifiability issues, mostly unreferenced list. Merko ( talk) 10:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus to delete. Discussions to stubify, rename or redirect can continue on the respective talk pages. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 ( t • c) 15:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. The article just relies on primary sources and commercial links. Xexerss ( talk) 05:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
01:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0 (
talk)
10:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 23:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Hard to Google test on, but not reliably sourced. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 04:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Alternatively, instead of deleting, possibly redirecting to List of musical groups from Estonia may be the best solution-- Estopedist1 ( talk) 06:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
00:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0 (
talk)
10:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
No indication this is a legally recognized place, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 16:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0 (
talk)
10:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
The organization has not been proven to be notable. Brunnaiz ( talk) 21:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥
𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆
(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥
19:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0 (
talk)
10:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Searching the band’s name in both English and Persian results YT videos and some non-RS blogs only. Fails WP:NBAND. Htanaungg ( talk) 05:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
07:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0 (
talk)
09:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
This was created by UPE sockfarm. We need an another review of this. Coverage is local, seems to fail WP:SIGCOV. US-Verified ( talk) 11:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0 (
talk)
09:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Lack of notability for the topic to have its own article. Chronikhiles (talk) 07:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0 (
talk)
09:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH, WP:NOTDICT, this article just haphazardly strings together any use of the WP:WEASEL word "intellectual" under the presumption that they are all related. It should just be redirected to Intelligentsia. - car chasm ( talk) 21:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
09:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
t
c
17:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)The result was no consensus. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 23:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
While it gets mentions, there is not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 11:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
ARC tested GPT-4's capability to plan, replicate itself, acquire resources, remain hidden on a server, and conduct phishing attacksis a very close copy of the Ars Technica story. (Like the rest of the news I've looked at so far, that story doesn't cover the ARC as an organization in a way that the relevant notability guideline is met.) The sentence beginning
ARC also found that GPT-4...is close enough to the Yahoo Finance story to count as copyvio. The line
ARC has been expanding from theoretical work into empirical research, industry collaborations, and policylooks like it was written first and then had citations tacked on, one to the ARC's own website and the other to an online magazine of unknown reliability that mentions it in passing. Neither source supports the statement very well. In short: not covered as an organization, and the text would need a total rewrite to ensure it complies with policy, and indeed with basic academic ethics. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. Therefore, for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company. The situation here is analogous. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk)
11:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
09:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Anna Nicole Smith. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO. This article is basically a coatrack for a lot of stuff about his mother. 3/4 of it isn't even about him. Here's what we know about him: 1) his mother was famous, 2) He appeared on her reality TV show a handful of times, 3) He died of an overdose. Notability is not established, nor even a valid claim of notability made here. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 02:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. While it might seem like a slam-dunk, most of the Delete voters are editors with low edit counts and so not much familiarity with AFD. I'd like to see more investigation and evaluation of existing sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
09:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Right to silence in Australia. Courcelles ( talk) 20:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
The topic that the page discusses is already very well discussed at Right to silence#Australia, and at a much greater length. A WP:BLAR was contested by page creator. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs) 08:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Golden Lotus (musical). Clear consensus against a standalone page, argument for a redirect not specifically rebutted. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Non notable song which "won" awards from "film festivals" which churn out countless awards for whoever pays, but don't have actual screenings, notability, importance, ... Part of a walled garden of articles promoting a musical and the people around it, which should all get some scrutiny: but this one seems to be the worst when it comes to notability (the others were already deleted in the past though, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Chiang). ProD was removed with the addition of sources, but as these were the website of the singer and the Apple music store [46], they didn't help to solve the problem. Fram ( talk) 08:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The review notes: "A World Away, is the signature pop ballad from the award-winning musical, Golden Lotus. Sung by award-nominated singer Harriet Chung and written by award-winning composer George Chiang, the song transcends time with a heart wrenching message about missing the person you love."
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 13:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Another contested draftification without improvement. Found several mentions, but not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
2023-04 move to →
Draft:Lance Hayward at the Half Moon Hotel, Volume 2
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0 (
talk)
07:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Article about a film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, every film is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- films have to pass notability markers, such as notable film awards and/or the reception of enough reliable source coverage about the film to pass WP:GNG. But the referencing here consists of two directory entries that aren't support for notability at all, and glancing namechecks of the film's existence in coverage of its lead actor as a person, with no sources shown that are actually about the film -- and fundamentally, the notability claim is that the film exists, which isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to be better than it is. Bearcat ( talk) 13:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0 (
talk)
07:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. 3 weeks of discussion. Time to call it. Courcelles ( talk) 20:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Was up for PROD but saved with the addition of a single interview. There are a few paragraphs of seemingly independent reporting at the top of that article so it could be a good source, but if it's the only one that's getting found then this still isn't showing notability. As I said in the PROD, one #1 hit on (what looks to be unless I'm mistaken) a minor Billboard chart isn't promising, and though this is no longer totally unsourced, there are still no other apparent points of notability. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 14:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0 (
talk)
07:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Not finding notability in sources, Gsearch is straight to social media. Dying in a traffic accident isn't notable, rest of their career appears non-notable. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0 (
talk)
07:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Clear failure of WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Zero secondary sources cited, zero passable secondary sources found through a web search. IceBergYYC ( talk) 05:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete (G5, creation by a blocked sockpuppet) Materialscientist ( talk) 07:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCOMPANY, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. One of the sources provided is a deadlink and the other is an inclusion on a membership list - neither demonstrate the record lable is notable. Dan arndt ( talk) 05:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Despite a relatively even vote count, no rebuttal was made to the source analyses which clearly undermine arguments of notability. signed, Rosguill talk 00:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 04:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
JoelleJay ( talk) 23:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)For definitions of primary sources:
The University of Nevada, Reno Libraries define primary sources as providing "an inside view of a particular event". They offer as examples: original documents, such as [...] interviews, [...]"
Duke University Libraries offers this definition: "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include [...] interviews, [...]"
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.Frank Anchor 03:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Vanuatu U23 football coach, Etienne Mermer, stood by his players and congratulated them for reaching the semi-final of the OFC Men’s Olympic qualifiers. [62]
[press release from Vanuatu Football] [63]
with Vanuatu coach Etienne Mermer and coach Leo Moli putting in Azariah Soromon at number minute. (+quotes) [64]
The Vanuatu Football Federation (VFF) has confirmed that Assistant U20 coach Etienne Mermer will not join the management team of the U20 squad of Vanuatu where he stayed for the World Cup in Korea in May. [...] Mermer's Thomas and Kaltak were part of the U20 squad that defeated the Solomon Islands in the U20 semifinal in Vanuatu last year... [65]
[literally all coverage is "Mermer said"], and anyway the article is a press release from VFF
[youtube interview from OFC], [youtube video from sports ministry]
[blog post] [66]
Suri’s opposite number Etienne Mermer despite having a good number of experienced players featured in the 2017 FIFA U-20 World Cup says... (+quotes) [67]
[OFC PR] [68]
The result was speedy delete (G5, creation by a blocked sockpuppet) Materialscientist ( talk) 07:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
As per the previous AfD, the article fails the requirements of WP:NCOMPANY, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The only source provided does not even mention GP records. Dan arndt ( talk) 04:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
this genre does not exist FMSky ( talk) 04:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I found no significant press coverage in my searches. To that end, this should likely be re-directed to the film that covers the case he investigated as a part of the FBI. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! ( talk) 04:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I could not find significant coverage to meet WP:ARTIST or WP:BIO. The awards are not verified but I don't believe they are major enough to meet WP:ARTIST. LibStar ( talk) 03:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. A possible rename can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
The topic of this article appears to be overly broad and adequately covered by other articles. What the article calls "National IP policies"—such as patent and copyright terms—are very different from, for example, university IP licensing agreements and corporate transparency/trade secrets. There does not appear to be a good reason to conflate each of those distinct concepts in a single article. Moreover, those concepts are all dealt with more extensively in other articles, such as Technology transfer (for universities), Intellectual property (for broad policy considerations in forming a national/international IP regime), and Trade secrets. As this article is poorly sourced and has several tone issues, I do not think merger is appropriate (or really possible) and recommend deletion. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 01:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
01:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The source analysis favoring deletion received no rebuttal. signed, Rosguill talk 23:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:WRITER. I wasn't able to find any coverage of him in reliable secondary sources. The article relies too heavily on primary sources (which can't be used to establish notability), with three of the five cited sources having been written by him and one being an article from the student newspaper of the university he attended (which is not independent of him and can't be used to establish notability). The article currently cites only one independent source, a local news article. His only claims to notability are co-authoring two books (neither one notable) and writing for a local newspaper; all of this received only minor local coverage in his hometown. Baronet13 ( talk) 02:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
*Weak keep. Here is another source
[69] which mentions Barron by name and discusses the content of the book that Barron wrote. I would say that this barely meets the threshold for in-depth.
Adler3 (
talk)
03:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Comments | Source |
---|---|
Primary, fails IS | 1. Barron, Judy; Barron, Sean (2002-04-08). There's a Boy in Here: Emerging from the Bonds of Autism. Future Horizons. ISBN 978-1-885477-86-6. |
Primary, fails IS | 2. ^ Grandin, Temple; Barron, Sean (2005-11-01). The Unwritten Rules of Social Relationships: Decoding Social Mysteries Through the Unique Perspectives of Autism. Future Horizons. ISBN 978-1-932565-06-5. |
Interview | 3. ^ Blundo, Joe (2008-04-29). "With help, reporter broke bonds of autism". The Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved 2009-04-12. |
Interview | 4. ^ Tate, Ashley (2008-05-01). "One story of autism". The Jambar. Archived from the original on 2011-07-17. Retrieved 2009-04-12. |
Primary, fails IS | 5. ^ Barron, Sean; Barron, Judy (2002). There's A Boy In Here: Emerging from the Bonds of Autism. Austin, Tex.: Future Horizons. ISBN 978-1-885477-86-6 – via Google Books. |
The result was no consensus. No apparent consensus whether sources satisfy SIGCOV, with good arguments both for and against. Randykitty ( talk) 12:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, as all but one of the sources are either promotional, from the venue or largely an interview. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs) 02:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
*Delete No SIGCOV
Adler3 (
talk)
04:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The review notes: "Is it The Bird? Yes. Is it plain? No, it’s super fresh. Sure, this pokey, charmingly DIY room serves drinks from midday, but it’s as much a place for enjoying art and song as it is somewhere to whet the whistle. ... But as an incubator for some of Perth’s more niche artists, The Bird nails it. Psych rockers, quirky illustrators, crate-diggers: these are just some of the people whose handiwork one can admire with a cold – and fairly priced – drink in hand. ... Don’t be put off by The Bird’s alternative leanings. Despite championing the non-mainstream, the venue and its staff extend a warm welcome to all, from lone wolves with a midday thirst to parties of dolled-up girls out to paint the town red."
The review notes: "Inside, The Bird looks like a big jam room for the resident band. Simple fixtures, plain wooden floors and cheap tiles behind the bar create the impression that this isn’t a bar but a well-catered house party. The low-spec look works, though, because none of it’s taken too seriously. While most bar designers do the exposed brick thing because they think it’s cool, The Bird’s done it to save a few bob. If the random eclectica gets too much, head out back for the best spot: a starlit, open-air courtyard."
The website's independent editorial policy notes: "We do not seek or accept payment from the cafes, restaurants, bars and shops listed in the Directory – inclusion is at our discretion. Venue profiles are written by independent freelancers paid by Broadsheet."
The review provides 149 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "The Bird hosts diverse tunes, from solo artists to bands and DJs, between five and seven nights a week. But there’s as much conversation and conviviality as there is music appreciation, particularly in the rear open-air area. It has been extended to fit in even more op-shop couches and repurposed armchairs."
There is editorial oversight according to https://concreteplayground.com/sydney/about-us Internet Archive. Suz Tucker serves as editorial director. The review provides 249 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "The Bird is known as a hipster haven, but don't hold that against it. A small bar with a gorgeous outdoor area complete with fairy-light-wrapped trees, it's a venue that was designed by friends for friends. Back in 2010, a group of beer-loving buddies gutted the William Street site and it's since played host to exhibition launches, spoken word nights, dance parties and, of course, live music. Indeed, The Bird has been a comfortable home for Northbridge creatives for the past eight years."
The article provides 95 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "The Bird is a live music venue, based in Northbridge, that thrives on good vibes. The Bird hosts a range of live entertainment, exposing up-and-coming local musicians, monthly story telling night, the infamous Hip-Hop Kara"YO!"ke and international heavyweights playing intimate shows."
The article provides 66 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Another Northbridge venue that’s prime for hangouts when live music isn’t on offer. It’s one of the most inviting venues around, and after a while in the beer garden, you begin to feel like you’re chilling in a mate’s backyard. We caught up with San Cisco there as they were gearing up to release Gracetown and they rattled off a couple of acoustic numbers for us."
Western Independent is a newspaper run by Curtin University journalism students, so it contributes less to notability. The article notes: "The William Street Bird is a small, unassuming venue, sitting in a row of stores at the mouth of Northbridge. The Bird has served as a live music venue and bar for more than a decade after being opened in 2010. Current owner Kabir Ramasary, who bought the venue in 2017, says his own positive experiences at The Bird influenced his purchase. ... Aside from its bar and kitchen, The Bird hosts a range of entertainment, from live music across genres to festival events such as Soul Alphabet to drag shows. It is also famous for Monday Milk, one of the few opportunities in Perth for new bands to have the stage."
The article notes that the new live music bar in Northbridge called the Bridge was owned by The William Street Bird owner Mike O'Hanlon. The article does not contribute much to notability, so I am including it in this section.
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
https://archive.ph/2023.05.22-093230/https://infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news/1500B6A266EA4BA8&f=basic | ![]() |
✘ No | ||
https://web.archive.org/web/20230522093514/https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa/the-bird-ng-79c6b562089e93b2e72539b1485ffd66 | ![]() |
✘ No | ||
https://web.archive.org/web/20230522093819/https://www.broadsheet.com.au/perth/northbridge/bars/the-bird | ![]() |
✘ No | ||
https://web.archive.org/web/20230522094251/https://concreteplayground.com/perth/bars/the-bird | ![]() |
✘ No | ||
https://web.archive.org/web/20230522101327/https://themusic.com.au/news/wam-awards-2016-most-popular-venue/KTk6PTw_PiE/12-10-16 | ![]() |
✘ No | ||
https://web.archive.org/web/20230522101836/https://themusic.com.au/news/the-best-live-music-venues-wa-has-to-offer/XvtxcHNydXQ/30-10-15 | ![]() |
✘ No | ||
https://web.archive.org/web/20230522094719/https://westernindependent.com.au/2021/10/28/reimaging-the-gay-club/ | ![]() |
✘ No | ||
https://web.archive.org/web/20230522094719/https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/the-bird-fights-early-closing-time-20100223-oz5h.html | ![]() |
✘ No | ||
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.
very brief, incomplete stubusing that source. It is composed entirely of trivial coverage. That means it fails SIGCOV according to CORPDEPTH. You can examine the other sources this way, and you'll find that none of them contain SIGCOV. (The university paper source is somewhat in-depth but is very local, and therefore fails SIGCOV per #Audience.) — Nythar ( 💬- 🍀) 09:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.To add to this, consider the fact that any organization or company that has at least one SIGCOV source (assuming it is both reliable and independent) may have an article. But if that "SIGCOV" source alone can only result in a single-sentence stub, then it isn't SIGCOV. I'm not making up rules; refrain from accusing me of this, and communicate civilly. Nythar ( 💬- 🍀) 10:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability"; one of the criteria is "
Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth." What is it about this that is so difficult to understand? Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other, and each source must meet all the criteria, one of which is SIGCOV. You're forcing me to need to clarify such obvious points, that my replies here seem to be "badgering." Anyway, we've gotten past that point; SIGCOV is only determined individually here. Moving on, the problem with regards to the 8 sources is that they do not contain "
significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth." Why do I think this? I think this because (and I hope you'll stop belittling my position), if an article like the one I listed below cannot have meaningful, useful information derived from it which can be used in a Wikipedia article, then it does not qualify as "
addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth." Why is this the case? If you read through the source below, you'll see that all the information is trivial and nothing there can be used in a Wikipedia article. It is superficial in coverage, reading more like a PROMO than a neutral article. Again, I do not know why you find it difficult to understand this. You're focusing on minor points that you think I got wrong rather than the bigger picture I'm painting. In addition to all this, your tone is quite condescending. You accuse me of failing to understand guidelines even though you (as I have demonstrated) do not understand this guideline. Adding to this, my experiment wasn't imaginary nonsense; noting once again that SIGCOV is determined individually per SIRS, if you can't use any part of a source in an article (since it focuses on drink prices and very minor trivialities), then it doesn't qualify as SIGCOV. These trivialities include "
this pokey, charmingly DIY room serves drinks from midday" and "
A succinct wine list that includes Mitolo pinot grigio ($9 a glass)" and "
The Bird is also licensed to sell takeaway alcohol" and "
The bar team, meanwhile, hasn’t gone too crazy with its cocktails" and "
the venue and its staff extend a warm welcome to all" and "
the bartenders’ smiles are genuine." How is the coverage significant if it focuses on such trivialities? Well, it isn't. It fails the "
addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth" part of SIRS. The rest of the sources also fail this point (literally try checking them out yourself). Before you decide to respond, please rethink your positions and comments carefully, because even I am not entirely sure I understand what you're arguing for. Nythar ( 💬- 🍀) 14:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability..., while
The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.
Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.. Only after it mentions this does it continue on to describe what deep or significant coverage is, and finally ending by saying that such coverage [of the subject] goes beyond mentions (plural) and announcements (plural) (That means more than one announcement in case you didn't catch that), to make it (obviousy) possible to write more than a stub. Huggums537 ( talk) 22:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
and then immediately redefine "significant coverage" as a cumulative product achieved through multiple sources? That would be utterly useless guidance for determining whether any given source is sufficiently significant to contribute to org notability, and would directly contradict all the other places where SIGCOV is described in relation to a single source, e.g.An individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability; each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary.
Do you also believe the other key criteria for a SIGCOV SIRS are distributive just because the sections on "independent sources", "reliable sources", and "secondary sources" use "sources" instead of (awkwardly) speaking in the singular the whole time? JoelleJay ( talk) 23:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Like any other source, reviews must meet the primary criteria to be counted towards the notability requirement:
1.Be significant [...]
totally separate thing in a completely different part of the guidancefrom SIRS, it comes directly after SIRS under the same Primary criteria section following an extremely straightforward format: SIRS explains how to apply ORGCRIT by stating the four SIRS criteria, then immediately after expands on each of those requirements with details and examples. The "S" in SIRS is expanded upon starting with the CORPDEPTH section and ending with ILLCON.
JoelleJay ( talk) 19:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by a given source is not sufficient to establish or contribute toward notability (alt from Numerical facts section: A collection of multiple trivial sources does not become significant). Deep
or(aka significant) coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage by each qualifying source provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and this requirement for each source makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.
but I really wanna get out of this off topic conversation- usually best achieved by not saying anything more. Anyway, the reason someone might "mix SIRS with CORPDEPTH" is that these are sections of the NCORP guidance, and if you don't understand that guidance, you should not be commenting on AfD's in this area. The meta discussion, if you wish to pursue it, is better placed in an RfC somewhere on the guidance (not that I would recommend that). What matters here is that this article fails against NCORP. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 08:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Nythar wrote above, "the subject does not stand out. Like I said, you can find an article on almost anything if you search deeply enough, but those sources need to prove that the subject stands out and is particularly notable (i.e., more notable than other similar venues)." There is no requirement in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) that a venue must " stand out" or be "more notable than other similar venues". There is a requirement in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria only that the venue "has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The venue reviews allow the venue to meet the requirement.
Cunard ( talk) 07:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
IS it The Bird? Yes. Is it plain? No, it’s super fresh.
Sure, this pokey, charmingly DIY room serves drinks from midday, but it’s as much a place for enjoying art and song as it is somewhere to whet the whistle.
The promoters of Friday’s Kanye West concert probably didn’t have The Bird on their venue shortlist, nor are you likely to find a Rembrandt displayed here.
But as an incubator for some of Perth’s more niche artists, The Bird nails it. Psych rockers, quirky illustrators, crate-diggers: these are just some of the people whose handiwork one can admire with a cold – and fairly priced – drink in hand.
A succinct wine list that includes Mitolo pinot grigio ($9 a glass) proves it’s possible, even for venues that aren’t particularly wine-minded, to serve interesting vino at reasonable prices.
The cider and beer range observes a similar mantra with Feral’s Sly Fox summer ale one of four brews available as an $8 pint.
The Bird is also licensed to sell takeaway alcohol, which is handy for revellers keen to kick on once the party’s over.
The bar team, meanwhile, hasn’t gone too crazy with its cocktails, electing instead to stick with dependables such as the Bloody Mary ($17) and Dark ‘n’ Stormy ($20).
Don’t be put off by The Bird’s alternative leanings. Despite championing the non-mainstream, the venue and its staff extend a warm welcome to all, from lone wolves with a midday thirst to parties of dolled-up girls out to paint the town red.
The setting, while sparse, is tidy and clean (except for when smokers light up out the back), the bartenders’ smiles are genuine and The Bird proves originality is alive in Northbridge.
THE DETAILS 181 William St, Northbridge6142 3513 î williamstreetbird.com Mon-Sat, noon-midnight; Sun noon-10pm THE SCORE***1/2
incubator for some of Perth’s more niche artists, indicating that it is local coverage. The article also falls under the category of "Perth, Australia", which can be seen at the top. Nythar ( 💬- 🍀) 08:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Um, I think you are confused. Sources don't have to pass any kind of a notability test. This is incorrect. From WP:SIRS:
Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability.
- Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
- Be completely independent of the article subject.
- Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
- Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.
The reviews must be published outside of purely local [...] interest publications. Articles in the "Sunday Style (Perth, Australia)" section of a paper, telling you the price of drinks in a club are local interest, clearly. This is the quality of the sources, and per policy, these sources do not pass the required notability test, and per Nythar there is no way an encyclopaedia article can be written from these sources. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 10:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
telling you the price of drinks in a club(as Sirfurboy wrote) is not the kind of coverage that establishes noteworthiness. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large. We also have a plethora of other policies and guidelines around the reputation of sources and the potentially WP:SPONSORED content.
Reliable publications clearly indicate sponsored articles in the byline or with a disclaimer at the top of the article.. Huggums537 ( talk) 17:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
include[ ] published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries or reviews. Until a music venue has been around for a while (e.g., Webster Hall), it's likely that most of the sources on it will be reviews. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 21:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
So long as the article meets GNG, it doesn't matter if it fails NCORP.@ Voorts, this is incorrect. NCORP prescribes which sources and coverage count towards GNG; an NCORP subject by definition cannot meet GNG if it doesn't meet NCORP. From WP:N:
SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as [...] the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies.JoelleJay ( talk) 01:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I did a WP:BEFORE and didn't find any sigcov for this after @ Darklordofpinup: pointed out the lack of notability. BuySomeApples ( talk) 01:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Delete I am not finding any reliable sources for this comic book artist. No way to bring this up to notable. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 01:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. In addition to sustaining a numerical majority, editors favoring deletion made guideline-backed arguments regarding the absence of lasting coverage and failure to meet WP:CRIME that were not rebutted. signed, Rosguill talk 23:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Routine murderer who does not appear to have any encyclopedic notability. No post-conviction / non-news coverage located on a search. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
00:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
01:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
::Keep
The result was merge to Christianity in Bangladesh. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Christianity in Bangladesh is obviously notable, but is this particular organization notable? Many directory listings confirm the current two sentences. Searches also found brief listings of what denominations were part of the organization. [76] [77] Searches did not find significant coverage that provides in-depth description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the organization - coverage that would make it possible to write a reasonably complete article about its history, activities, finances, leadership, etc., instead of the current very brief, incomplete stub. So it does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH, and should not be the subject of a stand alone article. If it is felt significant enough to be worth a mention in Christianity in Bangladesh, I would have no objection to a merge to that target. Worldbruce ( talk) 14:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
00:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
01:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
*Delete The newly given sources are not independent of the subject.
Adler3 (
talk)
03:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Sources are purely local in nature, not showing any achievements that would make the individual at GNG. I can't find any sources, the name is too common. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Significantly edited since nomination, worth a second look.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
01:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Previously soft deleted. The editor who created this article requested undeletion with the reason This is a business with an interesting history and story, with over 50 employees, a market leader and innovator in its field and was acquired in 2021 by Salsify Inc., after 9 years of operating. There is more history to tell. There are many other articles about smaller or niche businesses that are on Wikipedia - not sure why SKUvantage would be singled out for deletion in this way. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. Nor being over 50 employees. Still fails WP:CORP. LibStar ( talk) 01:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
We don't really care whether the subject of the article is notable or notLibStar ( talk) 05:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSINGER; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Per strength of arguments 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely fails WP:NSINGER; not an American Idol finalist; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
SourcesPeople are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
The article notes: "Gomez got her start singing with her family band in Dayton, Ohio. Her first performance was when she was eight years old and she hasn't looked back since. Then, four years ago, she found herself on the hit TV show America Idol, which has produced famous singers such as Scotty McCreery and Carrie Underwood. ... After being on that show, she went on to start recording her own albums and going on tour, singing her songs to the public."
The article notes: "Gomez, a graduate of Centerville High School and Wright State University, was a Top 16 finalist on Season 14 of “American Idol” in 2015. She went on to compete as a Top 10 finalist in “Nash Next” in 2016 and 2017, and has continued her singing career following these competitions by performing around the local area this summer."
The article notes: "Gomez grew up in the Dayton area and has been singing and playing music for as long as she can remember. She plays guitar, piano and dabbles around with a few other instruments to include banjo, bass and drums. Her songwriting has been recognized in recent years as she has won a number of local contests where’s she’s been given the opportunity to showcase some of her original music. She plays locally with her band, The Mad River Band, as well as with a variety of bands in Nashville, Tennessee, on the Broadway strip."
The article notes: "Centerville and Wright State graduate Alexis Gomez is best known as the semi-finalist on the hit FOX show American Idol (Season 14). She also was a finalist in the Nash Next National Contest in 2016 to find the next Rising Country Star."
The article notes: "Gomez, a graduate of Centerville High School and Wright State University, was a semi-finalist on the hit show “American Idol” (Season 14). The multi-instrumentalist went on to compete as a finalist in “Nash Next” in 2016 and 2017, and has opened for artists such as Randy Hauser, Midland, Montgomery Gentry, Cassadee Pope, Clint Black and Old Dominion."
The article notes: "A former American Idol contender played the Preble County Historical Society Amphitheater last Friday night, for an excited crowd of fans of all ages. ... Gomez played for a two hours and covered major country hits from artists ranging from Johnny Cash to Carrie Underwood. The concert brought in approximately 160 guests and 80 percent of them had never been to the venue, White said."
![]() |
The result was keep. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 05:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Most presidential children are not notable in their own right. Interstellarity ( talk) 23:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Final Fight (video game). I assume this is the correct Merge target. Please be specific when requesting a Redirect or Merge. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Sane with Robert Garcia (Art of Fighting). This is just another minor character clearly fails WP:GNG. Despite being written long, sources were mostly from trivia mentions and listicles. Showing zero WP:SIGCOV afterall as per WP:BEFORE. GlatorNator ( ᴛ) 22:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Not the type of "Place of Interest" that belongs to Wikipedia. No references either. Citations101 ( talk) 21:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
The article only provides one source for the subject’s biography, which is a web article from HotRod.com. This source may not be considered reliable or independent, as it is a website that focuses on automotive topics and may have a conflict of interest or bias towards the subject. The article does not provide any other sources that cover the subject’s life, career, achievements, awards, or impact. Therefore, the article may not show that the subject meets the notability criteria for people. DarklarkOxs ( talk) 21:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
many of which are more about the cars rather than the manYes, I addressed this above. I think the most appropriate notability guideline to apply here is WP:CREATIVE, which states a person in a creative profession is notable if
The person's work (or works) has: ... (c) won significant critical attention. His car builds have received coverage in motoring related journalism and have won awards, this implies he has received critical attention and is therefore notable.
the article body is all of 3 choppy sentencesthe content in or state of the article does not determine notability. WP:ARTN.
Is this about proving a point?Why have you immediately jumped to assumptions of bad faith? Once you voted delete I did a few searches and very quickly found multiple full length pieces of coverage of his work, implying he was notable, and accordingly provided a few example links while voting keep. 192.76.8.86 ( talk) 01:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Perfection is not requiredand
Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.are part of the core editing policy ( WP:IMPERFECT)? Because the point of AFD is to evaluate whether a topic is suitable for inclusion, not to improve pages ( WP:NOTCLEANUP)? Because you have no right whatsoever to make demands on how other volunteers should spend their time ( WP:NOTCOMPULSORY)? 192.76.8.86 ( talk) 01:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Courcelles ( talk) 21:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The article did not show that the team has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The only sources you provided were CricketArchive and Scores & Biographies, which are not considered reliable or independent for this purpose. You also did not provide any context or history of the team, or explain why it is notable or relevant. DarklarkOxs ( talk) 21:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
The article is clearly not notable. It was created in 2005, but still cites no WP:RS. The only reference is to the webpage of the original article creator, Stephen George Bailey. It is not listed in any major sources like Parlett or McLeod ( pagat.com) and the only online references cite the same web page by Bailey. Unless WP:RS can be found it should be deleted. Bermicourt ( talk) 20:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
No evidence of any notability. Most of the refs are download sites and the only reviews are trivial media sources listing games available.Fails WP:GNG. Searches found nothing better. Velella Velella Talk 20:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Article about a Youtuber or content creator that doesn't meet our WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV criteria. Jamiebuba ( talk) 20:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes I am aware, fixing it now — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarklarkOxs ( talk • contribs) 20:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
unreliable sites and social media. WP:NN. Dorsetonian ( talk) 20:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I believe this page should be deleted because no clear consensus has been formed on what its purpose should be. It has numerous issues that have persisted over the years, and a variety of editors have created conflicting and confusing edits and redirects. In addition, this page is highly repetitive with numerous other pages that list and discuss D&D monsters in various contexts.
I originally wrote this page to be a holistic explanation of D&D monsters--an attempt to create a high-level overview. As an example, the page currently includes some discussion of the belief that monster-fighting is itself "sociopathic." This discussion is not about any specific monster per se, but rather the concept of fighting monsters to gain experience. At the time I created the page, this discussion seemed noteworthy but did not clearly fit in existing pages.
However, it is clear that the D&D pages are organized differently, and this page does not fit into the overall D&D project. This page has created more problems than it has solved, and I believe its existence lowers the quality and clarity of all D&D pages. The talk page for this article is, in my view, a record of this article's confused purpose, the errors it's generated, etc.
Attempts have been made to fix these problems through edits, but this has resulted in stagnant editor conflicts while the article itself has only gotten worse--less clarity of purpose, more confusing edits, etc. So I propose deleting outright.
My rationale in bullet point:
Geethree ( talk) 19:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. – Joe ( talk) 07:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Contested draftification without improvement. Not a single in-depth source so fails WP:GNG, and no sourcing to show this meets WP:GEOLAND. Onel5969 TT me 12:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bruxton (
talk)
04:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
14:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Guerillero
Parlez Moi
19:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Prodded, then restored, currently not enough sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:VERIFY, and searches did not turn up enough to show it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 09:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Aoidh (
talk)
18:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Some debate that this may be a hoax. [14] I cannot say it is certainly a hoax, as the name may be properly Gaius Titus, which may possibly refer to Titus Quinctius Flamininus based on a source I placed on the talk page. Yet, if it is about Flamininus then we have a much better article on him, and there is literally nothing here we can merge as it is all uncited. No good source links the Latin phrase to him either. Thus this should just be deleted. It is either a hoax or else it is an ill informed duplicate of an existing page. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 18:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
No indication of being notable. Refs are a mix of 404's, profiles and blog entries for what is a WP:BLP. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep Talk 14:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Fictional alien race that has not met notability standards since its creation. Fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 14:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Transformers: Prime#Cast and characters. – Joe ( talk) 07:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Article is laking any WP:SIGCOV. It relies mostly on primary and CBR sources. Most are either listicles, rankings and passing mentions. WP:BEFORE shows nothing but full of trivial CBR sources. GlatorNator ( ᴛ) 13:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete based in part on the consensus reached in the last discussion and no suggestion that notability has since been established. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Previously deleted, the sourcing is dubious and unreliable (see the previous AfD discussion). Already covered somewhere else and only exist for a very brief amount of time and not notable as its immediatly transfered to Japanese control. Nyanardsan ( talk) 06:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
t
c
18:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable politician, fails WP:NPOL. Yasal Shahid ( talk) 12:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to GoldenPalace.com. ✗ plicit 13:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Previously deleted and recreated with no basis. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform, and there is no indication of why this hoax is important. Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Doesn't qualify for Unusual eBay listings since it was sold on Yahoo. See the similar and removed Among Us chicken nugget. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 12:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) Bruxton ( talk) 22:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
WP:OR. There was one, very obscure short film "The Mini-Killers". The claims about the series of 4 and the tank station use can apparently only be found at a youtube video (in itself probably a copyvio of the copyright owners of the movie) from a channel with 135 subscribers, with as far as I can tell a total lack of reliability. Removing these claims would leave a very short stub about a short film which received hardly any attention. A redirect to Diana Rigg may be a good WP:ATD. Fram ( talk) 12:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
round the same time she made the obscure foreign shorts – The Diadem and Mini-Killers, made in 1966 and 69 respectively – which played up to the sex bomb persona. Indeed, these shorts could be seen as unofficial Avengers episodes .... Distributed on 8mm, there’s a psychedelic, sleazy quality to them, and
“So far, nobody has come forward with an explanation of how either Das Diadem or The Mini-Killers came into being or how Rigg became involved with the projects,” wrote biographer Kathleen Tracy., and
Mini-Killers, made in Spain, looks like a bit more cash behind it .... It’s in colour, and has Bond-like aspirations with its exotic locales. The story is told in four parts: slinking around in various Sixties styles .... Rigg investigates a group of assassins who use a killer doll that sprays a poison from its eyes (Q Branch, this is not)., and
Mini-Killers directed by Wolfgang von Chmielewski, who was from the German TV station WDR, and co-starred José Nieto and Jack Rocha, who appeared in Spanish exploitation flicks. Versions of Mini-Killers range between 28 and 42 minutes, depending on if you're watching a slightly sped-up version.Skynxnex ( talk) 19:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
This was previously nominated for deletion in 2008 as part of a broad discussion of all similar list articles. I don't advocate that, but this list in particular is poorly sourced and has few links to existing articles. 331dot ( talk) 11:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Fails GNG and NBAD. No coverage seen, accomplishments not significant enough to guarantee presumed notability. Timothytyy ( talk) 11:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 13:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Fails GNG and SNG. No coverage found online. Timothytyy ( talk) 11:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 13:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
The article fails the notability test and may be WP:OR. It is entirely uncited despite being created over 15 years ago and I can find no mention of it either at pagat.com or in comprehensive sources like David Parlett's Penguin Book of Card Games (2008). Even an Internet search produced nothing concrete other than clones of this page. Unless someone can produce WP:RS to support it, it seems a clear candidate for deletion. Bermicourt ( talk) 10:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
No refs on the page for many years. I don't speak the relevant languages/dialects but I'm not seeing much that would count towards notability in AfD on en.wiki JMWt ( talk) 10:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Verifiability issues, mostly unreferenced list. Merko ( talk) 10:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus to delete. Discussions to stubify, rename or redirect can continue on the respective talk pages. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 ( t • c) 15:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. The article just relies on primary sources and commercial links. Xexerss ( talk) 05:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
01:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0 (
talk)
10:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 23:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Hard to Google test on, but not reliably sourced. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 04:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Alternatively, instead of deleting, possibly redirecting to List of musical groups from Estonia may be the best solution-- Estopedist1 ( talk) 06:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
00:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0 (
talk)
10:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
No indication this is a legally recognized place, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 16:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0 (
talk)
10:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
The organization has not been proven to be notable. Brunnaiz ( talk) 21:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥
𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆
(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥
19:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0 (
talk)
10:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Searching the band’s name in both English and Persian results YT videos and some non-RS blogs only. Fails WP:NBAND. Htanaungg ( talk) 05:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
07:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0 (
talk)
09:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
This was created by UPE sockfarm. We need an another review of this. Coverage is local, seems to fail WP:SIGCOV. US-Verified ( talk) 11:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0 (
talk)
09:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Lack of notability for the topic to have its own article. Chronikhiles (talk) 07:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0 (
talk)
09:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH, WP:NOTDICT, this article just haphazardly strings together any use of the WP:WEASEL word "intellectual" under the presumption that they are all related. It should just be redirected to Intelligentsia. - car chasm ( talk) 21:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
09:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
t
c
17:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)The result was no consensus. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 23:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
While it gets mentions, there is not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 11:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
ARC tested GPT-4's capability to plan, replicate itself, acquire resources, remain hidden on a server, and conduct phishing attacksis a very close copy of the Ars Technica story. (Like the rest of the news I've looked at so far, that story doesn't cover the ARC as an organization in a way that the relevant notability guideline is met.) The sentence beginning
ARC also found that GPT-4...is close enough to the Yahoo Finance story to count as copyvio. The line
ARC has been expanding from theoretical work into empirical research, industry collaborations, and policylooks like it was written first and then had citations tacked on, one to the ARC's own website and the other to an online magazine of unknown reliability that mentions it in passing. Neither source supports the statement very well. In short: not covered as an organization, and the text would need a total rewrite to ensure it complies with policy, and indeed with basic academic ethics. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. Therefore, for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company. The situation here is analogous. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk)
11:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
09:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Anna Nicole Smith. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO. This article is basically a coatrack for a lot of stuff about his mother. 3/4 of it isn't even about him. Here's what we know about him: 1) his mother was famous, 2) He appeared on her reality TV show a handful of times, 3) He died of an overdose. Notability is not established, nor even a valid claim of notability made here. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 02:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. While it might seem like a slam-dunk, most of the Delete voters are editors with low edit counts and so not much familiarity with AFD. I'd like to see more investigation and evaluation of existing sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
09:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Right to silence in Australia. Courcelles ( talk) 20:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
The topic that the page discusses is already very well discussed at Right to silence#Australia, and at a much greater length. A WP:BLAR was contested by page creator. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs) 08:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Golden Lotus (musical). Clear consensus against a standalone page, argument for a redirect not specifically rebutted. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Non notable song which "won" awards from "film festivals" which churn out countless awards for whoever pays, but don't have actual screenings, notability, importance, ... Part of a walled garden of articles promoting a musical and the people around it, which should all get some scrutiny: but this one seems to be the worst when it comes to notability (the others were already deleted in the past though, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Chiang). ProD was removed with the addition of sources, but as these were the website of the singer and the Apple music store [46], they didn't help to solve the problem. Fram ( talk) 08:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The review notes: "A World Away, is the signature pop ballad from the award-winning musical, Golden Lotus. Sung by award-nominated singer Harriet Chung and written by award-winning composer George Chiang, the song transcends time with a heart wrenching message about missing the person you love."
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 13:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Another contested draftification without improvement. Found several mentions, but not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
2023-04 move to →
Draft:Lance Hayward at the Half Moon Hotel, Volume 2
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0 (
talk)
07:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Article about a film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, every film is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- films have to pass notability markers, such as notable film awards and/or the reception of enough reliable source coverage about the film to pass WP:GNG. But the referencing here consists of two directory entries that aren't support for notability at all, and glancing namechecks of the film's existence in coverage of its lead actor as a person, with no sources shown that are actually about the film -- and fundamentally, the notability claim is that the film exists, which isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to be better than it is. Bearcat ( talk) 13:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0 (
talk)
07:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. 3 weeks of discussion. Time to call it. Courcelles ( talk) 20:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Was up for PROD but saved with the addition of a single interview. There are a few paragraphs of seemingly independent reporting at the top of that article so it could be a good source, but if it's the only one that's getting found then this still isn't showing notability. As I said in the PROD, one #1 hit on (what looks to be unless I'm mistaken) a minor Billboard chart isn't promising, and though this is no longer totally unsourced, there are still no other apparent points of notability. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 14:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0 (
talk)
07:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Not finding notability in sources, Gsearch is straight to social media. Dying in a traffic accident isn't notable, rest of their career appears non-notable. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0 (
talk)
07:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Clear failure of WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Zero secondary sources cited, zero passable secondary sources found through a web search. IceBergYYC ( talk) 05:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete (G5, creation by a blocked sockpuppet) Materialscientist ( talk) 07:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCOMPANY, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. One of the sources provided is a deadlink and the other is an inclusion on a membership list - neither demonstrate the record lable is notable. Dan arndt ( talk) 05:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Despite a relatively even vote count, no rebuttal was made to the source analyses which clearly undermine arguments of notability. signed, Rosguill talk 00:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 04:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
JoelleJay ( talk) 23:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)For definitions of primary sources:
The University of Nevada, Reno Libraries define primary sources as providing "an inside view of a particular event". They offer as examples: original documents, such as [...] interviews, [...]"
Duke University Libraries offers this definition: "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include [...] interviews, [...]"
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.Frank Anchor 03:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Vanuatu U23 football coach, Etienne Mermer, stood by his players and congratulated them for reaching the semi-final of the OFC Men’s Olympic qualifiers. [62]
[press release from Vanuatu Football] [63]
with Vanuatu coach Etienne Mermer and coach Leo Moli putting in Azariah Soromon at number minute. (+quotes) [64]
The Vanuatu Football Federation (VFF) has confirmed that Assistant U20 coach Etienne Mermer will not join the management team of the U20 squad of Vanuatu where he stayed for the World Cup in Korea in May. [...] Mermer's Thomas and Kaltak were part of the U20 squad that defeated the Solomon Islands in the U20 semifinal in Vanuatu last year... [65]
[literally all coverage is "Mermer said"], and anyway the article is a press release from VFF
[youtube interview from OFC], [youtube video from sports ministry]
[blog post] [66]
Suri’s opposite number Etienne Mermer despite having a good number of experienced players featured in the 2017 FIFA U-20 World Cup says... (+quotes) [67]
[OFC PR] [68]
The result was speedy delete (G5, creation by a blocked sockpuppet) Materialscientist ( talk) 07:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
As per the previous AfD, the article fails the requirements of WP:NCOMPANY, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The only source provided does not even mention GP records. Dan arndt ( talk) 04:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
this genre does not exist FMSky ( talk) 04:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I found no significant press coverage in my searches. To that end, this should likely be re-directed to the film that covers the case he investigated as a part of the FBI. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! ( talk) 04:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I could not find significant coverage to meet WP:ARTIST or WP:BIO. The awards are not verified but I don't believe they are major enough to meet WP:ARTIST. LibStar ( talk) 03:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. A possible rename can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
The topic of this article appears to be overly broad and adequately covered by other articles. What the article calls "National IP policies"—such as patent and copyright terms—are very different from, for example, university IP licensing agreements and corporate transparency/trade secrets. There does not appear to be a good reason to conflate each of those distinct concepts in a single article. Moreover, those concepts are all dealt with more extensively in other articles, such as Technology transfer (for universities), Intellectual property (for broad policy considerations in forming a national/international IP regime), and Trade secrets. As this article is poorly sourced and has several tone issues, I do not think merger is appropriate (or really possible) and recommend deletion. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 01:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
01:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The source analysis favoring deletion received no rebuttal. signed, Rosguill talk 23:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:WRITER. I wasn't able to find any coverage of him in reliable secondary sources. The article relies too heavily on primary sources (which can't be used to establish notability), with three of the five cited sources having been written by him and one being an article from the student newspaper of the university he attended (which is not independent of him and can't be used to establish notability). The article currently cites only one independent source, a local news article. His only claims to notability are co-authoring two books (neither one notable) and writing for a local newspaper; all of this received only minor local coverage in his hometown. Baronet13 ( talk) 02:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
*Weak keep. Here is another source
[69] which mentions Barron by name and discusses the content of the book that Barron wrote. I would say that this barely meets the threshold for in-depth.
Adler3 (
talk)
03:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Comments | Source |
---|---|
Primary, fails IS | 1. Barron, Judy; Barron, Sean (2002-04-08). There's a Boy in Here: Emerging from the Bonds of Autism. Future Horizons. ISBN 978-1-885477-86-6. |
Primary, fails IS | 2. ^ Grandin, Temple; Barron, Sean (2005-11-01). The Unwritten Rules of Social Relationships: Decoding Social Mysteries Through the Unique Perspectives of Autism. Future Horizons. ISBN 978-1-932565-06-5. |
Interview | 3. ^ Blundo, Joe (2008-04-29). "With help, reporter broke bonds of autism". The Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved 2009-04-12. |
Interview | 4. ^ Tate, Ashley (2008-05-01). "One story of autism". The Jambar. Archived from the original on 2011-07-17. Retrieved 2009-04-12. |
Primary, fails IS | 5. ^ Barron, Sean; Barron, Judy (2002). There's A Boy In Here: Emerging from the Bonds of Autism. Austin, Tex.: Future Horizons. ISBN 978-1-885477-86-6 – via Google Books. |
The result was no consensus. No apparent consensus whether sources satisfy SIGCOV, with good arguments both for and against. Randykitty ( talk) 12:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, as all but one of the sources are either promotional, from the venue or largely an interview. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs) 02:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
*Delete No SIGCOV
Adler3 (
talk)
04:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The review notes: "Is it The Bird? Yes. Is it plain? No, it’s super fresh. Sure, this pokey, charmingly DIY room serves drinks from midday, but it’s as much a place for enjoying art and song as it is somewhere to whet the whistle. ... But as an incubator for some of Perth’s more niche artists, The Bird nails it. Psych rockers, quirky illustrators, crate-diggers: these are just some of the people whose handiwork one can admire with a cold – and fairly priced – drink in hand. ... Don’t be put off by The Bird’s alternative leanings. Despite championing the non-mainstream, the venue and its staff extend a warm welcome to all, from lone wolves with a midday thirst to parties of dolled-up girls out to paint the town red."
The review notes: "Inside, The Bird looks like a big jam room for the resident band. Simple fixtures, plain wooden floors and cheap tiles behind the bar create the impression that this isn’t a bar but a well-catered house party. The low-spec look works, though, because none of it’s taken too seriously. While most bar designers do the exposed brick thing because they think it’s cool, The Bird’s done it to save a few bob. If the random eclectica gets too much, head out back for the best spot: a starlit, open-air courtyard."
The website's independent editorial policy notes: "We do not seek or accept payment from the cafes, restaurants, bars and shops listed in the Directory – inclusion is at our discretion. Venue profiles are written by independent freelancers paid by Broadsheet."
The review provides 149 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "The Bird hosts diverse tunes, from solo artists to bands and DJs, between five and seven nights a week. But there’s as much conversation and conviviality as there is music appreciation, particularly in the rear open-air area. It has been extended to fit in even more op-shop couches and repurposed armchairs."
There is editorial oversight according to https://concreteplayground.com/sydney/about-us Internet Archive. Suz Tucker serves as editorial director. The review provides 249 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "The Bird is known as a hipster haven, but don't hold that against it. A small bar with a gorgeous outdoor area complete with fairy-light-wrapped trees, it's a venue that was designed by friends for friends. Back in 2010, a group of beer-loving buddies gutted the William Street site and it's since played host to exhibition launches, spoken word nights, dance parties and, of course, live music. Indeed, The Bird has been a comfortable home for Northbridge creatives for the past eight years."
The article provides 95 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "The Bird is a live music venue, based in Northbridge, that thrives on good vibes. The Bird hosts a range of live entertainment, exposing up-and-coming local musicians, monthly story telling night, the infamous Hip-Hop Kara"YO!"ke and international heavyweights playing intimate shows."
The article provides 66 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Another Northbridge venue that’s prime for hangouts when live music isn’t on offer. It’s one of the most inviting venues around, and after a while in the beer garden, you begin to feel like you’re chilling in a mate’s backyard. We caught up with San Cisco there as they were gearing up to release Gracetown and they rattled off a couple of acoustic numbers for us."
Western Independent is a newspaper run by Curtin University journalism students, so it contributes less to notability. The article notes: "The William Street Bird is a small, unassuming venue, sitting in a row of stores at the mouth of Northbridge. The Bird has served as a live music venue and bar for more than a decade after being opened in 2010. Current owner Kabir Ramasary, who bought the venue in 2017, says his own positive experiences at The Bird influenced his purchase. ... Aside from its bar and kitchen, The Bird hosts a range of entertainment, from live music across genres to festival events such as Soul Alphabet to drag shows. It is also famous for Monday Milk, one of the few opportunities in Perth for new bands to have the stage."
The article notes that the new live music bar in Northbridge called the Bridge was owned by The William Street Bird owner Mike O'Hanlon. The article does not contribute much to notability, so I am including it in this section.
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
https://archive.ph/2023.05.22-093230/https://infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news/1500B6A266EA4BA8&f=basic | ![]() |
✘ No | ||
https://web.archive.org/web/20230522093514/https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa/the-bird-ng-79c6b562089e93b2e72539b1485ffd66 | ![]() |
✘ No | ||
https://web.archive.org/web/20230522093819/https://www.broadsheet.com.au/perth/northbridge/bars/the-bird | ![]() |
✘ No | ||
https://web.archive.org/web/20230522094251/https://concreteplayground.com/perth/bars/the-bird | ![]() |
✘ No | ||
https://web.archive.org/web/20230522101327/https://themusic.com.au/news/wam-awards-2016-most-popular-venue/KTk6PTw_PiE/12-10-16 | ![]() |
✘ No | ||
https://web.archive.org/web/20230522101836/https://themusic.com.au/news/the-best-live-music-venues-wa-has-to-offer/XvtxcHNydXQ/30-10-15 | ![]() |
✘ No | ||
https://web.archive.org/web/20230522094719/https://westernindependent.com.au/2021/10/28/reimaging-the-gay-club/ | ![]() |
✘ No | ||
https://web.archive.org/web/20230522094719/https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/the-bird-fights-early-closing-time-20100223-oz5h.html | ![]() |
✘ No | ||
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.
very brief, incomplete stubusing that source. It is composed entirely of trivial coverage. That means it fails SIGCOV according to CORPDEPTH. You can examine the other sources this way, and you'll find that none of them contain SIGCOV. (The university paper source is somewhat in-depth but is very local, and therefore fails SIGCOV per #Audience.) — Nythar ( 💬- 🍀) 09:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.To add to this, consider the fact that any organization or company that has at least one SIGCOV source (assuming it is both reliable and independent) may have an article. But if that "SIGCOV" source alone can only result in a single-sentence stub, then it isn't SIGCOV. I'm not making up rules; refrain from accusing me of this, and communicate civilly. Nythar ( 💬- 🍀) 10:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability"; one of the criteria is "
Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth." What is it about this that is so difficult to understand? Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other, and each source must meet all the criteria, one of which is SIGCOV. You're forcing me to need to clarify such obvious points, that my replies here seem to be "badgering." Anyway, we've gotten past that point; SIGCOV is only determined individually here. Moving on, the problem with regards to the 8 sources is that they do not contain "
significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth." Why do I think this? I think this because (and I hope you'll stop belittling my position), if an article like the one I listed below cannot have meaningful, useful information derived from it which can be used in a Wikipedia article, then it does not qualify as "
addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth." Why is this the case? If you read through the source below, you'll see that all the information is trivial and nothing there can be used in a Wikipedia article. It is superficial in coverage, reading more like a PROMO than a neutral article. Again, I do not know why you find it difficult to understand this. You're focusing on minor points that you think I got wrong rather than the bigger picture I'm painting. In addition to all this, your tone is quite condescending. You accuse me of failing to understand guidelines even though you (as I have demonstrated) do not understand this guideline. Adding to this, my experiment wasn't imaginary nonsense; noting once again that SIGCOV is determined individually per SIRS, if you can't use any part of a source in an article (since it focuses on drink prices and very minor trivialities), then it doesn't qualify as SIGCOV. These trivialities include "
this pokey, charmingly DIY room serves drinks from midday" and "
A succinct wine list that includes Mitolo pinot grigio ($9 a glass)" and "
The Bird is also licensed to sell takeaway alcohol" and "
The bar team, meanwhile, hasn’t gone too crazy with its cocktails" and "
the venue and its staff extend a warm welcome to all" and "
the bartenders’ smiles are genuine." How is the coverage significant if it focuses on such trivialities? Well, it isn't. It fails the "
addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth" part of SIRS. The rest of the sources also fail this point (literally try checking them out yourself). Before you decide to respond, please rethink your positions and comments carefully, because even I am not entirely sure I understand what you're arguing for. Nythar ( 💬- 🍀) 14:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability..., while
The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.
Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.. Only after it mentions this does it continue on to describe what deep or significant coverage is, and finally ending by saying that such coverage [of the subject] goes beyond mentions (plural) and announcements (plural) (That means more than one announcement in case you didn't catch that), to make it (obviousy) possible to write more than a stub. Huggums537 ( talk) 22:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
and then immediately redefine "significant coverage" as a cumulative product achieved through multiple sources? That would be utterly useless guidance for determining whether any given source is sufficiently significant to contribute to org notability, and would directly contradict all the other places where SIGCOV is described in relation to a single source, e.g.An individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability; each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary.
Do you also believe the other key criteria for a SIGCOV SIRS are distributive just because the sections on "independent sources", "reliable sources", and "secondary sources" use "sources" instead of (awkwardly) speaking in the singular the whole time? JoelleJay ( talk) 23:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Like any other source, reviews must meet the primary criteria to be counted towards the notability requirement:
1.Be significant [...]
totally separate thing in a completely different part of the guidancefrom SIRS, it comes directly after SIRS under the same Primary criteria section following an extremely straightforward format: SIRS explains how to apply ORGCRIT by stating the four SIRS criteria, then immediately after expands on each of those requirements with details and examples. The "S" in SIRS is expanded upon starting with the CORPDEPTH section and ending with ILLCON.
JoelleJay ( talk) 19:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by a given source is not sufficient to establish or contribute toward notability (alt from Numerical facts section: A collection of multiple trivial sources does not become significant). Deep
or(aka significant) coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage by each qualifying source provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and this requirement for each source makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.
but I really wanna get out of this off topic conversation- usually best achieved by not saying anything more. Anyway, the reason someone might "mix SIRS with CORPDEPTH" is that these are sections of the NCORP guidance, and if you don't understand that guidance, you should not be commenting on AfD's in this area. The meta discussion, if you wish to pursue it, is better placed in an RfC somewhere on the guidance (not that I would recommend that). What matters here is that this article fails against NCORP. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 08:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Nythar wrote above, "the subject does not stand out. Like I said, you can find an article on almost anything if you search deeply enough, but those sources need to prove that the subject stands out and is particularly notable (i.e., more notable than other similar venues)." There is no requirement in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) that a venue must " stand out" or be "more notable than other similar venues". There is a requirement in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria only that the venue "has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The venue reviews allow the venue to meet the requirement.
Cunard ( talk) 07:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
IS it The Bird? Yes. Is it plain? No, it’s super fresh.
Sure, this pokey, charmingly DIY room serves drinks from midday, but it’s as much a place for enjoying art and song as it is somewhere to whet the whistle.
The promoters of Friday’s Kanye West concert probably didn’t have The Bird on their venue shortlist, nor are you likely to find a Rembrandt displayed here.
But as an incubator for some of Perth’s more niche artists, The Bird nails it. Psych rockers, quirky illustrators, crate-diggers: these are just some of the people whose handiwork one can admire with a cold – and fairly priced – drink in hand.
A succinct wine list that includes Mitolo pinot grigio ($9 a glass) proves it’s possible, even for venues that aren’t particularly wine-minded, to serve interesting vino at reasonable prices.
The cider and beer range observes a similar mantra with Feral’s Sly Fox summer ale one of four brews available as an $8 pint.
The Bird is also licensed to sell takeaway alcohol, which is handy for revellers keen to kick on once the party’s over.
The bar team, meanwhile, hasn’t gone too crazy with its cocktails, electing instead to stick with dependables such as the Bloody Mary ($17) and Dark ‘n’ Stormy ($20).
Don’t be put off by The Bird’s alternative leanings. Despite championing the non-mainstream, the venue and its staff extend a warm welcome to all, from lone wolves with a midday thirst to parties of dolled-up girls out to paint the town red.
The setting, while sparse, is tidy and clean (except for when smokers light up out the back), the bartenders’ smiles are genuine and The Bird proves originality is alive in Northbridge.
THE DETAILS 181 William St, Northbridge6142 3513 î williamstreetbird.com Mon-Sat, noon-midnight; Sun noon-10pm THE SCORE***1/2
incubator for some of Perth’s more niche artists, indicating that it is local coverage. The article also falls under the category of "Perth, Australia", which can be seen at the top. Nythar ( 💬- 🍀) 08:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Um, I think you are confused. Sources don't have to pass any kind of a notability test. This is incorrect. From WP:SIRS:
Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability.
- Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
- Be completely independent of the article subject.
- Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
- Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.
The reviews must be published outside of purely local [...] interest publications. Articles in the "Sunday Style (Perth, Australia)" section of a paper, telling you the price of drinks in a club are local interest, clearly. This is the quality of the sources, and per policy, these sources do not pass the required notability test, and per Nythar there is no way an encyclopaedia article can be written from these sources. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 10:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
telling you the price of drinks in a club(as Sirfurboy wrote) is not the kind of coverage that establishes noteworthiness. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large. We also have a plethora of other policies and guidelines around the reputation of sources and the potentially WP:SPONSORED content.
Reliable publications clearly indicate sponsored articles in the byline or with a disclaimer at the top of the article.. Huggums537 ( talk) 17:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
include[ ] published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries or reviews. Until a music venue has been around for a while (e.g., Webster Hall), it's likely that most of the sources on it will be reviews. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 21:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
So long as the article meets GNG, it doesn't matter if it fails NCORP.@ Voorts, this is incorrect. NCORP prescribes which sources and coverage count towards GNG; an NCORP subject by definition cannot meet GNG if it doesn't meet NCORP. From WP:N:
SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as [...] the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies.JoelleJay ( talk) 01:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I did a WP:BEFORE and didn't find any sigcov for this after @ Darklordofpinup: pointed out the lack of notability. BuySomeApples ( talk) 01:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Delete I am not finding any reliable sources for this comic book artist. No way to bring this up to notable. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 01:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. In addition to sustaining a numerical majority, editors favoring deletion made guideline-backed arguments regarding the absence of lasting coverage and failure to meet WP:CRIME that were not rebutted. signed, Rosguill talk 23:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Routine murderer who does not appear to have any encyclopedic notability. No post-conviction / non-news coverage located on a search. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
00:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
01:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
::Keep
The result was merge to Christianity in Bangladesh. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Christianity in Bangladesh is obviously notable, but is this particular organization notable? Many directory listings confirm the current two sentences. Searches also found brief listings of what denominations were part of the organization. [76] [77] Searches did not find significant coverage that provides in-depth description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the organization - coverage that would make it possible to write a reasonably complete article about its history, activities, finances, leadership, etc., instead of the current very brief, incomplete stub. So it does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH, and should not be the subject of a stand alone article. If it is felt significant enough to be worth a mention in Christianity in Bangladesh, I would have no objection to a merge to that target. Worldbruce ( talk) 14:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
00:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
01:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
*Delete The newly given sources are not independent of the subject.
Adler3 (
talk)
03:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Sources are purely local in nature, not showing any achievements that would make the individual at GNG. I can't find any sources, the name is too common. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Significantly edited since nomination, worth a second look.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
01:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Previously soft deleted. The editor who created this article requested undeletion with the reason This is a business with an interesting history and story, with over 50 employees, a market leader and innovator in its field and was acquired in 2021 by Salsify Inc., after 9 years of operating. There is more history to tell. There are many other articles about smaller or niche businesses that are on Wikipedia - not sure why SKUvantage would be singled out for deletion in this way. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. Nor being over 50 employees. Still fails WP:CORP. LibStar ( talk) 01:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
We don't really care whether the subject of the article is notable or notLibStar ( talk) 05:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSINGER; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Per strength of arguments 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely fails WP:NSINGER; not an American Idol finalist; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
SourcesPeople are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
The article notes: "Gomez got her start singing with her family band in Dayton, Ohio. Her first performance was when she was eight years old and she hasn't looked back since. Then, four years ago, she found herself on the hit TV show America Idol, which has produced famous singers such as Scotty McCreery and Carrie Underwood. ... After being on that show, she went on to start recording her own albums and going on tour, singing her songs to the public."
The article notes: "Gomez, a graduate of Centerville High School and Wright State University, was a Top 16 finalist on Season 14 of “American Idol” in 2015. She went on to compete as a Top 10 finalist in “Nash Next” in 2016 and 2017, and has continued her singing career following these competitions by performing around the local area this summer."
The article notes: "Gomez grew up in the Dayton area and has been singing and playing music for as long as she can remember. She plays guitar, piano and dabbles around with a few other instruments to include banjo, bass and drums. Her songwriting has been recognized in recent years as she has won a number of local contests where’s she’s been given the opportunity to showcase some of her original music. She plays locally with her band, The Mad River Band, as well as with a variety of bands in Nashville, Tennessee, on the Broadway strip."
The article notes: "Centerville and Wright State graduate Alexis Gomez is best known as the semi-finalist on the hit FOX show American Idol (Season 14). She also was a finalist in the Nash Next National Contest in 2016 to find the next Rising Country Star."
The article notes: "Gomez, a graduate of Centerville High School and Wright State University, was a semi-finalist on the hit show “American Idol” (Season 14). The multi-instrumentalist went on to compete as a finalist in “Nash Next” in 2016 and 2017, and has opened for artists such as Randy Hauser, Midland, Montgomery Gentry, Cassadee Pope, Clint Black and Old Dominion."
The article notes: "A former American Idol contender played the Preble County Historical Society Amphitheater last Friday night, for an excited crowd of fans of all ages. ... Gomez played for a two hours and covered major country hits from artists ranging from Johnny Cash to Carrie Underwood. The concert brought in approximately 160 guests and 80 percent of them had never been to the venue, White said."