![]() |
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Has been 6 years since a WP:GNG was raised. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 16:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Attempted to verify location for disambiguating: there is no Peinnegon in this coordinate location or near Kyeikdon. Google Maps does label the village but this village at this location is not recognized by the General Administration Department according to this MIMU map or the place codes database. Related to this may be: Peinnegon (16°22′N 98°19′E), which is in both sources and nearby Peinhneseik (formerly at " Peinnegon (16°15′N 98°21′E)"). Based on these I don't believe this particular Peinnegon village exists nor would it meet WP:GEOLAND. EmeraldRange ( talk/ contribs) 16:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to give this the opportunity for more people to weigh in,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Eddie891
Talk
Work
17:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable cake that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira ( talk) 18:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Based on keep rationales back both this and the original AfD nom back in 2010, Valley2city ( talk) 03:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Valley2city ( talk) 03:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Previously nominated for deletion back in 2010 where it was decided to keep the article, but I'm renominating it as the sources do not hold up. As to Niteshift36's analysis of the sources way back when: "Sources 1 and 3 are the same one, and doesn't even give a full recipe. It only gives a one sentence description. Source 2 is solely a recipe. Source 4 is the recipe and a woman talking about her personal experience with it". These sources are not enough to establish notability and a WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira ( talk) 19:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) LibStar ( talk) 22:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Whilst it looks like a lot of sources, they are all from December 2014. There is no evidence of lasting effects or coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar ( talk) 23:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2014. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
All the coverage is from January 2014. No lasting impacts or coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar ( talk) 22:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
A low-level college baseball player lacking significant independent sources. The prod was removed by the creator. User:Namiba 22:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Leonard Retel Helmrich. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Frankly I'm struggling to find WP:SIGCOV for this film company. Since it is an organization it must pass WP:NORG. There's some one-off mentions in books but nothing really about the company itself. nlwiki doesn't help either as there is no article on the company there and lots of the articles there on the films are unsourced. It has also been unsourced since 2011. Should reliable sourcing be found I'll gladly withdraw this. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
22:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Does not seem to have adequate attestation in either English- or Farsi-language reliable sources. Remsense 诉 22:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
22:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 22:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. No independent sources of any type,, much less GNG sources. The only sources are two self-descriptions by the creator. Their paper and then their comments when open-sourcing it. In a search I found no even medium-depth coverage North8000 ( talk) 15:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
21:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 00:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing a way to verify the information and it seems way beyond the point where there needs to be verified information from RS to keep the page JMWt ( talk) 10:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk)
12:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
21:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 22:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
None of the sources comply with WP:HISTRS. Rattan Singh Jaggi is a litterateur active in the Language department of his institution, with no educational background in history, and primarily specializes in the literary analysis of Sikh holy books and writing hagiographies based off them, as well as translating texts into Hindi and Punjabi. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/gurmat-scholar-dr-jaggi-chosen-for-padma-shri-8405050/ He is also used as the inline citation for the infobox which makes an astounding claim that 100 Sikhs defeated 5000 Afghans. Bobby Singh Bansal is a self proclaimed historian, with no educational training/credentials in history nor any peer reviewed books or journals or scholarly reviews of his work; his work was also self published (Hay House). The Punjabi Kosh is a vernacular source which also seems to be a hagiography. Autar Singh Sandhu is a WP:RAJ era source as it was written in 1935 and Sohan Singh Seetal is a poet and lyricist; both sources were also deprecated by an admin involved in South Asian topics. Southasianhistorian8 ( talk) 06:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Update: Autar Singh Sandhu's book was explicitly deprecated by an admin here in the reliable sources noticeboard- [4]. "As Acroterion and Springee indicated, assessment of a source's reliability should take into account a multitude of factors. For example, the Nalwa book is likely an unacceptable source because of its age (1935), publisher, and lack of academic reviews and peer-reviewed articles written by its author (at least I didn't find any on a quick search). The author holding "only" an MA would be the least of the concerns because during the 1930s the PhD degree was not as well-established as it is now and many recognized experts and academics lacked it." Southasianhistorian8 ( talk) 23:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
21:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Jfire ( talk) 00:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
All current sources are either primary or unreliable. Only one source found via WP:BEFORE [8]. Tickle Me Elmo is not a good merge topic as they are fundamentally different products. (Oinkers42) ( talk) 21:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Working actor, but I couldn't find sources to show he meets WP:ENT / WP:GNG, though lots of unreliable sources. Currently an unref BLP. Boleyn ( talk) 20:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Complex/ Rational 21:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
This article is about Lady Gaga's sister Natalie, which is where the problem lies for a biographical article. It does not establish independent notability WP:N for this subject as by virtue of her sister's fame and notoriety, every source alluding to Natalie is actually focused on Gaga mainly with Natalie as highlighted mention. This can easily be deleted and its contents merged in the main Lady Gaga article and bits and bobs into respective song articles. — IB [ Poke ] 20:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sources sufficient to pass notability guidelines demonstrated to exist 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 22:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Unless there is further sourcing/examples of Neo-Babouvism as an ideology outside of Gracchus Babeuf (and supposed 1848 neo-Jacobin revolutionaries that I will assume is true despite a notable lack of source), the ideology's page should be deleted, or atleast redirected to Gracchus Babeuf Marissa TRS ( talk) 19:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Procedural keep. This page is a redirect now and it doesn't appear that either this redirect or the target article were actually tagged for an AFD discussion. It's not a good idea to nominate a heavily edited article for an AFD deletion primarily because of the rapid changes that are occurring to the article over the next 7 days. Over the course of a week, it is unlikely to resemble the state of the article when it was nominated. Liz Read! Talk! 02:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Not enough material to have its own article. Should be moved to Mohammad Reza Zahedi. Ecrusized ( talk) 19:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Complex/ Rational 21:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON clearly applies. No apparent reason for this article to exist yet. CycloneYoris talk! 18:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 19:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
There is no reason for this article when all candidates are already listed in the main article ( 2010 Cook Islands general election). Yilku1 ( talk) 18:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Given that the nominator has presented a keep argument, and there are no other delete arguments, this would also qualify for speedy keep. Therefore consensus is that the topic meets the relevant SNG. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 22:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I wasn't able to find any notable coverage of this film, or anything beyond a few passing references at film festivals and what I believe are excerpts of the biography and a coverage at a film festival. Hence there may a weak WP:NFILM (3.) case here but given the problems of the award show [ here] I don't think it is enough to establish notability criterion. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 18:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 18:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
no sourcing. This article has long confused MENAFN and Mena report, and all the sources were about the latter. There does not appear to be notability for MENAFN. Alyo ( chat· edits) 17:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 16:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:SALAT: this is an infinitely expandable list, there have been an uncountable number of city name changes in history and there will always be more happening in the future. Wikipedia is not a database for listing every city name change that has ever happened. SilverStar54 ( talk) 16:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted by Bbb23 per criterion A7. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 18:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet GNG Particleshow22 ( talk) 13:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 16:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
This entire page uses only primary sources (mostly to the YouTube videos themselves). There's absolutely nothing to indicate notability, and the page would essentially need to be rewritten from scratch to be halfway decent. Di (they-them) ( talk) 14:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 14:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, all of the entries are either unsourced, primary or announcements. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 14:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Dhamrai Upazila. Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The absence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, means this does not meet the notability guideline WP:NSCHOOL. Of the cited sources: four are not independent (the college's web page, that of the university with which it is affiliated, that of the local government where it is located, and a press release about their annual sports day) - all the information is from the college. The remaining three (honoursadmission.com, locator.eduportalbd.com, and sohopathi.com) are self-published websites, with no reputation for fact checking or accuracy. Searches in English and Bengali found no better sources.
I would be fine with merge or redirect to the surrounding community, Dhamrai Upazila, but am bringing it to AfD because the creator has opposed such alternatives at another article they created, Kushura Abbas Ali High School, going so far as to revert redirection performed as the result of AfD consensus. Worldbruce ( talk) 08:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
08:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
12:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
12:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 16:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Notability? Janhrach ( talk) 12:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Glossary of rugby union terms#B. In the absence of any sourcing, redirecting appears to be the best solution. Randykitty ( talk) 13:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
No refs on the page for many years so per WP:V the claims can be removed. It sounds like it could be a term used in Rugby union and Rugby league but also seems like it could also be used in other sports. Even if it is specified within the official rules of the Rugby codes, it seems like there is little reason to have this page. No need to redirect and if the information needs to be retained it should be added to those pages. JMWt ( talk) 12:00, 1 April 2024 (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 12:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
No refs on the page for many years. The two members of the partnership have extensive WP pages on en.wiki, not clear that the partnership meets the notability standards JMWt ( talk) 11:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Played 82 mins of football four years ago but has since disappeared. I found passing mentions in Football Plus, Sportnet and Macedonian Football but nothing that demonstrates WP:SIGCOV of the subject. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sandstein 18:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NALBUM. Should be merged to Fighter (2024 film). Charliehdb ( talk) 10:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Poorly sourced BLP stub on a footballer that played one game at professional level before falling into the lower levels. The best that I found were Record, a squad list mention, Radio Geice, a passing mention, and Desportivo Vale do Homem, a squad listing in a local source. I'm not seeing enough WP:SIGCOV or even a passing of WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
To this day, Caniço has never played in a professional league game and I'm not seeing enough WP:SIGCOV to justify an article. As a 15 year old, Calcio Mercato posted a rather far-fetched transfer rumour (reposted in this blog), stating that Inter and Milan were looking at him and that Parma and Man City had already offered for him. As with a lot of these rumours, nothing materialised. Not long after, he failed to even play a league game for lowly Estoril Praia and found his level at Sintrense and Coruchense, the latter club not even having its own Wikipedia article! Records disappear entirely after 2018. Other than the dodgy rumour, the best that I can find is Mais Futebol and Correio do Ribatejo, neither of which are close to passing WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Played only one professional game in the second tier of Portugal before playing in the third tier and below. I found CNN, which is just a brief article about him signing a professional contract. For his amateur career, I can only find trivial squad list mentions like Record, Mais Futebol and Santo Tirso Digital. Looks to fall short on WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 10:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
With only primary sources listed, the article of this young football player certainly fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. I searched for him on news websites, even in Slovak, but those are limited to brief mentions; no activities on his own. However, the closest ones to SIGCOV are from Sport @ Aktuality.sk : 1 2. We might consider redirect to AS Trenčín as ATD. CuteDolphin712 ( talk) 10:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLP footballer in Ethiopia with no international caps and only 9 league games, for a bottom team in the league, I don't see it as having any chance to pass WP:GNG (and little future chance to do so as to warrant drafticitation). Geschichte ( talk) 09:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jellywings19. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 13:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Football manager who fails WP:GNG. Amateur team manager so more like a hobby. Sources are either primary or trivial. Geschichte ( talk) 09:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jellywings19. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 13:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Football manager who fails WP:GNG. Amateur team manager so more like a hobby. Sources are either primary or trivial. Geschichte ( talk) 09:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Working, successful musician, but doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO / WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited. Boleyn ( talk) 08:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet any of the criteria for WP:ACADEMIC or WP:NAUTHOR. Being manager of a secretive family office does not seem enough. The article has no external references and was created by an WP:SPA User:Lhabitant that looks to belong to the subject himself. Searching for external sources I only found [12] and [13] which don't seem to meet the requirements for WP:SIGCOV. Contributor892z ( talk) 08:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Anarchyte ( talk) 09:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Mostly unreferenced, and very broad criteria for inclusion - there are zillions sites on the net that have 'deals of the day'. We might as well list every second e-commerce website here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Not yet notable: WP:NFILM. No coverage found online in reliable sources, apart from this passing mention in The Virginian-Pilot. None of the awards listed are notable, though a few of them have names quite similar to notable awards. Editors searching for sources please note that the website uses both this title and Arrival of the First Documented Africans in English America (emphasis mine); IMDB uses the latter title. Wikishovel ( talk) 11:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:51, 1 April 2024 (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 00:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
No independent sources of note, other than this an Indiana state website for a theatre in a small town. Clarityfiend ( talk) 14:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to FLSmidth. The article is getting redirect to a different target page because the page suggested is itself a redirect. I recommend you installing the script that shows redirects in a different color font. You should also actually look at the target pages you are recommending to ensure they are suitable targets. Liz Read! Talk! 05:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
The original parent company FLSmidth & Co. is notable, but this spun-off subdiary, owned by a few parent companies since, does not appear to meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG, with no SIGCOV in reliable sources that I can find. Redirect might be an WP:ATD, but it seemed best to bring it to AFD as the article was created in 2009. It's now a subsidiary of Swisspearl, which might be notable enough for a separate article, but that hasn't been written yet. Wikishovel ( talk) 13:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
07:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ✗ plicit 00:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails GNG and NEVENT. Nothing found from WP:IS WP:RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Article is sourced mainly from a medieval chronicle. Other sources either fail WP:RS or are brief mentions. Nothing with SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 01:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
01:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
NotAGenious (
talk)
07:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Evangelical Methodist Church of America. Consensus seems to indicate a redirect as preferable to deletion, since it's possible more sources might be found to meet GNG or SNGs. BusterD ( talk) 13:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:ORGCRIT as lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Currently has no secondary sources whatsoever. AusLondonder ( talk) 23:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of sources would be helpful in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
voorts (
talk/
contributions)
01:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For source eval.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
05:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
NotAGenious (
talk)
07:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Secondary? | Overall value toward ORGCRIT |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions
[1]: 287
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
– Encyclopaedias are technically tertiary, but that would be good enough if coverage were significant |
![]() |
Encyclopedia of Christianity in the United States.
[2]: 832
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
– Encyclopaedias are technically tertiary, but that would be good enough if coverage were significant |
![]() |
breckbillbiblecollege.org
[3]
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
isainet.com
[4]
|
![]() |
– No reason to doubt that someone from the college is reliable about the college, although the URL just places this in someone's user space. | – Many editors would say three paragraphs are significant. I don't see it is really enough to be writing an encyclopaedic page from though. | ![]() |
![]() |
edutrek.com
[5]
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
References
Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 10:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Article has no references. I am unable to find anything substantial. They do not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Keerukos ( talk) 06:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Procedural Keep. Stating there are two sources, without evaluating the quality of these sources, isn't providing a rationale for deletion, it's just stating what is present in the article. Please remember to do a thorough WP:BEFORE before compiling a compelling, policy-based rationale for why deletion is called for. Liz Read! Talk! 03:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Only two sources in the article no others that I could find. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)*Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Football, and England. . Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. A source review would have been very helpful in this discussion but none was provided by participants. But there is a consensus to Keep and no additional support for Deletion. I don't think a third relist would result in a clearer consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Seems to fail WP:GNG, there are some announcements kind of sources, routine coverage and non-independent interview, but I fail to see any real independent SIGCOV about the person. Tehonk ( talk) 22:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
I know 1 & 3 i gave are interviews but not everything in those interviews is solely from the subject. There's some independent text in there too, like the first paragraph. These sources are reliable and credible. Anyway, i found some additional sources that are secondary independent reliable that shows the subject's significance as a designer like [21], [22], [23] Youknowwhoistheman ( talk) 14:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, seeking some feedback on the sources brought to this discussion (and any others that can be mentioned). It's not sufficient to say that you did a search and found sources, you must share what they are.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per above. Actual analysis of sources would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
06:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. I see a consensus to Delete this article. If an editor wants to work on the article in Draft space and submit it for review to AFC, contact me or make a request at WP:REFUND. It's unfortunate that no improvements were made to the article over the course of the past week but if it is draftified, it will need substantial work to be accepted back into main space. Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I find it rather concerning that this article (which is arguably just an extensive list) was made as an undiscussed
WP:CONTENTFORK and duplication of
the Walt Disney Company#Leadership section, as well as other sections of people at the specific company units (ie
Marvel Studios#Key people). I will note that, while the major shareholders are notable given the highly-profiled proxy fight, they do not suit major positioning that warrants a separate article for corporate leadership in a list and would be more beneficial in a section on the main article and in its infobox. Much of this list is comprised of unsourced or poorly formatted contents which seem like a cut-and-paste of the official Disney websites' hierarchical structure listings as opposed to providing any actual input or information as to who all of these people are and why they are all relevant to the leadership of a multinational conglomerate with millions of assets. Surely not all of them have an impact on the leadership.
WP:PEOPLELIST states: "Because the subject of many lists is broad, a person is typically included in a list of people only if both of the following requirements are met:
The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement.
The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.
There are some common exceptions to the typical notability requirement:
If the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to: a) establish their membership in the list's group; and b) establish their notability on either
WP:BLP1E or
WP:BIO1E.
In a few cases, such as lists of people holding notable positions, the names of non-notable people may be included in a list that is largely made up of notable people, for the sake of completeness.
"
I find it incredibly hard to believe that the vast majority of these persons included in this list are remotely notable, let alone relevant, to the company's overall and general leadership. They're not unit heads, on the company board, shareholders, or top-ranking/important execs. And for those that are notable, they are covered with more relevance at each individual unit's article, and ought not to all be compiled in this list, which is essentially looking for a purpose when everything relevant is already covered elsewhere. And if the notable persons are not mentioned, such content ought to be split to the relevant articles, not stockpiled here. If this were an article discussing Disney's history with leadership and succession issues, that would be a different story, though such splitting ought to be discussed at the main talk first to avoid such lists like this and AfDs from happening. There may be some merit in crafting an article on the highly-publicized proxy fight in which leadership and succession has been addressed, though this list is not the answer to that. Trailblazer101 ( talk) 05:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. BusterD ( talk) 13:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I withdraw this nomination for deletion.
WizardGamer775 (
talk)
11:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Please see
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations).
I don't think this restaurant is notable as it doesn't have "substantial coverage"- all there is are articles about how it is on the Michelin star list and how Wayne Gretzky ate there. The coverage is merely trivial. I don't think this restaurant is notable enough to be on Wikipedia.
WizardGamer775 (
talk)
18:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An evaluation of sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
voorts (
talk/
contributions)
01:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
In every city and town are single-location businesses (e.g. ... restaurant ...) and in some places, most businesses fit this description. Yet they may be mentioned in reliable sources. ... Some articles not to create based on common sources only are: A restaurant that has been given reviews in the local papers. Yes, there are lots of references but they are all mundane, and this is exactly what WP:MILL talks about: there is nothing here to elevate this restaurant above the ordinary. (Also, contrary to some assertions above, it does not have a Michelin star.) The proliferation of articles about non-notable restaurants should stop. Dorsetonian ( talk) 08:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I can only repeat the first relisting comment: There are a lot of general comments about coverage but a source analysis table would benefit this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This article has been heavily edited since its nomination. Please review changes to see whether or not it impacts your opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. I see a consensus to Keep this article and, maybe more importantly, no additional support for Deletion even after two relistings. Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
As it stands this film holds no current plans to resume production in the near future, thus no longer satisfying WP:NFF. The film's production history is not extensive enough to me to merit exemption ala Akira (planned film). I attempted restoration back to draftspace to hold it, this was refused so now I must pursue deletion. NFF not satisfied, no guarantee for it to even be revisited, production history not extensive. This does not pass muster for mainspace. Rusted AutoParts 02:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
the production itself is notable, as covered by the cited sources: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]. It is Akira (planned film) that lacks "extensive production history"—in fact it has zero production history—in violation of NFF (but survived two AfDs anyway). If anything, the existence of that article supports keeping this article, not deleting it. Nardog ( talk) 02:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
05:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:33, 1 April 2024 (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 00:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Russian television series. No significance observed, zero links.-- Анатолий Росдашин ( talk) 04:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Taking timestamps into account, there is a fairly clear consensus that at least by now the deletion rationale given by nom is not valid. However, some editors also indicated that delineating the precise scope of this article may require additional discussion through the usual processes on the article’s talk page. (non-admin closure) RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 18:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
There isn't even any fighting in Chasiv Yar. WP:TOOSOON. If a battle starts there we can give it its own article, but there is no battle right now.
This is another of the many content forks of this war that keep getting deleted. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Tokmak, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Chuhuiv, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Dvorichna, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Krasnohorivka, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Russian offensive. Super Ψ Dro 00:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Geolocated footage published on March 24 indicates that Russian forces marginally advanced northeast of Kanal (an eastern suburb of Chasiv Yar).Nothing about fighting inside the city. Super Ψ Dro 10:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
the Battle of Chasiv Yar has begun. This would appear to be an extrapolation that isn't directly stated in any of the sources linked in the user's comment. I also don't think the reasoning that
fighting in the outskirts of the city definitely makes it eligible to have its own articleholds true; there are many Ukrainian cities of equal and larger population for which this principle has not applied. Regards, SaintPaulOfTarsus ( talk) 01:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
the Battle of Chasiv Yar has begun. On the contrary, the below quote from an article you shared (Courthouse News) would imply that any battle has yet to begin and remains a speculative concept:
With Russian soldiers slowly advancing on Chasiv Yar from the east and the south, the heavily fortified city looks set to become the next big battle over eastern Ukraine's Donbas region
Ukraine Faces Key Battle in Chasiv Yarseems to suggest that a battle is upcoming rather than ongoing, in the sense of "face" as "to have in prospect" (Wiktionary). My best regards SaintPaulOfTarsus ( talk) 19:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet. Please work to give policy-based opinions on what should happen with this article. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I could not find any relevant sources that are not listings of the sheet music for sale. Therefore, this does not meet the notability guideline. GenericUser24 ( talk) 04:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to 2024 Russian presidential election#Incidents. Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Definitively not notable. See 2024 Russian presidential election#Incidents for a list of similar events. This one didn't have any fatal casualties. The only element of notability is that it was done by Ukrainian partisans which isn't enough as I see it. Super Ψ Dro 00:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Pure self-promotion. I find 2 hyper-local "articles" about her and nothing else. Zero coverage beyond that in reliable secondary sources. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 03:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Lists of starting quarterbacks in the UFL now that said article has been created. History remains if there is material that still needs to be merged. It is unclear to this closer. Star Mississippi 02:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN as this is not a grouping discussed in secondary sources. I found some lists of the quarterbacks in the league, but not specifically for starting quarterbacks. Let'srun ( talk) 21:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I found some lists of the quarterbacks in the league, but not specifically for starting quarterbacks.Care to share the lists you found? If there is sufficient sourcing to establish notability for a list of XFL quarterbacks, but not specifically the starting quarterbacks, then perhaps this could be a "keep and move" situation to something like List of XFL quarterbacks. Left guide ( talk) 00:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the discussion seems to be ongoing between those editors arguing for Delete and those advocating a Merge. I'll just add that I assume the proposed Merge target article is
Lists of starting quarterbacks in the USFL as there is no article at
Lists of starting quarterbacks in the UFL page title.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for either delete or better merge target consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
03:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment:
Lists of starting quarterbacks in the UFL has now been created. Would a simple Redirect be appropriate or is there still content that needs to be Merged?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit 03:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
No independent sources - Altenmann >talk 22:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Keep, as I expanded the article and added non-primary, third-party sources. And even before that, I think the article should have simply been given a non-primary source hatnote instead of opening an AFD discussion.-- Maxeto0910 ( talk) 19:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
03:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. In the absence of solid sources, I am deleting this. If at a later point in time sources crop up, this can be undeleted by any admin. Randykitty ( talk) 12:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
The page previously used British-era texts which I removed as per the consensus for Raj-era sources. Now the page has been renamed as the "Pothohar Sultanate" which seems to be an entirely fictional title as a search on Google Scholar, JSTOR, Books etc shows that no such polity by that name has ever existed. For this reason, as the article's name is completely fictional and the article is unsourced, I propose that it be deleted. Ixudi ( talk) 16:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
17:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
19:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
03:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Tadao Ando. I see a consensus to Merge this article. After the Merge is completed, you can take the Redirect to RFD to discuss its deletion and point to this AFD discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Notability is WP:BLP1E only. Other coverage is WP:ROUTINE. TarnishedPath talk 01:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died, and to biographies of low-profile individuals.I note that we do, however, reach essentially the same outcome around enduring notability; I via WP:N. Rotary Engine talk 01:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. Rotary Engine talk 07:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Allan Nonymous ( talk) 16:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Can't seem to find any other sources on this guy besides the one Tempo article, which is an obit. Hence, unless somebody can find better sources of this guy's career, he fails WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 01:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
:Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done
WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page
[42]. He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian subject and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created
[43]
[44]. Also for your information, an obituary is a biography
[45]. And there's a plenty of sources about the subject
[46],
[47],
[48],
[49],
[50],
[51], and more.
202.43.93.9 (
talk)
04:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I am disappointed in nom's lack of due diligence. Maintain WP's civility and if you have any issue with the editor, try sorting it out in the editors talk page and not on AFDs! All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk) 10:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2023. ✗ plicit 00:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Article created a day after the event. All sources are from April 2023, no lasting effects or coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar ( talk) 00:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
01:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of BBC children's television programmes#D. Liz Read! Talk! 05:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
fails general notability guideline. only possible source i could find was https://www.avclub.com/tv/reviews/dr-otter-2001, but it's a dead link, not saved on wayback machine (but still indexed on google for some reason?). ltb d l ( talk) 01:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 01:01, 1 April 2024 (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 00:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 00:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that came up in my searches was this interview. JTtheOG ( talk) 00:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Has been 6 years since a WP:GNG was raised. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 16:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Attempted to verify location for disambiguating: there is no Peinnegon in this coordinate location or near Kyeikdon. Google Maps does label the village but this village at this location is not recognized by the General Administration Department according to this MIMU map or the place codes database. Related to this may be: Peinnegon (16°22′N 98°19′E), which is in both sources and nearby Peinhneseik (formerly at " Peinnegon (16°15′N 98°21′E)"). Based on these I don't believe this particular Peinnegon village exists nor would it meet WP:GEOLAND. EmeraldRange ( talk/ contribs) 16:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to give this the opportunity for more people to weigh in,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Eddie891
Talk
Work
17:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable cake that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira ( talk) 18:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Based on keep rationales back both this and the original AfD nom back in 2010, Valley2city ( talk) 03:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Valley2city ( talk) 03:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Previously nominated for deletion back in 2010 where it was decided to keep the article, but I'm renominating it as the sources do not hold up. As to Niteshift36's analysis of the sources way back when: "Sources 1 and 3 are the same one, and doesn't even give a full recipe. It only gives a one sentence description. Source 2 is solely a recipe. Source 4 is the recipe and a woman talking about her personal experience with it". These sources are not enough to establish notability and a WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira ( talk) 19:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) LibStar ( talk) 22:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Whilst it looks like a lot of sources, they are all from December 2014. There is no evidence of lasting effects or coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar ( talk) 23:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2014. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
All the coverage is from January 2014. No lasting impacts or coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar ( talk) 22:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
A low-level college baseball player lacking significant independent sources. The prod was removed by the creator. User:Namiba 22:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Leonard Retel Helmrich. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Frankly I'm struggling to find WP:SIGCOV for this film company. Since it is an organization it must pass WP:NORG. There's some one-off mentions in books but nothing really about the company itself. nlwiki doesn't help either as there is no article on the company there and lots of the articles there on the films are unsourced. It has also been unsourced since 2011. Should reliable sourcing be found I'll gladly withdraw this. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
22:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Does not seem to have adequate attestation in either English- or Farsi-language reliable sources. Remsense 诉 22:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
22:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 22:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. No independent sources of any type,, much less GNG sources. The only sources are two self-descriptions by the creator. Their paper and then their comments when open-sourcing it. In a search I found no even medium-depth coverage North8000 ( talk) 15:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
21:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 00:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing a way to verify the information and it seems way beyond the point where there needs to be verified information from RS to keep the page JMWt ( talk) 10:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk)
12:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
21:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 22:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
None of the sources comply with WP:HISTRS. Rattan Singh Jaggi is a litterateur active in the Language department of his institution, with no educational background in history, and primarily specializes in the literary analysis of Sikh holy books and writing hagiographies based off them, as well as translating texts into Hindi and Punjabi. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/gurmat-scholar-dr-jaggi-chosen-for-padma-shri-8405050/ He is also used as the inline citation for the infobox which makes an astounding claim that 100 Sikhs defeated 5000 Afghans. Bobby Singh Bansal is a self proclaimed historian, with no educational training/credentials in history nor any peer reviewed books or journals or scholarly reviews of his work; his work was also self published (Hay House). The Punjabi Kosh is a vernacular source which also seems to be a hagiography. Autar Singh Sandhu is a WP:RAJ era source as it was written in 1935 and Sohan Singh Seetal is a poet and lyricist; both sources were also deprecated by an admin involved in South Asian topics. Southasianhistorian8 ( talk) 06:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Update: Autar Singh Sandhu's book was explicitly deprecated by an admin here in the reliable sources noticeboard- [4]. "As Acroterion and Springee indicated, assessment of a source's reliability should take into account a multitude of factors. For example, the Nalwa book is likely an unacceptable source because of its age (1935), publisher, and lack of academic reviews and peer-reviewed articles written by its author (at least I didn't find any on a quick search). The author holding "only" an MA would be the least of the concerns because during the 1930s the PhD degree was not as well-established as it is now and many recognized experts and academics lacked it." Southasianhistorian8 ( talk) 23:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
21:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Jfire ( talk) 00:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
All current sources are either primary or unreliable. Only one source found via WP:BEFORE [8]. Tickle Me Elmo is not a good merge topic as they are fundamentally different products. (Oinkers42) ( talk) 21:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Working actor, but I couldn't find sources to show he meets WP:ENT / WP:GNG, though lots of unreliable sources. Currently an unref BLP. Boleyn ( talk) 20:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Complex/ Rational 21:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
This article is about Lady Gaga's sister Natalie, which is where the problem lies for a biographical article. It does not establish independent notability WP:N for this subject as by virtue of her sister's fame and notoriety, every source alluding to Natalie is actually focused on Gaga mainly with Natalie as highlighted mention. This can easily be deleted and its contents merged in the main Lady Gaga article and bits and bobs into respective song articles. — IB [ Poke ] 20:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sources sufficient to pass notability guidelines demonstrated to exist 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 22:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Unless there is further sourcing/examples of Neo-Babouvism as an ideology outside of Gracchus Babeuf (and supposed 1848 neo-Jacobin revolutionaries that I will assume is true despite a notable lack of source), the ideology's page should be deleted, or atleast redirected to Gracchus Babeuf Marissa TRS ( talk) 19:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Procedural keep. This page is a redirect now and it doesn't appear that either this redirect or the target article were actually tagged for an AFD discussion. It's not a good idea to nominate a heavily edited article for an AFD deletion primarily because of the rapid changes that are occurring to the article over the next 7 days. Over the course of a week, it is unlikely to resemble the state of the article when it was nominated. Liz Read! Talk! 02:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Not enough material to have its own article. Should be moved to Mohammad Reza Zahedi. Ecrusized ( talk) 19:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Complex/ Rational 21:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON clearly applies. No apparent reason for this article to exist yet. CycloneYoris talk! 18:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 19:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
There is no reason for this article when all candidates are already listed in the main article ( 2010 Cook Islands general election). Yilku1 ( talk) 18:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Given that the nominator has presented a keep argument, and there are no other delete arguments, this would also qualify for speedy keep. Therefore consensus is that the topic meets the relevant SNG. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 22:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I wasn't able to find any notable coverage of this film, or anything beyond a few passing references at film festivals and what I believe are excerpts of the biography and a coverage at a film festival. Hence there may a weak WP:NFILM (3.) case here but given the problems of the award show [ here] I don't think it is enough to establish notability criterion. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 18:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 18:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
no sourcing. This article has long confused MENAFN and Mena report, and all the sources were about the latter. There does not appear to be notability for MENAFN. Alyo ( chat· edits) 17:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 16:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:SALAT: this is an infinitely expandable list, there have been an uncountable number of city name changes in history and there will always be more happening in the future. Wikipedia is not a database for listing every city name change that has ever happened. SilverStar54 ( talk) 16:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted by Bbb23 per criterion A7. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 18:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet GNG Particleshow22 ( talk) 13:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 16:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
This entire page uses only primary sources (mostly to the YouTube videos themselves). There's absolutely nothing to indicate notability, and the page would essentially need to be rewritten from scratch to be halfway decent. Di (they-them) ( talk) 14:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 14:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, all of the entries are either unsourced, primary or announcements. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 14:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Dhamrai Upazila. Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The absence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, means this does not meet the notability guideline WP:NSCHOOL. Of the cited sources: four are not independent (the college's web page, that of the university with which it is affiliated, that of the local government where it is located, and a press release about their annual sports day) - all the information is from the college. The remaining three (honoursadmission.com, locator.eduportalbd.com, and sohopathi.com) are self-published websites, with no reputation for fact checking or accuracy. Searches in English and Bengali found no better sources.
I would be fine with merge or redirect to the surrounding community, Dhamrai Upazila, but am bringing it to AfD because the creator has opposed such alternatives at another article they created, Kushura Abbas Ali High School, going so far as to revert redirection performed as the result of AfD consensus. Worldbruce ( talk) 08:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
08:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
12:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
12:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 16:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Notability? Janhrach ( talk) 12:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Glossary of rugby union terms#B. In the absence of any sourcing, redirecting appears to be the best solution. Randykitty ( talk) 13:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
No refs on the page for many years so per WP:V the claims can be removed. It sounds like it could be a term used in Rugby union and Rugby league but also seems like it could also be used in other sports. Even if it is specified within the official rules of the Rugby codes, it seems like there is little reason to have this page. No need to redirect and if the information needs to be retained it should be added to those pages. JMWt ( talk) 12:00, 1 April 2024 (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 12:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
No refs on the page for many years. The two members of the partnership have extensive WP pages on en.wiki, not clear that the partnership meets the notability standards JMWt ( talk) 11:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Played 82 mins of football four years ago but has since disappeared. I found passing mentions in Football Plus, Sportnet and Macedonian Football but nothing that demonstrates WP:SIGCOV of the subject. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sandstein 18:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NALBUM. Should be merged to Fighter (2024 film). Charliehdb ( talk) 10:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Poorly sourced BLP stub on a footballer that played one game at professional level before falling into the lower levels. The best that I found were Record, a squad list mention, Radio Geice, a passing mention, and Desportivo Vale do Homem, a squad listing in a local source. I'm not seeing enough WP:SIGCOV or even a passing of WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
To this day, Caniço has never played in a professional league game and I'm not seeing enough WP:SIGCOV to justify an article. As a 15 year old, Calcio Mercato posted a rather far-fetched transfer rumour (reposted in this blog), stating that Inter and Milan were looking at him and that Parma and Man City had already offered for him. As with a lot of these rumours, nothing materialised. Not long after, he failed to even play a league game for lowly Estoril Praia and found his level at Sintrense and Coruchense, the latter club not even having its own Wikipedia article! Records disappear entirely after 2018. Other than the dodgy rumour, the best that I can find is Mais Futebol and Correio do Ribatejo, neither of which are close to passing WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Played only one professional game in the second tier of Portugal before playing in the third tier and below. I found CNN, which is just a brief article about him signing a professional contract. For his amateur career, I can only find trivial squad list mentions like Record, Mais Futebol and Santo Tirso Digital. Looks to fall short on WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 10:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
With only primary sources listed, the article of this young football player certainly fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. I searched for him on news websites, even in Slovak, but those are limited to brief mentions; no activities on his own. However, the closest ones to SIGCOV are from Sport @ Aktuality.sk : 1 2. We might consider redirect to AS Trenčín as ATD. CuteDolphin712 ( talk) 10:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLP footballer in Ethiopia with no international caps and only 9 league games, for a bottom team in the league, I don't see it as having any chance to pass WP:GNG (and little future chance to do so as to warrant drafticitation). Geschichte ( talk) 09:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jellywings19. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 13:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Football manager who fails WP:GNG. Amateur team manager so more like a hobby. Sources are either primary or trivial. Geschichte ( talk) 09:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jellywings19. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 13:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Football manager who fails WP:GNG. Amateur team manager so more like a hobby. Sources are either primary or trivial. Geschichte ( talk) 09:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Working, successful musician, but doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO / WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited. Boleyn ( talk) 08:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet any of the criteria for WP:ACADEMIC or WP:NAUTHOR. Being manager of a secretive family office does not seem enough. The article has no external references and was created by an WP:SPA User:Lhabitant that looks to belong to the subject himself. Searching for external sources I only found [12] and [13] which don't seem to meet the requirements for WP:SIGCOV. Contributor892z ( talk) 08:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Anarchyte ( talk) 09:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Mostly unreferenced, and very broad criteria for inclusion - there are zillions sites on the net that have 'deals of the day'. We might as well list every second e-commerce website here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Not yet notable: WP:NFILM. No coverage found online in reliable sources, apart from this passing mention in The Virginian-Pilot. None of the awards listed are notable, though a few of them have names quite similar to notable awards. Editors searching for sources please note that the website uses both this title and Arrival of the First Documented Africans in English America (emphasis mine); IMDB uses the latter title. Wikishovel ( talk) 11:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:51, 1 April 2024 (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 00:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
No independent sources of note, other than this an Indiana state website for a theatre in a small town. Clarityfiend ( talk) 14:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to FLSmidth. The article is getting redirect to a different target page because the page suggested is itself a redirect. I recommend you installing the script that shows redirects in a different color font. You should also actually look at the target pages you are recommending to ensure they are suitable targets. Liz Read! Talk! 05:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
The original parent company FLSmidth & Co. is notable, but this spun-off subdiary, owned by a few parent companies since, does not appear to meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG, with no SIGCOV in reliable sources that I can find. Redirect might be an WP:ATD, but it seemed best to bring it to AFD as the article was created in 2009. It's now a subsidiary of Swisspearl, which might be notable enough for a separate article, but that hasn't been written yet. Wikishovel ( talk) 13:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
07:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ✗ plicit 00:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails GNG and NEVENT. Nothing found from WP:IS WP:RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Article is sourced mainly from a medieval chronicle. Other sources either fail WP:RS or are brief mentions. Nothing with SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 01:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
01:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
NotAGenious (
talk)
07:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Evangelical Methodist Church of America. Consensus seems to indicate a redirect as preferable to deletion, since it's possible more sources might be found to meet GNG or SNGs. BusterD ( talk) 13:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:ORGCRIT as lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Currently has no secondary sources whatsoever. AusLondonder ( talk) 23:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of sources would be helpful in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
voorts (
talk/
contributions)
01:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For source eval.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
05:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
NotAGenious (
talk)
07:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Secondary? | Overall value toward ORGCRIT |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions
[1]: 287
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
– Encyclopaedias are technically tertiary, but that would be good enough if coverage were significant |
![]() |
Encyclopedia of Christianity in the United States.
[2]: 832
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
– Encyclopaedias are technically tertiary, but that would be good enough if coverage were significant |
![]() |
breckbillbiblecollege.org
[3]
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
isainet.com
[4]
|
![]() |
– No reason to doubt that someone from the college is reliable about the college, although the URL just places this in someone's user space. | – Many editors would say three paragraphs are significant. I don't see it is really enough to be writing an encyclopaedic page from though. | ![]() |
![]() |
edutrek.com
[5]
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
References
Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 10:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Article has no references. I am unable to find anything substantial. They do not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Keerukos ( talk) 06:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Procedural Keep. Stating there are two sources, without evaluating the quality of these sources, isn't providing a rationale for deletion, it's just stating what is present in the article. Please remember to do a thorough WP:BEFORE before compiling a compelling, policy-based rationale for why deletion is called for. Liz Read! Talk! 03:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Only two sources in the article no others that I could find. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)*Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Football, and England. . Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. A source review would have been very helpful in this discussion but none was provided by participants. But there is a consensus to Keep and no additional support for Deletion. I don't think a third relist would result in a clearer consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Seems to fail WP:GNG, there are some announcements kind of sources, routine coverage and non-independent interview, but I fail to see any real independent SIGCOV about the person. Tehonk ( talk) 22:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
I know 1 & 3 i gave are interviews but not everything in those interviews is solely from the subject. There's some independent text in there too, like the first paragraph. These sources are reliable and credible. Anyway, i found some additional sources that are secondary independent reliable that shows the subject's significance as a designer like [21], [22], [23] Youknowwhoistheman ( talk) 14:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, seeking some feedback on the sources brought to this discussion (and any others that can be mentioned). It's not sufficient to say that you did a search and found sources, you must share what they are.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per above. Actual analysis of sources would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
06:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. I see a consensus to Delete this article. If an editor wants to work on the article in Draft space and submit it for review to AFC, contact me or make a request at WP:REFUND. It's unfortunate that no improvements were made to the article over the course of the past week but if it is draftified, it will need substantial work to be accepted back into main space. Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I find it rather concerning that this article (which is arguably just an extensive list) was made as an undiscussed
WP:CONTENTFORK and duplication of
the Walt Disney Company#Leadership section, as well as other sections of people at the specific company units (ie
Marvel Studios#Key people). I will note that, while the major shareholders are notable given the highly-profiled proxy fight, they do not suit major positioning that warrants a separate article for corporate leadership in a list and would be more beneficial in a section on the main article and in its infobox. Much of this list is comprised of unsourced or poorly formatted contents which seem like a cut-and-paste of the official Disney websites' hierarchical structure listings as opposed to providing any actual input or information as to who all of these people are and why they are all relevant to the leadership of a multinational conglomerate with millions of assets. Surely not all of them have an impact on the leadership.
WP:PEOPLELIST states: "Because the subject of many lists is broad, a person is typically included in a list of people only if both of the following requirements are met:
The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement.
The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.
There are some common exceptions to the typical notability requirement:
If the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to: a) establish their membership in the list's group; and b) establish their notability on either
WP:BLP1E or
WP:BIO1E.
In a few cases, such as lists of people holding notable positions, the names of non-notable people may be included in a list that is largely made up of notable people, for the sake of completeness.
"
I find it incredibly hard to believe that the vast majority of these persons included in this list are remotely notable, let alone relevant, to the company's overall and general leadership. They're not unit heads, on the company board, shareholders, or top-ranking/important execs. And for those that are notable, they are covered with more relevance at each individual unit's article, and ought not to all be compiled in this list, which is essentially looking for a purpose when everything relevant is already covered elsewhere. And if the notable persons are not mentioned, such content ought to be split to the relevant articles, not stockpiled here. If this were an article discussing Disney's history with leadership and succession issues, that would be a different story, though such splitting ought to be discussed at the main talk first to avoid such lists like this and AfDs from happening. There may be some merit in crafting an article on the highly-publicized proxy fight in which leadership and succession has been addressed, though this list is not the answer to that. Trailblazer101 ( talk) 05:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. BusterD ( talk) 13:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I withdraw this nomination for deletion.
WizardGamer775 (
talk)
11:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Please see
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations).
I don't think this restaurant is notable as it doesn't have "substantial coverage"- all there is are articles about how it is on the Michelin star list and how Wayne Gretzky ate there. The coverage is merely trivial. I don't think this restaurant is notable enough to be on Wikipedia.
WizardGamer775 (
talk)
18:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An evaluation of sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
voorts (
talk/
contributions)
01:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
In every city and town are single-location businesses (e.g. ... restaurant ...) and in some places, most businesses fit this description. Yet they may be mentioned in reliable sources. ... Some articles not to create based on common sources only are: A restaurant that has been given reviews in the local papers. Yes, there are lots of references but they are all mundane, and this is exactly what WP:MILL talks about: there is nothing here to elevate this restaurant above the ordinary. (Also, contrary to some assertions above, it does not have a Michelin star.) The proliferation of articles about non-notable restaurants should stop. Dorsetonian ( talk) 08:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I can only repeat the first relisting comment: There are a lot of general comments about coverage but a source analysis table would benefit this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This article has been heavily edited since its nomination. Please review changes to see whether or not it impacts your opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. I see a consensus to Keep this article and, maybe more importantly, no additional support for Deletion even after two relistings. Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
As it stands this film holds no current plans to resume production in the near future, thus no longer satisfying WP:NFF. The film's production history is not extensive enough to me to merit exemption ala Akira (planned film). I attempted restoration back to draftspace to hold it, this was refused so now I must pursue deletion. NFF not satisfied, no guarantee for it to even be revisited, production history not extensive. This does not pass muster for mainspace. Rusted AutoParts 02:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
the production itself is notable, as covered by the cited sources: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]. It is Akira (planned film) that lacks "extensive production history"—in fact it has zero production history—in violation of NFF (but survived two AfDs anyway). If anything, the existence of that article supports keeping this article, not deleting it. Nardog ( talk) 02:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
05:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:33, 1 April 2024 (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 00:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Russian television series. No significance observed, zero links.-- Анатолий Росдашин ( talk) 04:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Taking timestamps into account, there is a fairly clear consensus that at least by now the deletion rationale given by nom is not valid. However, some editors also indicated that delineating the precise scope of this article may require additional discussion through the usual processes on the article’s talk page. (non-admin closure) RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 18:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
There isn't even any fighting in Chasiv Yar. WP:TOOSOON. If a battle starts there we can give it its own article, but there is no battle right now.
This is another of the many content forks of this war that keep getting deleted. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Tokmak, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Chuhuiv, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Dvorichna, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Krasnohorivka, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Russian offensive. Super Ψ Dro 00:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Geolocated footage published on March 24 indicates that Russian forces marginally advanced northeast of Kanal (an eastern suburb of Chasiv Yar).Nothing about fighting inside the city. Super Ψ Dro 10:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
the Battle of Chasiv Yar has begun. This would appear to be an extrapolation that isn't directly stated in any of the sources linked in the user's comment. I also don't think the reasoning that
fighting in the outskirts of the city definitely makes it eligible to have its own articleholds true; there are many Ukrainian cities of equal and larger population for which this principle has not applied. Regards, SaintPaulOfTarsus ( talk) 01:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
the Battle of Chasiv Yar has begun. On the contrary, the below quote from an article you shared (Courthouse News) would imply that any battle has yet to begin and remains a speculative concept:
With Russian soldiers slowly advancing on Chasiv Yar from the east and the south, the heavily fortified city looks set to become the next big battle over eastern Ukraine's Donbas region
Ukraine Faces Key Battle in Chasiv Yarseems to suggest that a battle is upcoming rather than ongoing, in the sense of "face" as "to have in prospect" (Wiktionary). My best regards SaintPaulOfTarsus ( talk) 19:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet. Please work to give policy-based opinions on what should happen with this article. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I could not find any relevant sources that are not listings of the sheet music for sale. Therefore, this does not meet the notability guideline. GenericUser24 ( talk) 04:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to 2024 Russian presidential election#Incidents. Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Definitively not notable. See 2024 Russian presidential election#Incidents for a list of similar events. This one didn't have any fatal casualties. The only element of notability is that it was done by Ukrainian partisans which isn't enough as I see it. Super Ψ Dro 00:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Pure self-promotion. I find 2 hyper-local "articles" about her and nothing else. Zero coverage beyond that in reliable secondary sources. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 03:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Lists of starting quarterbacks in the UFL now that said article has been created. History remains if there is material that still needs to be merged. It is unclear to this closer. Star Mississippi 02:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN as this is not a grouping discussed in secondary sources. I found some lists of the quarterbacks in the league, but not specifically for starting quarterbacks. Let'srun ( talk) 21:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I found some lists of the quarterbacks in the league, but not specifically for starting quarterbacks.Care to share the lists you found? If there is sufficient sourcing to establish notability for a list of XFL quarterbacks, but not specifically the starting quarterbacks, then perhaps this could be a "keep and move" situation to something like List of XFL quarterbacks. Left guide ( talk) 00:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the discussion seems to be ongoing between those editors arguing for Delete and those advocating a Merge. I'll just add that I assume the proposed Merge target article is
Lists of starting quarterbacks in the USFL as there is no article at
Lists of starting quarterbacks in the UFL page title.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for either delete or better merge target consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
03:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment:
Lists of starting quarterbacks in the UFL has now been created. Would a simple Redirect be appropriate or is there still content that needs to be Merged?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit 03:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
No independent sources - Altenmann >talk 22:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Keep, as I expanded the article and added non-primary, third-party sources. And even before that, I think the article should have simply been given a non-primary source hatnote instead of opening an AFD discussion.-- Maxeto0910 ( talk) 19:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
03:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. In the absence of solid sources, I am deleting this. If at a later point in time sources crop up, this can be undeleted by any admin. Randykitty ( talk) 12:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
The page previously used British-era texts which I removed as per the consensus for Raj-era sources. Now the page has been renamed as the "Pothohar Sultanate" which seems to be an entirely fictional title as a search on Google Scholar, JSTOR, Books etc shows that no such polity by that name has ever existed. For this reason, as the article's name is completely fictional and the article is unsourced, I propose that it be deleted. Ixudi ( talk) 16:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
17:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
19:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
03:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Tadao Ando. I see a consensus to Merge this article. After the Merge is completed, you can take the Redirect to RFD to discuss its deletion and point to this AFD discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Notability is WP:BLP1E only. Other coverage is WP:ROUTINE. TarnishedPath talk 01:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died, and to biographies of low-profile individuals.I note that we do, however, reach essentially the same outcome around enduring notability; I via WP:N. Rotary Engine talk 01:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. Rotary Engine talk 07:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Allan Nonymous ( talk) 16:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Can't seem to find any other sources on this guy besides the one Tempo article, which is an obit. Hence, unless somebody can find better sources of this guy's career, he fails WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 01:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
:Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done
WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page
[42]. He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian subject and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created
[43]
[44]. Also for your information, an obituary is a biography
[45]. And there's a plenty of sources about the subject
[46],
[47],
[48],
[49],
[50],
[51], and more.
202.43.93.9 (
talk)
04:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I am disappointed in nom's lack of due diligence. Maintain WP's civility and if you have any issue with the editor, try sorting it out in the editors talk page and not on AFDs! All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk) 10:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2023. ✗ plicit 00:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Article created a day after the event. All sources are from April 2023, no lasting effects or coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar ( talk) 00:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
01:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of BBC children's television programmes#D. Liz Read! Talk! 05:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
fails general notability guideline. only possible source i could find was https://www.avclub.com/tv/reviews/dr-otter-2001, but it's a dead link, not saved on wayback machine (but still indexed on google for some reason?). ltb d l ( talk) 01:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 01:01, 1 April 2024 (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 00:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 00:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that came up in my searches was this interview. JTtheOG ( talk) 00:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)