![]() |
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 14:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
This article was draftified and declined at AfC, but the draftification was then reverted, per WP:DRAFTIFY 2d, so this is a procedural AfD.
References appear to be glancing mentions, but perhaps this should be merged to Yahwism? asilvering ( talk) 00:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
The theophoric name of Hierombalos, priest of Ίευώ, cannot be held divine. It is probably the same name as the biblical Hīrām, from which the odious name of Baal has been left out.That's all. -- asilvering ( talk) 15:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if we can get another review of added sources. I agree that we can't have the same expectations of SIGCOV in figures of ancient history vs. contemporary figures who have news coverage and biographies written about them. I'm not sure where this discussion should happen.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 14:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails GNG and NBIO. BLP, nothing found in article or BEFORE showing this has WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 00:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
ItsMeGabeProductions ( talk) 08:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There have been substantial additions to the article since its nomination. A source review would be helpful as well as the nominator's opinion on the article improvements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Azerbaijan women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Azerbaijan women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found was this interview, where she claims to have retired at age 23 or 24. JTtheOG ( talk) 23:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) LibStar ( talk) 03:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage. 2 of the 4 sources refer to publications by her and don't establish notability. Being on the Victorian Honour Roll of Women doesn't necessarily add to notability. LibStar ( talk) 23:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Commando Logistic Regiment. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion, the article is not notable. Similiar units almost certainly would not have an article. Only one reference is listed and it is not independent of the topic of the article. PercyPigUK ( talk) 23:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Montasola. Consensus is against retention as a separate article Star Mississippi 02:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Initially proded with the reason 'This church is not notable enough ( WP:GNG). Doesn't even exist in Italian Wikipedia'. I do think that English Wikipedia notability guidelines are among the strictest out of all Wikipedias, namely because English is a common internet language. Therefore, I am not sure if it can pass, given that no other Wikipedia (even Italian) has this. Per WP:NBUILD:
Buildings 'may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. Also, are sources only in Italian (or only in a language other than English) allowed? JuniperChill ( talk) 14:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
So in other words, are all National Trust and English Heritage sites are presumed to be notable?Yes, of course they are, per WP:GEOFEAT. Houghton Mill is a Grade II*-listed building.
I know that non English sources are allowed, but how about an article that only has English sources like the case here?Yup.
This basically means it is notable in Wikipedias eyes, but not in mine. Ie i dont see it as notable.That's not really relevant to Wikipedia notability. Others do. This article could certainly do with more sourcing, but buildings of this age are definitely notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Buildings ... may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability(my emphasis). The Keep !votes above recognise that Santa Maria Murella might have historic/architectural importance, but ignore the lack of coverage, which is a case exactly anticipated by the relevant notability guideline here. Nobody has presented any "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources", and the best I could find was an entry from an office of the Episcopal Conference of Italy, which I'm not sure whether we can regard as "third-party".
the church...was located at the site of the Roman city of Laurum, which seems to be its most important feature according to previous !votes, the church is probably easier understood in the context of Montasola's history. In my experience, this is not uncommon for non-notable churches (and let's be honest: many places have churches that date back several centuries, though the current buildings might not be the original ones).
significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sourcesemerge per WP:NBUILDING.
aim for new entries is to try to have at least two "independent" sources, so I suspect this collection of articles results from inexperienced editing, and may also need to be reviewed. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 15:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals and our readers and potential readers include everyone on the planet. Any subject or topic may be of interest to someone, somewhere.IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 15:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk)
18:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
creat[ing] a national database of Italian churches. Your mileage may vary, but to me, this doesn't constitute an independent source, and consequently it doesn't contribute to significant coverage or notability. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence of lasting coverage. Not notable. PROD template was removed with ZERO improvement. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 17:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Edit summaries are not there to just test your typing and should be read, not dismissed
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to weigh Deletion vs. a Merge/Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. A rough consensus finally materialized after the last relist (thank you, Liz!). Owen× ☎ 13:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCER. Sources are either passing mentions, interviews, PRs, or not even mentioning the subject. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 11:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk)
16:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk)
16:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I don't see a consensus here. You are free to pursue other alternatives like Redirection or Merge but starting discussions on the article talk pages or make a return trip to AFD in a few months when participation levels in AFDs will hopefully return to high numbers which would make determining a consensus more likely. Liz Read! Talk! 22:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
PepperBeast (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
If we were to delete this one, we'd also have to delete all similar articles, and there's a lot (five just for the lists of English of French origin). I've never encountered such lists on the Wiktionary, but it would indeed maybe make more sense to have these there. But in the end it wouldn't make any major difference. Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé ( talk) 01:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Nevermind they do exist on Wiktionary actually! https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_terms_derived_from_French Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé ( talk) 01:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Same for French words https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:French_terms_derived_from_English Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé ( talk) 01:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet to take any particular action with this bundled nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. No consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. People are on the fence about this, but the discussion trends towards "keep" as more sources were discovered and the article improved throughout the AfD. Sandstein 07:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Completely unsourced article about a short film. The attempted notability claim here is that it won an award at a minor film festival, but WP:NFILM does not just indiscriminately accept every single film festival award on earth as a notability-locking award -- that only goes to major internationally prominent film festivals such as Cannes, Berlin, Venice, Toronto or Sundance whose awards get broadly reported by the media as news, because even the award itself has to meet the notability criteria for awards before it can make its winners notable for winning it. But the award claim here is unsourced, and the article isn't citing any other sources for anything else either. Bearcat ( talk) 20:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 02:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Given his age and ongoing career, draftification seems to be a good ATD. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:03, 23 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 14:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Article about a documentary film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. The main notability claim on offer here is that it exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself without evidence of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about it -- but the only references here are a directory entry and a book review which fails to mention this film at all for the purposes of helping to support the notability of the film. The film's subject was certainly notable enough that his article isn't going anywhere, so a redirect to his biographical article would be reasonable, but this article as written isn't properly establishing the film as independently notable enough for its own separate article at all. Bearcat ( talk) 20:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 02:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a French rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. I found plenty of trivial mentions, both in English ( The Yorkshire Post, Sky Sports, Warrington Guardian) and French ( Le Petit Journal, L'Indépendant, La Dépêche), but nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus and no indicaiton further input is forthcoming Star Mississippi 02:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Given that most external links go to either gregghenriques.com or unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org and not to very many well-known independent sources that would significantly cover him, I have a suspicion that this article might not survive the AfD test in its current state. – MrPersonHumanGuy ( talk) 23:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relistiing due to low participation. Please remember to sign all comments made in a deletion discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Waggers TALK 10:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Lack of notability, was unable to find any reliable sources showing notability. Was already dePRODded in 2010. Waxworker ( talk) 23:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 04:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the previous nomination, which closed as "soft delete" and was contested. This organization does not appear to meet WP:NORG. Most sources are WP:PRIMARY and do not convey notability. – Muboshgu ( talk) 00:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already subject to an AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete - the sources not from the organization itself are news coverage (probably failing WP:ROUTINE) about particular events held or awards given by it rather than the organization as a whole. Hatman31 ( talk) 00:54, 27 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! 22:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were transactional announcements ( 1, 2). JTtheOG ( talk) 21:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Sefirot. Owen× ☎ 23:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
This disambiguation page doesn't really seem to have a use, given it only contains two subjects, Sefirot and Sephiroth, which can easily have a hatnote at the top of their articles to accomplish the same disambiguation purpose. Given that Sephiroth is the name, and not Sefirot, which is only a similar sounding word, I'd suggest reclassing Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) to just Sephiroth, and then keeping the hatnote that leads to Sefirot in the case that someone is looking for the concept. Overall, though, this page seems unneeded. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 00:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Toadette
Edit!
21:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Candidate in the current Indian elections. Fails WP:NPOL, coverage appears otherwise routine. He can't inherit notability from his grandparents or mother. AusLondonder ( talk) 20:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a South African rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to New Series Adventures#Decide Your Destiny. Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBOOK Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, contact me or make a request at WP:REFUND Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. It's still too early for this article (and other similar ones) to exist. CycloneYoris talk! 19:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
an indefinite holding areaIf this proves not to be the case, the draft can easily be deleted in October 2024. Frank Anchor 15:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable rugby player, fails WP:SPORTCRIT. LegalSmeagolian ( talk) 19:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to The Nelson Lee Library. Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I initially WP:PRODed this article with the following rationale: "Non-notable fictional character. None of the current references are reliable, secondary sources. Searches just turned up very trivial mentions - no significant coverage in reliable sources." It was later de-prodded, with the suggestion that a full discussion should be held due to the subject being a pre-internet subject, so I am bringing it to AFD. To give further details on my WP:BEFORE results, the only results I was able to find in actual reliable sources were extremely brief, usually just a sentence or two stating "An early example of this kind of character was Night Hawk" and that's about it, such as these two books. Rorshacma ( talk) 19:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Article only has a single source, not enough for notability. Yoblyblob ( Talk) :) 19:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 19:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Unref article, and I couldn't find sources to show he meets WP:BIO / WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 19:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Speedy is off the table given the time passed since nomination. There is nothing extant to redirect this to, however if a target is created, this can be redirected at editorial discretion. Star Mississippi 02:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
A defamatory article based on WP:OR with a non-free image improperly labeled as such and a subject that fails WP:GNG. Lettlre ( talk) 19:07, 23 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! 07:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The source cited as being the source for the entire text portion of the article is an obituary which makes only a brief mention of the company. And so the text of the article is about the person who died, not the company. The other refs are about films, not the company. North8000 ( talk) 19:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Desertarun (
talk)
19:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 18:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
The article doesn't show any reason for notability and reads as an advertisement. Nigel757 ( talk) 17:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Desertarun (
talk)
18:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Software. No assertion of notability, no third party references, tagged since 2019. Sandstein 16:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Desertarun (
talk)
18:56, 23 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! 22:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
No independent sources given that show notability. Of the links provided one is to his staff biography and the other doesn't mention him at all. All I found were items that show he exists but don't show notability. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:22, 23 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! 07:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a South African rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Not to be confused with the author of the same name. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Cavarrone
18:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 18:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I was about to nominate this for A10 as a duplicate of Life expectancy. However this does seem to expand upon the concept so what should be done here? Cleo Cooper ( talk) 17:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Per sources indicated. Also no BLP concern. (non-admin closure) gidonb ( talk) 03:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
PROD decdlined w suggestion to AfD instead: This article has been WP:UNSOURCED for 15 years and fails WP:GNG in every search I could do. Maybe there is a case to merge with Friedrich von Arenstorff, but he seems poorly sourced as well. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 17:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 18:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
This is little more than an Internet meme that began its existence as a 4chan hoax. Most of the references in the article don't even use the term "Swedistan". As the term is not commonly used, it has not been the object of significant coverage. Pichpich ( talk) 16:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Isaac Peach. Hey man im josh ( talk) 16:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. A boxing gym business. Zero references on the gym/business. All of them are about events related to boxers. North8000 ( talk) 15:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was nomination withdrawn as article has been speedy-redirected back to the prior election by another editor. Bearcat ( talk) 18:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a politician not
properly sourced as passing
WP:NPOL. As always, unelected candidates for political office do not get articles on that basis per se -- the notability test at NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while candidates qualify for articles only if either (a) they already had some other basis for notability that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) they can show credible grounds for why their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater and more enduring notability than most other people's candidacies.
But this is written more like a campaign brochure than an encyclopedia article, and is referenced to two
primary sources that aren't support for notability at all and two hits of purely
run of the mill campaign coverage, which is not enough to establish that he would satisfy either of the conditions for the permanent notability of an unelected candidate.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but nothing here is already grounds for an article now. Note as well that this title previously existed as a redirect to the first election that he already ran in and lost, until being turned into a standalone article within the past two days on the basis of his new candidacy — so restoring the original redirect, or repointing it to the current election, would also be options.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Let'srun ( talk) 22:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I’m wary when I see candidates who did not have articles get them in the run-up to an election. Per WP:POLITICIAN, being a candidate doesn’t grant notability. That said, not all the referenced coverage here pertains to her candidacy. She was Limerick person of the year and a local businesswoman. Would such mentions have granted her notability, independent of her candidacy? Iveagh Gardens ( talk) 13:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Withdraw: As another editor has noted, the article had the air of a party political broadcast. While it might still need work, I’m reasonably satisfied this isn’t as obvious a candidate for deletion as I thought earlier today. My earlier searches provided only references to her current candidacy, but there is more there than that. Iveagh Gardens ( talk) 20:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Appears to be an autobiography, and in a WP:BEFORE search the only secondary coverage I can find is what's cited here. The rest is primary sources and passing mentions. The only mention I can find of awards is on primary sources like her website, with no mention of her on the Emmys or AP websites. Wikishovel ( talk) 05:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO and criteria 4 of WP:JOURNALIST as the winner of a Rocky Mountain Emmy Award in 2007. The website archives are incomplete, going back only to 2011. She is widely cited though in RS as an Emmy winner in passing (for example https://www.local10.com/news/2014/01/10/teacher-charged-with-having-sex-with-student/ ) The off-hand mentions of awards from the associated press also occur. It would be career suicide to lie about that kind of thing for a journalist. So all and all, not seeing a good argument here for not passing the criteria for those WP:SNGs. 4meter4 ( talk) 20:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:27, 16 April 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)
13:08, 23 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! 22:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
An article on a defunct collectable card game that has been tagged as needing secondary sources since 2008. Of the four sources cited, only two are independent, and neither appears to include anything approaching the level of significant coverage necessary to meet Wikipedia notability criteria. Almost all the content is entirely unsourced, and consists of a how-to guide for playing the game, rather than anything approaching secondary-sourced encyclopaedic commentary. A Google search finds nothing that might rectify the problems. In short, non-notable fancruft. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 12:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Boards of Canada. Changes to the target can be discussed on its talk page or the band's talk page. ✗ plicit 12:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails GNG. Did a WP:BEFORE search and everything I found mentions the album in passing. 🌙Eclipse ( talk) ( contribs) 12:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America 1000 08:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
No refs on the page for many years, not seeing much which could be considered against the notability criteria for inclusion. It certainly exists, the trouble is finding substantial reliable sources about it. As an ATD we could merge to the reservoir section on Severn Trent JMWt ( talk) 07:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any comments on the improvements to the article since its nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
08:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. North America 1000 08:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
No notability evident in the article per WP:BAND, mainly just states that they're straight edge and played some concerts. Additionally, I can't find any real coverage on them on the web. InDimensional ( talk) 09:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:40, 23 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 12:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
No evidence of notability, tagged since 2019 Greenman ( talk) 10:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Irrelevant article of mostly non-notable people, which doesn't meet WP:GNG. We tend to only have articles like this for major events like FIFA World Cup referees, not for national cup tournaments like this one. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 10:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Local politicians don’t have presumed notability per WP:NPOL and leading the council for a year as Cathaoirleach doesn’t get them past the notability threshold either. Iveagh Gardens ( talk) 09:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Feels that it doesnt meets NCORP, even before search returns routine coverage. Was declined twice before moved by page creator. Toadette Edit! 09:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs)
09:17, 23 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! 07:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
fails general notability guideline. only source in article is completely unrelated to the subject (and looks like spam). search brings up databases. ltb d l ( talk) 07:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to The Urge. Liz Read! Talk! 07:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Promotional article fails WP:BIO. No content worth merging. Schierbecker ( talk) 07:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedians,
I don't know why we need an article about a biblical plant on Wikipedia. In fact, upon checking further, I didn't find any strong references to this plant in religious scriptures like the Holy Bible or the Holy Quran.
Even this article has a Critical assessment section, where it says that the topic " Gharqad" is insignificant and antisemitic. I fully agree with that, and that's why I believe there is no place for such an insignificant and antisemitic post on Wikipedia. On the other hand, I don't think Wikipedia is a place for expressing any personal research or opinion, so there is no point in having a critical assessment section.
This article itself claims that among the hundreds of books of Islamic hadith narrations, there are only two that actually mention this plant. Even if we think it's an Islamic topic, there are not enough Islamic references. Also, this article proves that two hadiths are misinterpreted with a few points. Again, Wikipedia is not a place for investigating hadith or any religious book.
If we want to consider this article as an article about the Gharqad plant, this article actually confuses the readers. This article provides no specific details on the plant. Instead, it says Nitraria retusa, Nitraria schoberi, Lycium shawii, Lycium schweinfurthii could be some candidates for the gharqad tree. But there is no reference to that. Wikipedia doesn't accept any personal research.
It looks like this article is on the topic of Antisemitism in Islam. In that case, we can move some contents that have proper references to that article.
This is my opinion. I believe this article in this format will mislead people and create more hate towards Jews. This article supports Muslim and Christian extremists to validate their ideologies. On the other hand, for the Zionist moment, it also fuels their ideology that all Muslims are antisemitic.
What do you think about this article? Should we keep it by reformatting properly and removing antisemitic and personal research-based comments, or remove this and move relevant content to the Antisemitism in Islam page?
Thank you. Your valid opinion is needed.
- Sajid ( talk) 06:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Why is this article nominated for deletion? That topic is extremely discussed; there are religious-studies articles about it, major international newspaper articles about it, vibrant discord about it in the general media and so on.
About some things User:Sajidmahamud835 said above:
I don't know why we need an article about a biblical plant on Wikipedia
I didn't find any strong references to this plant in religious scriptures like the Holy Bible or the Holy Quran.
This article itself claims that among the hundreds of books of Islamic hadith narrations, there are only two that actually mention this plant. Even if we think it's an Islamic topic, there are not enough Islamic references. Also, this article proves that two hadiths are misinterpreted with a few points. Again, Wikipedia is not a place for investigating hadith or any religious book.
If we want to consider this article as an article about the Gharqad plant, this article actually confuses the readers. This article provides no specific details on the plant. Instead, it says Nitraria retusa, Nitraria schoberi, Lycium shawii, Lycium schweinfurthii could be some candidates for the gharqad tree. But there is no reference to that. Wikipedia doesn't accept any personal research.
It looks like this article is on the topic of Antisemitism in Islam. In that case, we can move some contents that have proper references to that article.
This is my opinion. I believe this article in this format will mislead people and create more hate towards Jews. This article supports Muslim and Christian extremists to validate their ideologies. On the other hand, for the Zionist moment, it also fuels their ideology that all Muslims are antisemitic.
What do you think about this article? Should we keep it by reformatting properly and removing antisemitic and personal research-based comments, or remove this and move relevant content to the Antisemitism in Islam page?
Thanks. 2A10:8012:7:97C7:C80E:5AB0:F714:BE78 ( talk) 08:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
". . . if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism, in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem)."
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. All sources on the page are regurgitated paid PR articles. A Google search brings up more such paid PR publications. Teemu.cod ( talk) 06:19, 23 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! 06:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 06:15, 23 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! 06:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG. All that comes up in my searches are trivial mentions in match reports and lineup announcements. JTtheOG ( talk) 06:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was procedural close as a malformed nomination — the nominator does propose deleting Charter Vocational High School, but the talk page was somehow nominated instead. I'll (also procedurally) start a proper nomination imminently. (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This school seems to fail WP:NORG and really all of WP:N as well. Oddly enough in my research to check if reached notability I found https://web.archive.org/web/20090315093609/http://www.redorbit.com/news/education/217375/state_warns_2_albuquerque_charter_schools__boards_could_face/index.html which *might* be enough for Danny Moon to get his own page but I still feel like the school is ancillary in all this. Moritoriko ( talk) 06:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nominator has been blocked as a confrmed sockpuppet and there are no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 ( talk) 19:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Wp:gng - one or two of these list items are notable for their own article. There are no secondary sources about places in the book of mormon, leaving this as a partial list as derived by individual interpreters from the book of mormon. This should be deleted until reliable secondary sources write something meaningful here
Big Money Threepwood (
talk) 05:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet,
Atlantic306 (
talk)
19:02, 28 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! 06:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Played only 3 first grade games. Only sources provided are primary. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar ( talk) 05:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable topic. 'Algerian Cup semi-finals' is not independently notable outside of the Algerian Cup and an unlikely search term. Merging may not be an option since the whole article is unreferenced. Details of the semi-finals themselves seem to be already covered in individual season articles, although for example 1964–65 Algerian Cup is completely unreferenced as well. C 679 04:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus and no input for four weeks Star Mississippi 02:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
No secondary sourcing--and none that I can't find. Google News offers nothing but Facebook and Wikipedia (GNews, how you have fallen), but there's nothing else I can find, not in the regular search and not in books. It's unfortunate but not all scouting organizations are notable per WP:NCORP. Drmies ( talk) 01:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:15, 16 April 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)
04:48, 23 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! 06:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice to hear a review of newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:32, 23 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! 06:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 04:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Football at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 06:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 03:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 03:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
This comes across as WP:TOOSOON, as the player is young and only getting started. That said, this article clearly fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG as it stands right now. Several searches hardly brought up databases, much less anything of substance. Anwegmann ( talk) 03:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I can't seem to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV on this player. This might be a WP:TOOSOON situation. In any case, it clearly fails WP:GNG. It was also draftified previously due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV, but the original creator moved the article to mainspace without changing anything. Anwegmann ( talk) 03:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Last AfD was no consensus. Created by a single purpose editor. An orphan article. I don't see his achievements adding to notability. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO. Article claims he's a musician but I don't see evidence of that. LibStar ( talk) 00:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
02:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Questionable notability; lack of WP:RS to establish notability Amigao ( talk) 02:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
01:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete As with Tsar (tank) and several other articles by this user, there is minimal coverage by secondary sources, and as such it is padded out with WP:COATRACK content. Loafiewa ( talk) 16:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. ✗ plicit 02:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
No establishment of sustained notability using WP:RS Amigao ( talk) 01:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
An unsourced article, and there is nothing that I could find online that would allow David McGarry to meet notability requirements for musicians. Cleo Cooper ( talk) 01:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of terrorist incidents in the Philippines#2013. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 06:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
All the sources provided are from time of event. Almost 11 years after, no lasting impact or coverage to meet WP:EVENT. Also WP:NOTNEWS applies. LibStar ( talk) 01:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails GNG, and appears to be a WP:COATRACK article. The War Zone is the only reference that even mentions this tank in any level of detail, and even then, in an article that only relies on Twitter and Telegram posts, so no RS has covered the subject of this article to any significant degree. Loafiewa ( talk) 00:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
simply needsexist? If yes, then please present them here.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we get a review of the sources brought to this discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I still don't see a consensus here. An interesting question is do we have other articles on other tanks? If so, then may be there is lasting interest in tanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
01:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. There is no consensus to delete the article. There is however, a strong current suggesting that it should be substantially altered in some manner, whether that is renamed, or broadened in scope. Those discussions can occur on the talk page. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
No reliable evidence for existence, while not notable. Keres🌕 Luna edits! 20:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
01:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Camp Evangelista. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 06:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
All the sources provided are from time of event. No lasting impact or coverage to meet WP:EVENT. Also WP:NOTNEWS applies. LibStar ( talk) 01:21, 23 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 01:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Previously deleted and salted at Specialty Hospital. The only sources here are press releases, the hospital's self-written description, and some kind of advertorial. I can't find much online for this case. Cleo Cooper ( talk) 01:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Geschichte ( talk) 14:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Nothing in the article or my BEFORE suggests this meets WP:GNG (or WP:NFILM). Nothing in GBooks or GScholar (well, one mention in a German book?). Maybe there is some coverage in National Lampoon (magazine) ( September/October 1994), but it is a parody magazine, so not sure if it is reliable, and even if there is something there, GNG requires multiple sources (so at least one more). Can anyone find anything to rescue this - or failing that, suggest a valid redirect target? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
*Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of newly found sources would be helpful. What would the redirect target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
01:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The review notes: "Julie Brown casts a long, amusing shadow in Showtime's head-strongly dumb "National Lam- poon's Attack of the 5'2" Women," an umbrella title for two films. The kicky pair of satires within spoof two of the media's recent bete noir bad girls, skater-agitator Tonya Harding and impromptu surgeon Lorena Bobbitt, whose fictional counterparts are both played by Brown. Yes, nothing is sacred and all bets are off as "Attack" goes on the offensive, seizing the public personas of Harding and Bobbitt to transmit a picture of cheesy, pulp aspirations, where fame and lame are interchangeable and mass communications is the twisted funnel through which rattles the news. ... Ah, but an instant before this, the missus learns that her recently repaired hubby has been cheating again. Ouch! Sophomoric and crude, and way too long, "Attack" manages to play as a fun-dumb damning of the media-rama."
The review notes: "In this daffy double-header, Julie Brown spoofs two of last year's tabloid inamoratas. First, in an utterly unruly farce, she plays Tonya Hardly. The chain-smoking, asthma-atomizer-sucking, overweight skater is consumed with jealously for her competitor Nancy Cardigan (Khrystyne Haje). ... While this pair of infamous headline-generators present perfect targets for Brown's raucous, ribald satire, the fact is that both episodes seem a little dated already. Nothing goes stale faster than a juicy tabloid scandal. Grade: B+"
The review notes: "In NATIONAL LAMPOON'S ATTACK OF THE 5'2" WOMEN (Showtime, Sunday, 8-9:30 p.m.), the very funny, very brazen star of Medusa: Dare to Be Truthful, the wicked 1991 parody of Madonna's Truth or Dare parody, sinks her fangs into two notorious women of recent headlines, figure skater Tonya Harding and spouse mutilator Lorena Bobbitt, and doesn't let go. As she did in Medusa, Brown ... sticks closely to the original text; in this case, her text is the chronology of Harding's bumbling plot to sideline her hated rival, Nancy Kerrigan, and Bobbitt's bumbling plan to sideline her hated husband, John Wayne Bobbitt. ... That Attack of the 5'2" Women flags is due to its length--90 minutes is a hell of a long way to go for two jokes--as well as to the datedness of its situations. There are no two recent, overreported media stories richer for comedy by and about women than those of Harding and Bobbitt, and, consequently, we've already seen and heard a heap. This quarry is too easy. In the name of comedy sisterhood, Julie Brown should lace up her bustier and work at a tougher assignment--say, whipping sketch comedy into shape. She TV: C+ At-tack of the 5'2" Women: B-. "
The review ntoes: "For, though everyone would recognize John Wayne Bobbitt (or Juan Wayne, as his wife calls him here) as the funnier figure from his subsequent deadpan attempts to cash in on his celebrity, Brown hogs the comedy in this half with her Venezuelan accent and a macha swagger that doesn’t quite square with anyone’s worst picture of the real Lorena. As a targetless spoof, it’s, well, satirically challenged."
The review notes: "Brown’s brilliant Madonna satire, “Medusa: Dare to Be Truthful,” and her campy novelty hit songs like “Homecoming Queen’s Got a Gun” point to her obvious skill. But “Attack of the 5’2″ Women” comes off no better than a latter-day National Lampoon, where the philosophy has descended to the point where anything is allowed, and it would be good if at least some of it were funny."
The review notes: "The humor in "Tonya: The Battle of Wounded Knee" and "He Never Give Me Orgasm: The Lenora Babbitt Story" is broad - Ms. Harding's behind, for instance, is the target of many a joke. And the panting media, perfect prey, escape virtually unscathed. Ms. Brown plays both women as conniving, clueless and exceedingly tacky. The adjectives "gross" and "cheap" also come to mind - for example, when, in trying to attract "Juan Wayne," Ms. Babbitt licks a jukebox. Meanwhile, "Tonya Hardly" cuts her pizza with her skates, while her ditzy competitor "Nancy Cardigan" endorses pork with the line, "It's really neat." Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women isn't."
The review notes: "This elevation of tackiness to an art form is what we get from Julie Brown in "National Lampoon's Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women," a rousing 90- minute double feature of rude, crude and lewd that premieres at 8 p.m. Sunday on Showtime. Brown portrays Harding (called Tonya Hardly here) and Bobbitt (Lenora Babbitt for these purposes) in a pair of satires that prove as side-splitting as they are over-the-top. ... "Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women" is undeniably sophomoric stuff. Yet it's often so funny you have trouble catching your breath."
The review notes: "Under the umbrella title, "National Lampoon's Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women," Brown presents "Tonya: The Battle of Wounded Knee" and "He Never Gave Me Orgasm: The Lenora Babbitt Story." ... Her method is simple. Beginning with stories we all know, she takes each somewhere beyond the truth, twisting here, adding there, being careful to offend just about everybody at one time or another. And yes, both are very funny -- if you're not the sort to be easily outraged."
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Lack of notability, I was unable to find any reliable sources indicating notability. DePRODded with the rationale that the article could be merged or redirected to something, I don't think there's any suitable redirect target as there are many Space Invaders clones and I don't think a non-notable one is suitable to mention on the article for Space Invaders. Waxworker ( talk) 20:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
01:20, 23 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 01:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Per the page creator's own admission, there is little information about this event. I quote: "This would be peculiar due to the lack of info, with only airframe records mostly available. Currently I have not been able to find more info on the flight itself."
I have been unable to find any coverage at all in secondary sources; all sourcing in the article is from databases. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 01:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Desertarun ( talk) 06:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Potentially un-notable, does not cite any sources (and has not since 2021), uses the wrong tone. Though tone is less of an issue, and non-notability and no sources are the big one thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/ $ 00:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is no consensus and low participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 14:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
This article was draftified and declined at AfC, but the draftification was then reverted, per WP:DRAFTIFY 2d, so this is a procedural AfD.
References appear to be glancing mentions, but perhaps this should be merged to Yahwism? asilvering ( talk) 00:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
The theophoric name of Hierombalos, priest of Ίευώ, cannot be held divine. It is probably the same name as the biblical Hīrām, from which the odious name of Baal has been left out.That's all. -- asilvering ( talk) 15:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if we can get another review of added sources. I agree that we can't have the same expectations of SIGCOV in figures of ancient history vs. contemporary figures who have news coverage and biographies written about them. I'm not sure where this discussion should happen.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 14:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails GNG and NBIO. BLP, nothing found in article or BEFORE showing this has WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 00:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
ItsMeGabeProductions ( talk) 08:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There have been substantial additions to the article since its nomination. A source review would be helpful as well as the nominator's opinion on the article improvements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Azerbaijan women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Azerbaijan women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found was this interview, where she claims to have retired at age 23 or 24. JTtheOG ( talk) 23:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) LibStar ( talk) 03:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage. 2 of the 4 sources refer to publications by her and don't establish notability. Being on the Victorian Honour Roll of Women doesn't necessarily add to notability. LibStar ( talk) 23:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Commando Logistic Regiment. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion, the article is not notable. Similiar units almost certainly would not have an article. Only one reference is listed and it is not independent of the topic of the article. PercyPigUK ( talk) 23:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Montasola. Consensus is against retention as a separate article Star Mississippi 02:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Initially proded with the reason 'This church is not notable enough ( WP:GNG). Doesn't even exist in Italian Wikipedia'. I do think that English Wikipedia notability guidelines are among the strictest out of all Wikipedias, namely because English is a common internet language. Therefore, I am not sure if it can pass, given that no other Wikipedia (even Italian) has this. Per WP:NBUILD:
Buildings 'may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. Also, are sources only in Italian (or only in a language other than English) allowed? JuniperChill ( talk) 14:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
So in other words, are all National Trust and English Heritage sites are presumed to be notable?Yes, of course they are, per WP:GEOFEAT. Houghton Mill is a Grade II*-listed building.
I know that non English sources are allowed, but how about an article that only has English sources like the case here?Yup.
This basically means it is notable in Wikipedias eyes, but not in mine. Ie i dont see it as notable.That's not really relevant to Wikipedia notability. Others do. This article could certainly do with more sourcing, but buildings of this age are definitely notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Buildings ... may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability(my emphasis). The Keep !votes above recognise that Santa Maria Murella might have historic/architectural importance, but ignore the lack of coverage, which is a case exactly anticipated by the relevant notability guideline here. Nobody has presented any "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources", and the best I could find was an entry from an office of the Episcopal Conference of Italy, which I'm not sure whether we can regard as "third-party".
the church...was located at the site of the Roman city of Laurum, which seems to be its most important feature according to previous !votes, the church is probably easier understood in the context of Montasola's history. In my experience, this is not uncommon for non-notable churches (and let's be honest: many places have churches that date back several centuries, though the current buildings might not be the original ones).
significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sourcesemerge per WP:NBUILDING.
aim for new entries is to try to have at least two "independent" sources, so I suspect this collection of articles results from inexperienced editing, and may also need to be reviewed. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 15:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals and our readers and potential readers include everyone on the planet. Any subject or topic may be of interest to someone, somewhere.IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 15:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk)
18:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
creat[ing] a national database of Italian churches. Your mileage may vary, but to me, this doesn't constitute an independent source, and consequently it doesn't contribute to significant coverage or notability. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence of lasting coverage. Not notable. PROD template was removed with ZERO improvement. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 17:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Edit summaries are not there to just test your typing and should be read, not dismissed
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to weigh Deletion vs. a Merge/Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. A rough consensus finally materialized after the last relist (thank you, Liz!). Owen× ☎ 13:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCER. Sources are either passing mentions, interviews, PRs, or not even mentioning the subject. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 11:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk)
16:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk)
16:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I don't see a consensus here. You are free to pursue other alternatives like Redirection or Merge but starting discussions on the article talk pages or make a return trip to AFD in a few months when participation levels in AFDs will hopefully return to high numbers which would make determining a consensus more likely. Liz Read! Talk! 22:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
PepperBeast (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
If we were to delete this one, we'd also have to delete all similar articles, and there's a lot (five just for the lists of English of French origin). I've never encountered such lists on the Wiktionary, but it would indeed maybe make more sense to have these there. But in the end it wouldn't make any major difference. Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé ( talk) 01:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Nevermind they do exist on Wiktionary actually! https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_terms_derived_from_French Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé ( talk) 01:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Same for French words https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:French_terms_derived_from_English Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé ( talk) 01:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet to take any particular action with this bundled nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. No consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. People are on the fence about this, but the discussion trends towards "keep" as more sources were discovered and the article improved throughout the AfD. Sandstein 07:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Completely unsourced article about a short film. The attempted notability claim here is that it won an award at a minor film festival, but WP:NFILM does not just indiscriminately accept every single film festival award on earth as a notability-locking award -- that only goes to major internationally prominent film festivals such as Cannes, Berlin, Venice, Toronto or Sundance whose awards get broadly reported by the media as news, because even the award itself has to meet the notability criteria for awards before it can make its winners notable for winning it. But the award claim here is unsourced, and the article isn't citing any other sources for anything else either. Bearcat ( talk) 20:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 02:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Given his age and ongoing career, draftification seems to be a good ATD. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:03, 23 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 14:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Article about a documentary film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. The main notability claim on offer here is that it exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself without evidence of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about it -- but the only references here are a directory entry and a book review which fails to mention this film at all for the purposes of helping to support the notability of the film. The film's subject was certainly notable enough that his article isn't going anywhere, so a redirect to his biographical article would be reasonable, but this article as written isn't properly establishing the film as independently notable enough for its own separate article at all. Bearcat ( talk) 20:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 02:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a French rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. I found plenty of trivial mentions, both in English ( The Yorkshire Post, Sky Sports, Warrington Guardian) and French ( Le Petit Journal, L'Indépendant, La Dépêche), but nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus and no indicaiton further input is forthcoming Star Mississippi 02:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Given that most external links go to either gregghenriques.com or unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org and not to very many well-known independent sources that would significantly cover him, I have a suspicion that this article might not survive the AfD test in its current state. – MrPersonHumanGuy ( talk) 23:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relistiing due to low participation. Please remember to sign all comments made in a deletion discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Waggers TALK 10:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Lack of notability, was unable to find any reliable sources showing notability. Was already dePRODded in 2010. Waxworker ( talk) 23:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 04:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the previous nomination, which closed as "soft delete" and was contested. This organization does not appear to meet WP:NORG. Most sources are WP:PRIMARY and do not convey notability. – Muboshgu ( talk) 00:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already subject to an AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete - the sources not from the organization itself are news coverage (probably failing WP:ROUTINE) about particular events held or awards given by it rather than the organization as a whole. Hatman31 ( talk) 00:54, 27 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! 22:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were transactional announcements ( 1, 2). JTtheOG ( talk) 21:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Sefirot. Owen× ☎ 23:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
This disambiguation page doesn't really seem to have a use, given it only contains two subjects, Sefirot and Sephiroth, which can easily have a hatnote at the top of their articles to accomplish the same disambiguation purpose. Given that Sephiroth is the name, and not Sefirot, which is only a similar sounding word, I'd suggest reclassing Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) to just Sephiroth, and then keeping the hatnote that leads to Sefirot in the case that someone is looking for the concept. Overall, though, this page seems unneeded. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 00:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Toadette
Edit!
21:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Candidate in the current Indian elections. Fails WP:NPOL, coverage appears otherwise routine. He can't inherit notability from his grandparents or mother. AusLondonder ( talk) 20:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a South African rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to New Series Adventures#Decide Your Destiny. Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBOOK Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, contact me or make a request at WP:REFUND Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. It's still too early for this article (and other similar ones) to exist. CycloneYoris talk! 19:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
an indefinite holding areaIf this proves not to be the case, the draft can easily be deleted in October 2024. Frank Anchor 15:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable rugby player, fails WP:SPORTCRIT. LegalSmeagolian ( talk) 19:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to The Nelson Lee Library. Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I initially WP:PRODed this article with the following rationale: "Non-notable fictional character. None of the current references are reliable, secondary sources. Searches just turned up very trivial mentions - no significant coverage in reliable sources." It was later de-prodded, with the suggestion that a full discussion should be held due to the subject being a pre-internet subject, so I am bringing it to AFD. To give further details on my WP:BEFORE results, the only results I was able to find in actual reliable sources were extremely brief, usually just a sentence or two stating "An early example of this kind of character was Night Hawk" and that's about it, such as these two books. Rorshacma ( talk) 19:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Article only has a single source, not enough for notability. Yoblyblob ( Talk) :) 19:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 19:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Unref article, and I couldn't find sources to show he meets WP:BIO / WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 19:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Speedy is off the table given the time passed since nomination. There is nothing extant to redirect this to, however if a target is created, this can be redirected at editorial discretion. Star Mississippi 02:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
A defamatory article based on WP:OR with a non-free image improperly labeled as such and a subject that fails WP:GNG. Lettlre ( talk) 19:07, 23 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! 07:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The source cited as being the source for the entire text portion of the article is an obituary which makes only a brief mention of the company. And so the text of the article is about the person who died, not the company. The other refs are about films, not the company. North8000 ( talk) 19:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Desertarun (
talk)
19:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 18:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
The article doesn't show any reason for notability and reads as an advertisement. Nigel757 ( talk) 17:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Desertarun (
talk)
18:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Software. No assertion of notability, no third party references, tagged since 2019. Sandstein 16:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Desertarun (
talk)
18:56, 23 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! 22:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
No independent sources given that show notability. Of the links provided one is to his staff biography and the other doesn't mention him at all. All I found were items that show he exists but don't show notability. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:22, 23 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! 07:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a South African rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Not to be confused with the author of the same name. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Cavarrone
18:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 18:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I was about to nominate this for A10 as a duplicate of Life expectancy. However this does seem to expand upon the concept so what should be done here? Cleo Cooper ( talk) 17:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Per sources indicated. Also no BLP concern. (non-admin closure) gidonb ( talk) 03:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
PROD decdlined w suggestion to AfD instead: This article has been WP:UNSOURCED for 15 years and fails WP:GNG in every search I could do. Maybe there is a case to merge with Friedrich von Arenstorff, but he seems poorly sourced as well. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 17:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 18:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
This is little more than an Internet meme that began its existence as a 4chan hoax. Most of the references in the article don't even use the term "Swedistan". As the term is not commonly used, it has not been the object of significant coverage. Pichpich ( talk) 16:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Isaac Peach. Hey man im josh ( talk) 16:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. A boxing gym business. Zero references on the gym/business. All of them are about events related to boxers. North8000 ( talk) 15:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was nomination withdrawn as article has been speedy-redirected back to the prior election by another editor. Bearcat ( talk) 18:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a politician not
properly sourced as passing
WP:NPOL. As always, unelected candidates for political office do not get articles on that basis per se -- the notability test at NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while candidates qualify for articles only if either (a) they already had some other basis for notability that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) they can show credible grounds for why their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater and more enduring notability than most other people's candidacies.
But this is written more like a campaign brochure than an encyclopedia article, and is referenced to two
primary sources that aren't support for notability at all and two hits of purely
run of the mill campaign coverage, which is not enough to establish that he would satisfy either of the conditions for the permanent notability of an unelected candidate.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but nothing here is already grounds for an article now. Note as well that this title previously existed as a redirect to the first election that he already ran in and lost, until being turned into a standalone article within the past two days on the basis of his new candidacy — so restoring the original redirect, or repointing it to the current election, would also be options.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Let'srun ( talk) 22:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I’m wary when I see candidates who did not have articles get them in the run-up to an election. Per WP:POLITICIAN, being a candidate doesn’t grant notability. That said, not all the referenced coverage here pertains to her candidacy. She was Limerick person of the year and a local businesswoman. Would such mentions have granted her notability, independent of her candidacy? Iveagh Gardens ( talk) 13:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Withdraw: As another editor has noted, the article had the air of a party political broadcast. While it might still need work, I’m reasonably satisfied this isn’t as obvious a candidate for deletion as I thought earlier today. My earlier searches provided only references to her current candidacy, but there is more there than that. Iveagh Gardens ( talk) 20:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Appears to be an autobiography, and in a WP:BEFORE search the only secondary coverage I can find is what's cited here. The rest is primary sources and passing mentions. The only mention I can find of awards is on primary sources like her website, with no mention of her on the Emmys or AP websites. Wikishovel ( talk) 05:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO and criteria 4 of WP:JOURNALIST as the winner of a Rocky Mountain Emmy Award in 2007. The website archives are incomplete, going back only to 2011. She is widely cited though in RS as an Emmy winner in passing (for example https://www.local10.com/news/2014/01/10/teacher-charged-with-having-sex-with-student/ ) The off-hand mentions of awards from the associated press also occur. It would be career suicide to lie about that kind of thing for a journalist. So all and all, not seeing a good argument here for not passing the criteria for those WP:SNGs. 4meter4 ( talk) 20:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:27, 16 April 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)
13:08, 23 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! 22:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
An article on a defunct collectable card game that has been tagged as needing secondary sources since 2008. Of the four sources cited, only two are independent, and neither appears to include anything approaching the level of significant coverage necessary to meet Wikipedia notability criteria. Almost all the content is entirely unsourced, and consists of a how-to guide for playing the game, rather than anything approaching secondary-sourced encyclopaedic commentary. A Google search finds nothing that might rectify the problems. In short, non-notable fancruft. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 12:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Boards of Canada. Changes to the target can be discussed on its talk page or the band's talk page. ✗ plicit 12:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails GNG. Did a WP:BEFORE search and everything I found mentions the album in passing. 🌙Eclipse ( talk) ( contribs) 12:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America 1000 08:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
No refs on the page for many years, not seeing much which could be considered against the notability criteria for inclusion. It certainly exists, the trouble is finding substantial reliable sources about it. As an ATD we could merge to the reservoir section on Severn Trent JMWt ( talk) 07:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any comments on the improvements to the article since its nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
08:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. North America 1000 08:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
No notability evident in the article per WP:BAND, mainly just states that they're straight edge and played some concerts. Additionally, I can't find any real coverage on them on the web. InDimensional ( talk) 09:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:40, 23 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 12:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
No evidence of notability, tagged since 2019 Greenman ( talk) 10:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Irrelevant article of mostly non-notable people, which doesn't meet WP:GNG. We tend to only have articles like this for major events like FIFA World Cup referees, not for national cup tournaments like this one. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 10:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Local politicians don’t have presumed notability per WP:NPOL and leading the council for a year as Cathaoirleach doesn’t get them past the notability threshold either. Iveagh Gardens ( talk) 09:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Feels that it doesnt meets NCORP, even before search returns routine coverage. Was declined twice before moved by page creator. Toadette Edit! 09:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs)
09:17, 23 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! 07:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
fails general notability guideline. only source in article is completely unrelated to the subject (and looks like spam). search brings up databases. ltb d l ( talk) 07:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to The Urge. Liz Read! Talk! 07:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Promotional article fails WP:BIO. No content worth merging. Schierbecker ( talk) 07:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedians,
I don't know why we need an article about a biblical plant on Wikipedia. In fact, upon checking further, I didn't find any strong references to this plant in religious scriptures like the Holy Bible or the Holy Quran.
Even this article has a Critical assessment section, where it says that the topic " Gharqad" is insignificant and antisemitic. I fully agree with that, and that's why I believe there is no place for such an insignificant and antisemitic post on Wikipedia. On the other hand, I don't think Wikipedia is a place for expressing any personal research or opinion, so there is no point in having a critical assessment section.
This article itself claims that among the hundreds of books of Islamic hadith narrations, there are only two that actually mention this plant. Even if we think it's an Islamic topic, there are not enough Islamic references. Also, this article proves that two hadiths are misinterpreted with a few points. Again, Wikipedia is not a place for investigating hadith or any religious book.
If we want to consider this article as an article about the Gharqad plant, this article actually confuses the readers. This article provides no specific details on the plant. Instead, it says Nitraria retusa, Nitraria schoberi, Lycium shawii, Lycium schweinfurthii could be some candidates for the gharqad tree. But there is no reference to that. Wikipedia doesn't accept any personal research.
It looks like this article is on the topic of Antisemitism in Islam. In that case, we can move some contents that have proper references to that article.
This is my opinion. I believe this article in this format will mislead people and create more hate towards Jews. This article supports Muslim and Christian extremists to validate their ideologies. On the other hand, for the Zionist moment, it also fuels their ideology that all Muslims are antisemitic.
What do you think about this article? Should we keep it by reformatting properly and removing antisemitic and personal research-based comments, or remove this and move relevant content to the Antisemitism in Islam page?
Thank you. Your valid opinion is needed.
- Sajid ( talk) 06:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Why is this article nominated for deletion? That topic is extremely discussed; there are religious-studies articles about it, major international newspaper articles about it, vibrant discord about it in the general media and so on.
About some things User:Sajidmahamud835 said above:
I don't know why we need an article about a biblical plant on Wikipedia
I didn't find any strong references to this plant in religious scriptures like the Holy Bible or the Holy Quran.
This article itself claims that among the hundreds of books of Islamic hadith narrations, there are only two that actually mention this plant. Even if we think it's an Islamic topic, there are not enough Islamic references. Also, this article proves that two hadiths are misinterpreted with a few points. Again, Wikipedia is not a place for investigating hadith or any religious book.
If we want to consider this article as an article about the Gharqad plant, this article actually confuses the readers. This article provides no specific details on the plant. Instead, it says Nitraria retusa, Nitraria schoberi, Lycium shawii, Lycium schweinfurthii could be some candidates for the gharqad tree. But there is no reference to that. Wikipedia doesn't accept any personal research.
It looks like this article is on the topic of Antisemitism in Islam. In that case, we can move some contents that have proper references to that article.
This is my opinion. I believe this article in this format will mislead people and create more hate towards Jews. This article supports Muslim and Christian extremists to validate their ideologies. On the other hand, for the Zionist moment, it also fuels their ideology that all Muslims are antisemitic.
What do you think about this article? Should we keep it by reformatting properly and removing antisemitic and personal research-based comments, or remove this and move relevant content to the Antisemitism in Islam page?
Thanks. 2A10:8012:7:97C7:C80E:5AB0:F714:BE78 ( talk) 08:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
". . . if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism, in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem)."
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. All sources on the page are regurgitated paid PR articles. A Google search brings up more such paid PR publications. Teemu.cod ( talk) 06:19, 23 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! 06:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 06:15, 23 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! 06:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG. All that comes up in my searches are trivial mentions in match reports and lineup announcements. JTtheOG ( talk) 06:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was procedural close as a malformed nomination — the nominator does propose deleting Charter Vocational High School, but the talk page was somehow nominated instead. I'll (also procedurally) start a proper nomination imminently. (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This school seems to fail WP:NORG and really all of WP:N as well. Oddly enough in my research to check if reached notability I found https://web.archive.org/web/20090315093609/http://www.redorbit.com/news/education/217375/state_warns_2_albuquerque_charter_schools__boards_could_face/index.html which *might* be enough for Danny Moon to get his own page but I still feel like the school is ancillary in all this. Moritoriko ( talk) 06:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nominator has been blocked as a confrmed sockpuppet and there are no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 ( talk) 19:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Wp:gng - one or two of these list items are notable for their own article. There are no secondary sources about places in the book of mormon, leaving this as a partial list as derived by individual interpreters from the book of mormon. This should be deleted until reliable secondary sources write something meaningful here
Big Money Threepwood (
talk) 05:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet,
Atlantic306 (
talk)
19:02, 28 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! 06:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Played only 3 first grade games. Only sources provided are primary. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar ( talk) 05:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable topic. 'Algerian Cup semi-finals' is not independently notable outside of the Algerian Cup and an unlikely search term. Merging may not be an option since the whole article is unreferenced. Details of the semi-finals themselves seem to be already covered in individual season articles, although for example 1964–65 Algerian Cup is completely unreferenced as well. C 679 04:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus and no input for four weeks Star Mississippi 02:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
No secondary sourcing--and none that I can't find. Google News offers nothing but Facebook and Wikipedia (GNews, how you have fallen), but there's nothing else I can find, not in the regular search and not in books. It's unfortunate but not all scouting organizations are notable per WP:NCORP. Drmies ( talk) 01:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:15, 16 April 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)
04:48, 23 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! 06:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice to hear a review of newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:32, 23 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! 06:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 04:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Football at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 06:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 03:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 03:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
This comes across as WP:TOOSOON, as the player is young and only getting started. That said, this article clearly fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG as it stands right now. Several searches hardly brought up databases, much less anything of substance. Anwegmann ( talk) 03:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I can't seem to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV on this player. This might be a WP:TOOSOON situation. In any case, it clearly fails WP:GNG. It was also draftified previously due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV, but the original creator moved the article to mainspace without changing anything. Anwegmann ( talk) 03:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Last AfD was no consensus. Created by a single purpose editor. An orphan article. I don't see his achievements adding to notability. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO. Article claims he's a musician but I don't see evidence of that. LibStar ( talk) 00:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
02:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Questionable notability; lack of WP:RS to establish notability Amigao ( talk) 02:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
01:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete As with Tsar (tank) and several other articles by this user, there is minimal coverage by secondary sources, and as such it is padded out with WP:COATRACK content. Loafiewa ( talk) 16:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. ✗ plicit 02:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
No establishment of sustained notability using WP:RS Amigao ( talk) 01:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
An unsourced article, and there is nothing that I could find online that would allow David McGarry to meet notability requirements for musicians. Cleo Cooper ( talk) 01:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of terrorist incidents in the Philippines#2013. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 06:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
All the sources provided are from time of event. Almost 11 years after, no lasting impact or coverage to meet WP:EVENT. Also WP:NOTNEWS applies. LibStar ( talk) 01:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails GNG, and appears to be a WP:COATRACK article. The War Zone is the only reference that even mentions this tank in any level of detail, and even then, in an article that only relies on Twitter and Telegram posts, so no RS has covered the subject of this article to any significant degree. Loafiewa ( talk) 00:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
simply needsexist? If yes, then please present them here.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we get a review of the sources brought to this discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I still don't see a consensus here. An interesting question is do we have other articles on other tanks? If so, then may be there is lasting interest in tanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
01:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. There is no consensus to delete the article. There is however, a strong current suggesting that it should be substantially altered in some manner, whether that is renamed, or broadened in scope. Those discussions can occur on the talk page. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
No reliable evidence for existence, while not notable. Keres🌕 Luna edits! 20:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
01:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Camp Evangelista. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 06:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
All the sources provided are from time of event. No lasting impact or coverage to meet WP:EVENT. Also WP:NOTNEWS applies. LibStar ( talk) 01:21, 23 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 01:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Previously deleted and salted at Specialty Hospital. The only sources here are press releases, the hospital's self-written description, and some kind of advertorial. I can't find much online for this case. Cleo Cooper ( talk) 01:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Geschichte ( talk) 14:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Nothing in the article or my BEFORE suggests this meets WP:GNG (or WP:NFILM). Nothing in GBooks or GScholar (well, one mention in a German book?). Maybe there is some coverage in National Lampoon (magazine) ( September/October 1994), but it is a parody magazine, so not sure if it is reliable, and even if there is something there, GNG requires multiple sources (so at least one more). Can anyone find anything to rescue this - or failing that, suggest a valid redirect target? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
*Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of newly found sources would be helpful. What would the redirect target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
01:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The review notes: "Julie Brown casts a long, amusing shadow in Showtime's head-strongly dumb "National Lam- poon's Attack of the 5'2" Women," an umbrella title for two films. The kicky pair of satires within spoof two of the media's recent bete noir bad girls, skater-agitator Tonya Harding and impromptu surgeon Lorena Bobbitt, whose fictional counterparts are both played by Brown. Yes, nothing is sacred and all bets are off as "Attack" goes on the offensive, seizing the public personas of Harding and Bobbitt to transmit a picture of cheesy, pulp aspirations, where fame and lame are interchangeable and mass communications is the twisted funnel through which rattles the news. ... Ah, but an instant before this, the missus learns that her recently repaired hubby has been cheating again. Ouch! Sophomoric and crude, and way too long, "Attack" manages to play as a fun-dumb damning of the media-rama."
The review notes: "In this daffy double-header, Julie Brown spoofs two of last year's tabloid inamoratas. First, in an utterly unruly farce, she plays Tonya Hardly. The chain-smoking, asthma-atomizer-sucking, overweight skater is consumed with jealously for her competitor Nancy Cardigan (Khrystyne Haje). ... While this pair of infamous headline-generators present perfect targets for Brown's raucous, ribald satire, the fact is that both episodes seem a little dated already. Nothing goes stale faster than a juicy tabloid scandal. Grade: B+"
The review notes: "In NATIONAL LAMPOON'S ATTACK OF THE 5'2" WOMEN (Showtime, Sunday, 8-9:30 p.m.), the very funny, very brazen star of Medusa: Dare to Be Truthful, the wicked 1991 parody of Madonna's Truth or Dare parody, sinks her fangs into two notorious women of recent headlines, figure skater Tonya Harding and spouse mutilator Lorena Bobbitt, and doesn't let go. As she did in Medusa, Brown ... sticks closely to the original text; in this case, her text is the chronology of Harding's bumbling plot to sideline her hated rival, Nancy Kerrigan, and Bobbitt's bumbling plan to sideline her hated husband, John Wayne Bobbitt. ... That Attack of the 5'2" Women flags is due to its length--90 minutes is a hell of a long way to go for two jokes--as well as to the datedness of its situations. There are no two recent, overreported media stories richer for comedy by and about women than those of Harding and Bobbitt, and, consequently, we've already seen and heard a heap. This quarry is too easy. In the name of comedy sisterhood, Julie Brown should lace up her bustier and work at a tougher assignment--say, whipping sketch comedy into shape. She TV: C+ At-tack of the 5'2" Women: B-. "
The review ntoes: "For, though everyone would recognize John Wayne Bobbitt (or Juan Wayne, as his wife calls him here) as the funnier figure from his subsequent deadpan attempts to cash in on his celebrity, Brown hogs the comedy in this half with her Venezuelan accent and a macha swagger that doesn’t quite square with anyone’s worst picture of the real Lorena. As a targetless spoof, it’s, well, satirically challenged."
The review notes: "Brown’s brilliant Madonna satire, “Medusa: Dare to Be Truthful,” and her campy novelty hit songs like “Homecoming Queen’s Got a Gun” point to her obvious skill. But “Attack of the 5’2″ Women” comes off no better than a latter-day National Lampoon, where the philosophy has descended to the point where anything is allowed, and it would be good if at least some of it were funny."
The review notes: "The humor in "Tonya: The Battle of Wounded Knee" and "He Never Give Me Orgasm: The Lenora Babbitt Story" is broad - Ms. Harding's behind, for instance, is the target of many a joke. And the panting media, perfect prey, escape virtually unscathed. Ms. Brown plays both women as conniving, clueless and exceedingly tacky. The adjectives "gross" and "cheap" also come to mind - for example, when, in trying to attract "Juan Wayne," Ms. Babbitt licks a jukebox. Meanwhile, "Tonya Hardly" cuts her pizza with her skates, while her ditzy competitor "Nancy Cardigan" endorses pork with the line, "It's really neat." Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women isn't."
The review notes: "This elevation of tackiness to an art form is what we get from Julie Brown in "National Lampoon's Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women," a rousing 90- minute double feature of rude, crude and lewd that premieres at 8 p.m. Sunday on Showtime. Brown portrays Harding (called Tonya Hardly here) and Bobbitt (Lenora Babbitt for these purposes) in a pair of satires that prove as side-splitting as they are over-the-top. ... "Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women" is undeniably sophomoric stuff. Yet it's often so funny you have trouble catching your breath."
The review notes: "Under the umbrella title, "National Lampoon's Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women," Brown presents "Tonya: The Battle of Wounded Knee" and "He Never Gave Me Orgasm: The Lenora Babbitt Story." ... Her method is simple. Beginning with stories we all know, she takes each somewhere beyond the truth, twisting here, adding there, being careful to offend just about everybody at one time or another. And yes, both are very funny -- if you're not the sort to be easily outraged."
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Lack of notability, I was unable to find any reliable sources indicating notability. DePRODded with the rationale that the article could be merged or redirected to something, I don't think there's any suitable redirect target as there are many Space Invaders clones and I don't think a non-notable one is suitable to mention on the article for Space Invaders. Waxworker ( talk) 20:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
01:20, 23 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 01:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Per the page creator's own admission, there is little information about this event. I quote: "This would be peculiar due to the lack of info, with only airframe records mostly available. Currently I have not been able to find more info on the flight itself."
I have been unable to find any coverage at all in secondary sources; all sourcing in the article is from databases. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 01:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Desertarun ( talk) 06:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Potentially un-notable, does not cite any sources (and has not since 2021), uses the wrong tone. Though tone is less of an issue, and non-notability and no sources are the big one thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/ $ 00:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is no consensus and low participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)