![]() |
The result was keep. Snowing. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts ( talk • stalk • she/they) 18:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Very short page, only just the lead. Non-notable product. GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 23:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
first personal computer fax board, it meets WP:GNG. GSK ( talk • edits) 15:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 00:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
They exist and there is some basic coverage. I am not convinced it is enough to meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 20:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Badak LNG. We have seen a lot of article deletions through PRODs on gas fields this month. Should some of them be restored and merged as well? Just thought I'd raise the question. Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
There seems to be no consensus on the notability of gas fields. I'm not even sure if they are geographic features or built structures. I lean toward the former. This one seems to be about the middle of the road in terms how many sources a gas field has.
Google wise this has nothing but primary sources and they are all, wiki mirrors, or wiki type sites, trade journals and smattering of other things that just seem primary to me. Looking at books, there are mentions. Mostly trivial coverage. Just a tiny few (my opinion of course) might move the needle on notability. I don't see anything in the policy that says these don't have to meet WP:GNG. I don't think it does, but I need more than just my opinion to keep going.
I'd like to have a discussion to settle this, so that I can go about the business of sorting through these and getting rid of the non notable ones. I've asked the prod removers multiple times to provide me with feed back as to why they are notable. The argument seems to be, "they are notable because they have google hits." I'm not casting a vote by submitting this, I will vote with everyone else in the discussion. James.folsom ( talk) 21:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Comment - thanks for bringing this to a wider group for discussion, James. I hope to give a more thoughtful response in a few days when I'm not tied up. I may also put some broader comments about gas fields in general on this AfD's talk page if I get the time. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 16:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous
WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Keep -Read the ref that goes with the article. It cites a whole chapter in a history of major gas fields. The chapter is paywalled but establishes notability. The free abstract alone is long and sufficient to support an article. To me, this is open-and-shut.
In addition, there are many journal articles that are paywalled but point to notability. I’d have cited them, too, but the abstracts weren’t especially useful and I couldn’t read the paywalled stuff. I’m not sure they count here but they do reinforce that this was a very big deal back in the day before business news was archived online. This field employed many thousands over time. It absorbed many hundreds of millions (in today’s dollars) in capital investment. It produced even more money in profits. This was one of the top producers, globally, in its day. — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 15:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Aintabli ( talk) 15:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Simply doesn't pass
WP:NBOOK. Could not find a single source in which this book is the primary topic.
Aintabli (
talk)
23:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Pretty much a WP:SNOW case, which is often the case for new events that are rapidly developing. Closing early as I don't see a likelihood that opinions will change and an AFD hanging over an article that is rapidly developing isn't beneficial to the reader or editors. Dennis Brown 2¢ 03:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Two victims; not notable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
exclusively primary sourcesThank you for clarifying that you don't know what a primary source is. You did this same thing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Farmington, New Mexico shooting and were called out for it there. It's disappointing to see you still using this logic almost a year later. I invite you to re-read WP:PRIMARY again and hopefully this time will stick with you.
Second ... WP:PAGEDECIDETrumped by WP:DUE, the shooting coverage was already taking up a proportionally significant amount of the text at the main Lakewood Church article, and as more details are released it would just get worse. WP:PAGEDECIDE is great for edge-cases where due weight is manageable, but not with this subject.
randomThe event was not random, unless you have insider knowledge that the shooter flipped a coin or rolled dice before their shooting spree. — Locke Cole • t • c 04:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources.
All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution
The result was redirect to Western Illinois Purple and Gold football, 1902–1909#1903. Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Subject lacks the necessary sourcing to meet the WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS as it stands. If the creator or someone else wishes to draftify this, be my guest. Let'srun ( talk) 22:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
100% pure fancruft and original research that blatantly fails WP:NOT. This would need a total rewrite to even stand a chance of being notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 22:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. I see the consensus as Keep and the sources provided are adequate. Liz Read! Talk! 21:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Subject lacks the in-depth sourcing to meet the GNG or WP:NSEASONS, and a WP:BEFORE check didn't come up with anything better. Playing Notre Dame doesn't grant a team its own season article. Let'srun ( talk) 22:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
This article about a school has one reference, to the school's NCES data. I have carried out WP:BEFORE, and only found one additional reference, local news coverage about a day of service. I don't think the school meets WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Tacyarg ( talk) 22:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Duplicate of Curitiba#Etymology. Furthermore, the article as it stands largely appears to consist of the main author's own WP:SYNTH. For example, they reference the presence of Guarani words in a 1639 Guarani- Spanish dictionary, and then use that information to speculate about the etymology of the city's name, without ever citing a reliable secondary source that arrives at the same sort of conclusions. This is just one example; there are many others. All in all, there is very little of value in the article that meets Wikipedia's standards, and since the subject of the article already has its own section at Curitiba#Etymology, there is no reason for a stand alone page on the matter, especially one of such poor quality. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 22:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Duplicate of Curitiba#Etymology– False.
Furthermore, the article as it stands largely appears to consist of the main author’s own WP:SYNTH– Exactly! “Appears” is the word! Because it only appears to be the case, but it is not, revealing your carelessness in consulting the sources and an unwarranted eagerness to delete an article on a subject in which you have no interest and have never shown interest, as evidenced by your editing pattern.
and then use that information to speculate about the etymology of the city’s name– I didn’t. Aryon Dall’Igna Rodrigues did. And he was even recognized by the Enciclopédia dos Municípios Brasileiros for this; it’s in the article, read that source!
without ever citing a reliable secondary source that arrives at the same sort of conclusions– Simply false. Again…
This is just one example; there are many others– It’s simply false, as previously stated. So try to cite a real example.
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
My before yeilded nothing of substance. Article has been tagged for notabilty for 3 years. Article was created in 2003 so nobody is working to fix it up Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Was brought up to my attention after the creator was blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia as a UPE and sockpuppet. If we ignore that the prose is entirely uncited for two seconds, we can see that 19 of the references are from IMDb, while two are similar databases. The only source left now is Ref 3, which is just a photo and doesn't confirm anything. Appears to have won an award in 2017, though checking the article of the award it's evident that this wouldn't result in auto-notability.
This is a rather poor attempt to refbomb a topic into notability. A search for "Suat Onur Ayas" or "Suat Onur Ayaş" results in no other sources. Lacks significant coverage from reliable and independent sources. Styyx ( talk) 20:34, 11 February 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! 21:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun ( talk) 20:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Was brought up to my attention after the creator was blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia as a UPE and sockpuppet. The topic here lacks significant coverage from reliable and independent sources.
The sources in the article read promotional and are obviously paid-for. They heavily rely on quotes by band members or the founder, so they wouldn't be independent regardless. This source in similar style is tagged as sponsored, but not all Turkish publications make these disclosures.
Apart from the promos, there are no additional sources for this to be notable. Styyx ( talk) 20:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
This article seems to be a course syllabus, which fails WP:N and probably WP:C. - Guillaume Faye-Bédrin ( talk) 19:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Adding:
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.
You can't just mention an article in a discussion to have it be part of a bundled nomination. It should be included in the nomination, tagged and the article creator informed of the discussion. So this closure affects only the article that was tagged as part of this AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Not sure this meets WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. There doesn't seem to be much coverage. I checked Spanish Wikipedia and the article there was deleted for "no encyclopedic relevance." StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk) 19:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 03:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Unsourced for a very long time. I couldn't find any good sources that could used in a Wikipedia entry, i. e. anything that includes its in-depth description or history instead of a simple definition or passing mention. Even if there was a good source, this would be better off as a part of roller coaster. Aintabli ( talk) 18:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of clock towers#Philippines. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
An article that appears to be largely based on WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. The topic of clock towers as they appear in the Philippines does not appear to actually be a topic that has had any coverage in reliable sources. I can not find any reliable sources that discuss this phenomenon, and the article itself has none, merely having sources verifying that the individual entries on this list exist. The only one of the listed towers that appears to have any kind of notability at all is the one in Manila, which is covered at Manila City Hall#Clock Tower. Rorshacma ( talk) 17:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to GRTC Pulse#List of stations. I note that more than one editor stated that a broader discussion should take place. That may or may not be the case, and users may proceed with blank-and-redirect in accordance with ordinary rules, but this discussion does not in itself attain consensus to redirect all stations of this bus line there. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to meet WP:N or have a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn ( talk) 16:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 22:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Notability tag wad added with reason: 'Unlikely this is a village - GNS and GeoNames say this is a locality, not even a populated locality, there is nothing that looks like a village at this location, and the census includes places that are not villages.' I couldn't find sources to show it meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 16:28, 11 February 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. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Possible WP:ATDs are merge/redirect to Raleigh, North Carolina or Anglican Church in North America, but I am not sure if either would be in balance with the target articles. Boleyn ( talk) 16:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Richard Bartle. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Sources are all primary. No evidence of notability. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:03, 11 February 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 23:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet WP:N or have a good WP:ATD. Possible merge/redirect to Dubai Marina, but could unbalance that article. Boleyn ( talk) 16:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Geschichte ( talk) 18:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet
WP:N or have a good
WP:ATD.
Boleyn (
talk)
16:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Tone 17:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
It exists, but doesn't have significant coverage. Doesn't appear to meet
WP:N or have a good
WP:ATD.
Boleyn (
talk)
15:58, 11 February 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. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
There isn't enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability according to WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, and/or WP:MUSICBIO. Therefore, the article fails to meet the criteria. GSS 💬 15:56, 11 February 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 23:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Not notable, vanity article Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 15:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 21:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet WP:N, or have a good WP:ATD. Boleyn ( talk) 15:44, 11 February 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 23:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG, or have a good WP:ATD. Boleyn ( talk) 15:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Geschichte ( talk) 09:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Last AfD was no consensus. I couldn't find sources to confirm it meets WP:N or a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn ( talk) 15:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The review notes: "Originally built as five Georgian homes in 1776, the Academy is a few minutes from the West End, Covent Garden and Soho. The draw: Retaining many original features, it is tastefully decorated with cosy lounges, open fires and two private gardens. Situated on a quiet residential street away from the rush-hour traffic it is, as claimed, an oasis in the heart of London. The drawback: The bedroom windows did not open, which is unfortunate if you like fresh air. If you are looking for a hip hotel with buzzing nightlife, look elsewhere."
The review notes: "The Academy, an elegant row of five connected Georgian houses on Gower Street, certainly doesn't feel like a hotel. The friendly, informal reception hall and winding corridors have a homely appeal. The 49 individually-designed rooms avoid the twee, opting for sensible comfort and quality. "
The review notes: "First impressions: Somewhat unprepossessing terrace on a busy road opposite the university and British library buildings. Walk inside, however, and you are transported in to an elegant townhouse, created by linking five Georgian houses together. What are the rooms like? As you might expect from a West End hotel, these are not massive. But the suites are spacious and tastefully decorated. Substantial double bed, sofa, and TV of course, but nice extra touches include a bowl of apples, CD player and stereo."
The review notes: "The Academy consists of five Georgian Grade II-listed townhouses, subtly spliced together and dating from the late 1700s. Since being bought by YTL Hotels (executive director Dato Mark Yeoh used to go to school near here and remembered the building), the formerly fusty old Academy hotel, which dates from the 1960s, has been transformed with a five-star look. New York-based designer Alexandra Champalimaud oversaw the redesign, creating an engaging blend of the modern and the original – such as the staircase and the fireplaces – with a nod to the lives of the Bloomsbury Set (there are books aplenty around the hotel, including novels by Virginia Woolf and E.M. Forster)."
The review notes: "Which is why 21 Gower Street - located on one of Bloomsbury's most bustling thoroughfares, around the corner from the British Museum, a book's throw from Bedford Square - is such an appealing address. Here, spread across five, three-storey townhouses, is the Academy Hotel, a boutique establishment that is as much a place in which to hang out as it is somewhere to stay, especially now it's flaunting a flamboyant multimillion-dollar refurbishment masterminded by New York designer Alexandra Champalimaud."
The review notes: "I thought of Number 31 when I was staying at The Academy hotel in Bloomsbury. It too has been converted from an old Georgian town house - or, to be precise, five of them. It's on that long stretch of Gower Street, close to the British Museum, that I think of as the bit the 73 bus goes down before I get to "town proper". The Academy has just been entirely renovated - by New York-based studio Champalimaud - to set it apart from the other kitschy luxe tourist B&Bs on the strip. The reboot is smart, bringing a lot of rich and heavy wallpapers by Liberty and Cole and Sons, and textiles from Kravet, Lee Jofa and Osborne & Little to relatively small spaces, adding presence and resonance."
Cunard ( talk) 23:32, 11 February 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. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Successful in his field, but doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG, or have a good WP:ATD. Boleyn ( talk) 15:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of monsters in Marvel Comics. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
All of the sources in this article are either primary or rubbish. The closest things to reliable sources that I could find were two listicles. A redirect to the relevant list would be possible. ― Susmuffin Talk 15:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 22:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable public servant. Mooonswimmer 14:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Antop Hill. History is thereunder for a merge, if desired. Star Mississippi 03:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Two sources were added after de-prodding, but editors are still uncertain if this meets WP:GNG Ben Azura ( talk) 14:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Just one source refers to the subject in detail. The other two are about his wife and only mention him in passing. Codenamewolf ( talk) 14:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Complex/ Rational 14:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
The web is notable, but the pronunciation of WWW is not. The whole page seems to be predicated on a quote from Douglas Adams, which might bare a sentence on other pages, but is not a subject covered in multiple reliable secondary sources in its own right. The page is poorly sourced, and has WP:OR on it. This is not an encyclopaedic treatment. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 14:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of countries by forest area. There was already an AfD closed as "merge" -- if the article's content has been merged, it should be redirected. If the resulting redirect is unnecessary, that can be taken to RfD, but taking the article itself to AfD is not the proper action or venue. jp× g 🗯️ 22:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Delete as no longer needed as more up to date info is in List_of_countries_by_forest_area#Share_of_national_land_which_is_forest Chidgk1 ( talk) 11:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I do not think that the person has an encyclopedic value and during research, only sites with advertising references come up. Redivy ( talk) 01:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
09:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH, etc., and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline". In this passage it is explicitly stated that NPROF works different than other SNG's, with NBIO (which includes NACTOR) being used as an example. An SNG overriding the GNG is an exception, not the norm; NBIO is not one of those rare instances. The only other times this is the case is at NASTRO (only kind of, since it requires sources as well) and NCORP, which has even stricter requirements for sourcing than the GNG. All others use the terms "may" or "likely" when talking about notability. Styyx ( talk) 23:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source. Above, you tout this interview as "high-quailty" but is a Q&A with a standard introduction which is a couple sentences about him as were the others. At this point you veering into WP:BLUDGEONING the process so you might consider stepping back. S0091 ( talk) 20:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. No sources in article except a geneology page, BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 04:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
09:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit 10:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
My familiarity with Icelandic music isn't all it should be, but this guy doesn't seem to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
06:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
09:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 10:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Not finding sources that match the article name, "Garmeh and Jajarm". It could be a duplication of an article under a different name; or possibly a transliteration issue. The Persian Wikipedia article doesn't have much more info.
Within the English WP article, in Persian (جاجرم) translates to only 'Jajarm', and there is an existing Jajarm County article and a Jajarm city. Also there is a city named Garmeh article. PigeonChickenFish ( talk) 06:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
09:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 00:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found interviews, name mentions, promo, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 13:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
09:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 00:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Historical scholarship does not document our subject except once with the rest of the sources being verbatim quotations. Fails WP:N with no significant level of coverage. Article contains a lot of Original Research. Jaunpurzada ( talk) 14:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
09:30, 11 February 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 10:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Cannot find any third party sources, or proof that the movie released. This does not list it, nor does this. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 10:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Not yet notable per WP:NPOL. He's the chair of an upazila, and WP:NSUBPOL notes that for Bangladesh, there's no presumed notability for subnational politicians. There is some routine coverage of him being selected for a government award for "best upazila chairman" [11], but it's unclear how notable this award is. The rest of the coverage I can find on him, and most of what's cited here so far, is that he's a candidate for a national assembly election, but WP:NPOL notes that just being a candidate doesn't confer notability, and the coverage of his candidacy in RS so far is pretty thin. Article was nominated for speedy deletion yesterday, but speedy deletion was contested by an anon editor two hours ago. Wikishovel ( talk) 08:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 10:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
It's just a hospital, and when (almost?) every source is a primary source, I'm inclined to say 'delete' here. Every hospital has a history, and every hospital has services and ratings. I fail to see how this one hospital meets WP:GNG. — Paper Luigi T • C 07:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFILM. In a WP:BEFORE search I couldn't find independent, secondary coverage in WP:RS, just some passing mentions of it in various Meher Baba organization's websites, that "Culture Unplugged" post of the film by its director (with a link for funding), and social media. Wikishovel ( talk) 06:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 10:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Not only I could not find anything about it, according to the subpar content of the article, it was actually a "proposed" district that never came to be. Not notable. Aintabli ( talk) 06:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 02:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Fails NORG. Cited mostly on primary sources but no independent, reliable sources is available. CSMention269 ( talk) 05:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Aintabli ( talk) 16:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I cannot find any independent RS for this. There is barely any coverage. Likewise, the article stayed unsourced for 16 years! Aintabli ( talk) 05:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) — Paper Luigi T • C 22:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Subject ran for United States Congress for two weeks and made the local news a handful of times. He also runs a church. This is not a noteworthy encyclopedic subject. — Paper Luigi T • C 05:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Made the local news a handful of timesis an incorrect characterization for a public figure whose words are noteworthy. Hameltion ( talk | contribs) 14:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 10:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Unnotable mayor holding unnotable positions in a small city. No sources found to indicate that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 05:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 10:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Unnotable mayor holding unnotable positions in a small city. No sources found to indicate that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 04:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) — Paper Luigi T • C 22:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Not sure where the content can be drawn from. Do high school teams meet the general notability guidelines? Certainly some professional players rose from the ranks in high school, but is the high school bracket noteworthy for an encyclopedia? I'm not going to say it isn't. It's just that this article is one sentence long and doesn't really justify its own page. It's as brief as a dictionary entry. — Paper Luigi T • C 04:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TLA (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable mayor. This article cites a lot of sources, but they're all just routine coverage of her mayoral administration by local outlets in New Jersey. Several of the articles aren't even news coverage, they're just pages on government websites. 55,000 is not a big enough population to inherently justify giving the mayor a Wikipedia page, and it seems like no other mayors of this town have Wikipedia pages except the ones who went on to hold higher office. I don't see anything she's done that makes her notable enough for a Wikipedia page. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 03:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. WP:SUSTAINED has been cited as met. Editors note that some clean-up can be helpful. (non-admin closure) TLA (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Currently, fails to meet the requirements of meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG 1keyhole ( talk) 02:27, 11 February 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 04:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Subject lacks the necessary WP:SIGCOV from secondary sources to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun ( talk) 02:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Refbombed article about an AI startup, packed with references that don’t mention the subject at all, or mention it in passing, or are PR. There are a few refs that discuss the subject in detail so it might be possible to stubify and keep this, but it seems marginal so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra ( talk) 03:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
09:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
20:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to establish consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
00:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Fails GNG and is insufficiently supported by reliable sources Paul W ( talk) 19:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
(Procedurally declined PROD) Not well documented in RS, not all mentions (mostly in the context of specific acts) appear to be referring to the same thing. The only non-stub this article could develop into is a WP:COATRACK. Mach61 ( talk) 21:53, 3 February 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
00:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was keep. Snowing. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts ( talk • stalk • she/they) 18:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Very short page, only just the lead. Non-notable product. GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 23:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
first personal computer fax board, it meets WP:GNG. GSK ( talk • edits) 15:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 00:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
They exist and there is some basic coverage. I am not convinced it is enough to meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 20:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Badak LNG. We have seen a lot of article deletions through PRODs on gas fields this month. Should some of them be restored and merged as well? Just thought I'd raise the question. Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
There seems to be no consensus on the notability of gas fields. I'm not even sure if they are geographic features or built structures. I lean toward the former. This one seems to be about the middle of the road in terms how many sources a gas field has.
Google wise this has nothing but primary sources and they are all, wiki mirrors, or wiki type sites, trade journals and smattering of other things that just seem primary to me. Looking at books, there are mentions. Mostly trivial coverage. Just a tiny few (my opinion of course) might move the needle on notability. I don't see anything in the policy that says these don't have to meet WP:GNG. I don't think it does, but I need more than just my opinion to keep going.
I'd like to have a discussion to settle this, so that I can go about the business of sorting through these and getting rid of the non notable ones. I've asked the prod removers multiple times to provide me with feed back as to why they are notable. The argument seems to be, "they are notable because they have google hits." I'm not casting a vote by submitting this, I will vote with everyone else in the discussion. James.folsom ( talk) 21:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Comment - thanks for bringing this to a wider group for discussion, James. I hope to give a more thoughtful response in a few days when I'm not tied up. I may also put some broader comments about gas fields in general on this AfD's talk page if I get the time. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 16:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous
WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Keep -Read the ref that goes with the article. It cites a whole chapter in a history of major gas fields. The chapter is paywalled but establishes notability. The free abstract alone is long and sufficient to support an article. To me, this is open-and-shut.
In addition, there are many journal articles that are paywalled but point to notability. I’d have cited them, too, but the abstracts weren’t especially useful and I couldn’t read the paywalled stuff. I’m not sure they count here but they do reinforce that this was a very big deal back in the day before business news was archived online. This field employed many thousands over time. It absorbed many hundreds of millions (in today’s dollars) in capital investment. It produced even more money in profits. This was one of the top producers, globally, in its day. — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 15:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Aintabli ( talk) 15:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Simply doesn't pass
WP:NBOOK. Could not find a single source in which this book is the primary topic.
Aintabli (
talk)
23:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Pretty much a WP:SNOW case, which is often the case for new events that are rapidly developing. Closing early as I don't see a likelihood that opinions will change and an AFD hanging over an article that is rapidly developing isn't beneficial to the reader or editors. Dennis Brown 2¢ 03:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Two victims; not notable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
exclusively primary sourcesThank you for clarifying that you don't know what a primary source is. You did this same thing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Farmington, New Mexico shooting and were called out for it there. It's disappointing to see you still using this logic almost a year later. I invite you to re-read WP:PRIMARY again and hopefully this time will stick with you.
Second ... WP:PAGEDECIDETrumped by WP:DUE, the shooting coverage was already taking up a proportionally significant amount of the text at the main Lakewood Church article, and as more details are released it would just get worse. WP:PAGEDECIDE is great for edge-cases where due weight is manageable, but not with this subject.
randomThe event was not random, unless you have insider knowledge that the shooter flipped a coin or rolled dice before their shooting spree. — Locke Cole • t • c 04:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources.
All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution
The result was redirect to Western Illinois Purple and Gold football, 1902–1909#1903. Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Subject lacks the necessary sourcing to meet the WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS as it stands. If the creator or someone else wishes to draftify this, be my guest. Let'srun ( talk) 22:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
100% pure fancruft and original research that blatantly fails WP:NOT. This would need a total rewrite to even stand a chance of being notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 22:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. I see the consensus as Keep and the sources provided are adequate. Liz Read! Talk! 21:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Subject lacks the in-depth sourcing to meet the GNG or WP:NSEASONS, and a WP:BEFORE check didn't come up with anything better. Playing Notre Dame doesn't grant a team its own season article. Let'srun ( talk) 22:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
This article about a school has one reference, to the school's NCES data. I have carried out WP:BEFORE, and only found one additional reference, local news coverage about a day of service. I don't think the school meets WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Tacyarg ( talk) 22:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Duplicate of Curitiba#Etymology. Furthermore, the article as it stands largely appears to consist of the main author's own WP:SYNTH. For example, they reference the presence of Guarani words in a 1639 Guarani- Spanish dictionary, and then use that information to speculate about the etymology of the city's name, without ever citing a reliable secondary source that arrives at the same sort of conclusions. This is just one example; there are many others. All in all, there is very little of value in the article that meets Wikipedia's standards, and since the subject of the article already has its own section at Curitiba#Etymology, there is no reason for a stand alone page on the matter, especially one of such poor quality. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 22:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Duplicate of Curitiba#Etymology– False.
Furthermore, the article as it stands largely appears to consist of the main author’s own WP:SYNTH– Exactly! “Appears” is the word! Because it only appears to be the case, but it is not, revealing your carelessness in consulting the sources and an unwarranted eagerness to delete an article on a subject in which you have no interest and have never shown interest, as evidenced by your editing pattern.
and then use that information to speculate about the etymology of the city’s name– I didn’t. Aryon Dall’Igna Rodrigues did. And he was even recognized by the Enciclopédia dos Municípios Brasileiros for this; it’s in the article, read that source!
without ever citing a reliable secondary source that arrives at the same sort of conclusions– Simply false. Again…
This is just one example; there are many others– It’s simply false, as previously stated. So try to cite a real example.
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
My before yeilded nothing of substance. Article has been tagged for notabilty for 3 years. Article was created in 2003 so nobody is working to fix it up Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Was brought up to my attention after the creator was blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia as a UPE and sockpuppet. If we ignore that the prose is entirely uncited for two seconds, we can see that 19 of the references are from IMDb, while two are similar databases. The only source left now is Ref 3, which is just a photo and doesn't confirm anything. Appears to have won an award in 2017, though checking the article of the award it's evident that this wouldn't result in auto-notability.
This is a rather poor attempt to refbomb a topic into notability. A search for "Suat Onur Ayas" or "Suat Onur Ayaş" results in no other sources. Lacks significant coverage from reliable and independent sources. Styyx ( talk) 20:34, 11 February 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! 21:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun ( talk) 20:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Was brought up to my attention after the creator was blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia as a UPE and sockpuppet. The topic here lacks significant coverage from reliable and independent sources.
The sources in the article read promotional and are obviously paid-for. They heavily rely on quotes by band members or the founder, so they wouldn't be independent regardless. This source in similar style is tagged as sponsored, but not all Turkish publications make these disclosures.
Apart from the promos, there are no additional sources for this to be notable. Styyx ( talk) 20:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
This article seems to be a course syllabus, which fails WP:N and probably WP:C. - Guillaume Faye-Bédrin ( talk) 19:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Adding:
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.
You can't just mention an article in a discussion to have it be part of a bundled nomination. It should be included in the nomination, tagged and the article creator informed of the discussion. So this closure affects only the article that was tagged as part of this AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Not sure this meets WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. There doesn't seem to be much coverage. I checked Spanish Wikipedia and the article there was deleted for "no encyclopedic relevance." StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk) 19:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 03:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Unsourced for a very long time. I couldn't find any good sources that could used in a Wikipedia entry, i. e. anything that includes its in-depth description or history instead of a simple definition or passing mention. Even if there was a good source, this would be better off as a part of roller coaster. Aintabli ( talk) 18:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of clock towers#Philippines. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
An article that appears to be largely based on WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. The topic of clock towers as they appear in the Philippines does not appear to actually be a topic that has had any coverage in reliable sources. I can not find any reliable sources that discuss this phenomenon, and the article itself has none, merely having sources verifying that the individual entries on this list exist. The only one of the listed towers that appears to have any kind of notability at all is the one in Manila, which is covered at Manila City Hall#Clock Tower. Rorshacma ( talk) 17:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to GRTC Pulse#List of stations. I note that more than one editor stated that a broader discussion should take place. That may or may not be the case, and users may proceed with blank-and-redirect in accordance with ordinary rules, but this discussion does not in itself attain consensus to redirect all stations of this bus line there. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to meet WP:N or have a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn ( talk) 16:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 22:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Notability tag wad added with reason: 'Unlikely this is a village - GNS and GeoNames say this is a locality, not even a populated locality, there is nothing that looks like a village at this location, and the census includes places that are not villages.' I couldn't find sources to show it meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 16:28, 11 February 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. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Possible WP:ATDs are merge/redirect to Raleigh, North Carolina or Anglican Church in North America, but I am not sure if either would be in balance with the target articles. Boleyn ( talk) 16:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Richard Bartle. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Sources are all primary. No evidence of notability. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:03, 11 February 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 23:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet WP:N or have a good WP:ATD. Possible merge/redirect to Dubai Marina, but could unbalance that article. Boleyn ( talk) 16:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Geschichte ( talk) 18:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet
WP:N or have a good
WP:ATD.
Boleyn (
talk)
16:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Tone 17:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
It exists, but doesn't have significant coverage. Doesn't appear to meet
WP:N or have a good
WP:ATD.
Boleyn (
talk)
15:58, 11 February 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. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
There isn't enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability according to WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, and/or WP:MUSICBIO. Therefore, the article fails to meet the criteria. GSS 💬 15:56, 11 February 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 23:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Not notable, vanity article Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 15:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 21:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet WP:N, or have a good WP:ATD. Boleyn ( talk) 15:44, 11 February 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 23:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG, or have a good WP:ATD. Boleyn ( talk) 15:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Geschichte ( talk) 09:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Last AfD was no consensus. I couldn't find sources to confirm it meets WP:N or a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn ( talk) 15:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The review notes: "Originally built as five Georgian homes in 1776, the Academy is a few minutes from the West End, Covent Garden and Soho. The draw: Retaining many original features, it is tastefully decorated with cosy lounges, open fires and two private gardens. Situated on a quiet residential street away from the rush-hour traffic it is, as claimed, an oasis in the heart of London. The drawback: The bedroom windows did not open, which is unfortunate if you like fresh air. If you are looking for a hip hotel with buzzing nightlife, look elsewhere."
The review notes: "The Academy, an elegant row of five connected Georgian houses on Gower Street, certainly doesn't feel like a hotel. The friendly, informal reception hall and winding corridors have a homely appeal. The 49 individually-designed rooms avoid the twee, opting for sensible comfort and quality. "
The review notes: "First impressions: Somewhat unprepossessing terrace on a busy road opposite the university and British library buildings. Walk inside, however, and you are transported in to an elegant townhouse, created by linking five Georgian houses together. What are the rooms like? As you might expect from a West End hotel, these are not massive. But the suites are spacious and tastefully decorated. Substantial double bed, sofa, and TV of course, but nice extra touches include a bowl of apples, CD player and stereo."
The review notes: "The Academy consists of five Georgian Grade II-listed townhouses, subtly spliced together and dating from the late 1700s. Since being bought by YTL Hotels (executive director Dato Mark Yeoh used to go to school near here and remembered the building), the formerly fusty old Academy hotel, which dates from the 1960s, has been transformed with a five-star look. New York-based designer Alexandra Champalimaud oversaw the redesign, creating an engaging blend of the modern and the original – such as the staircase and the fireplaces – with a nod to the lives of the Bloomsbury Set (there are books aplenty around the hotel, including novels by Virginia Woolf and E.M. Forster)."
The review notes: "Which is why 21 Gower Street - located on one of Bloomsbury's most bustling thoroughfares, around the corner from the British Museum, a book's throw from Bedford Square - is such an appealing address. Here, spread across five, three-storey townhouses, is the Academy Hotel, a boutique establishment that is as much a place in which to hang out as it is somewhere to stay, especially now it's flaunting a flamboyant multimillion-dollar refurbishment masterminded by New York designer Alexandra Champalimaud."
The review notes: "I thought of Number 31 when I was staying at The Academy hotel in Bloomsbury. It too has been converted from an old Georgian town house - or, to be precise, five of them. It's on that long stretch of Gower Street, close to the British Museum, that I think of as the bit the 73 bus goes down before I get to "town proper". The Academy has just been entirely renovated - by New York-based studio Champalimaud - to set it apart from the other kitschy luxe tourist B&Bs on the strip. The reboot is smart, bringing a lot of rich and heavy wallpapers by Liberty and Cole and Sons, and textiles from Kravet, Lee Jofa and Osborne & Little to relatively small spaces, adding presence and resonance."
Cunard ( talk) 23:32, 11 February 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. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Successful in his field, but doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG, or have a good WP:ATD. Boleyn ( talk) 15:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of monsters in Marvel Comics. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
All of the sources in this article are either primary or rubbish. The closest things to reliable sources that I could find were two listicles. A redirect to the relevant list would be possible. ― Susmuffin Talk 15:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 22:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable public servant. Mooonswimmer 14:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Antop Hill. History is thereunder for a merge, if desired. Star Mississippi 03:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Two sources were added after de-prodding, but editors are still uncertain if this meets WP:GNG Ben Azura ( talk) 14:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Just one source refers to the subject in detail. The other two are about his wife and only mention him in passing. Codenamewolf ( talk) 14:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Complex/ Rational 14:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
The web is notable, but the pronunciation of WWW is not. The whole page seems to be predicated on a quote from Douglas Adams, which might bare a sentence on other pages, but is not a subject covered in multiple reliable secondary sources in its own right. The page is poorly sourced, and has WP:OR on it. This is not an encyclopaedic treatment. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 14:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of countries by forest area. There was already an AfD closed as "merge" -- if the article's content has been merged, it should be redirected. If the resulting redirect is unnecessary, that can be taken to RfD, but taking the article itself to AfD is not the proper action or venue. jp× g 🗯️ 22:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Delete as no longer needed as more up to date info is in List_of_countries_by_forest_area#Share_of_national_land_which_is_forest Chidgk1 ( talk) 11:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I do not think that the person has an encyclopedic value and during research, only sites with advertising references come up. Redivy ( talk) 01:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
09:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH, etc., and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline". In this passage it is explicitly stated that NPROF works different than other SNG's, with NBIO (which includes NACTOR) being used as an example. An SNG overriding the GNG is an exception, not the norm; NBIO is not one of those rare instances. The only other times this is the case is at NASTRO (only kind of, since it requires sources as well) and NCORP, which has even stricter requirements for sourcing than the GNG. All others use the terms "may" or "likely" when talking about notability. Styyx ( talk) 23:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source. Above, you tout this interview as "high-quailty" but is a Q&A with a standard introduction which is a couple sentences about him as were the others. At this point you veering into WP:BLUDGEONING the process so you might consider stepping back. S0091 ( talk) 20:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. No sources in article except a geneology page, BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 04:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
09:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit 10:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
My familiarity with Icelandic music isn't all it should be, but this guy doesn't seem to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
06:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
09:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 10:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Not finding sources that match the article name, "Garmeh and Jajarm". It could be a duplication of an article under a different name; or possibly a transliteration issue. The Persian Wikipedia article doesn't have much more info.
Within the English WP article, in Persian (جاجرم) translates to only 'Jajarm', and there is an existing Jajarm County article and a Jajarm city. Also there is a city named Garmeh article. PigeonChickenFish ( talk) 06:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
09:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 00:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found interviews, name mentions, promo, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 13:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
09:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 00:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Historical scholarship does not document our subject except once with the rest of the sources being verbatim quotations. Fails WP:N with no significant level of coverage. Article contains a lot of Original Research. Jaunpurzada ( talk) 14:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
09:30, 11 February 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 10:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Cannot find any third party sources, or proof that the movie released. This does not list it, nor does this. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 10:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Not yet notable per WP:NPOL. He's the chair of an upazila, and WP:NSUBPOL notes that for Bangladesh, there's no presumed notability for subnational politicians. There is some routine coverage of him being selected for a government award for "best upazila chairman" [11], but it's unclear how notable this award is. The rest of the coverage I can find on him, and most of what's cited here so far, is that he's a candidate for a national assembly election, but WP:NPOL notes that just being a candidate doesn't confer notability, and the coverage of his candidacy in RS so far is pretty thin. Article was nominated for speedy deletion yesterday, but speedy deletion was contested by an anon editor two hours ago. Wikishovel ( talk) 08:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 10:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
It's just a hospital, and when (almost?) every source is a primary source, I'm inclined to say 'delete' here. Every hospital has a history, and every hospital has services and ratings. I fail to see how this one hospital meets WP:GNG. — Paper Luigi T • C 07:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFILM. In a WP:BEFORE search I couldn't find independent, secondary coverage in WP:RS, just some passing mentions of it in various Meher Baba organization's websites, that "Culture Unplugged" post of the film by its director (with a link for funding), and social media. Wikishovel ( talk) 06:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 10:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Not only I could not find anything about it, according to the subpar content of the article, it was actually a "proposed" district that never came to be. Not notable. Aintabli ( talk) 06:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 02:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Fails NORG. Cited mostly on primary sources but no independent, reliable sources is available. CSMention269 ( talk) 05:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Aintabli ( talk) 16:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I cannot find any independent RS for this. There is barely any coverage. Likewise, the article stayed unsourced for 16 years! Aintabli ( talk) 05:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) — Paper Luigi T • C 22:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Subject ran for United States Congress for two weeks and made the local news a handful of times. He also runs a church. This is not a noteworthy encyclopedic subject. — Paper Luigi T • C 05:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Made the local news a handful of timesis an incorrect characterization for a public figure whose words are noteworthy. Hameltion ( talk | contribs) 14:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 10:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Unnotable mayor holding unnotable positions in a small city. No sources found to indicate that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 05:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 10:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Unnotable mayor holding unnotable positions in a small city. No sources found to indicate that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 04:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) — Paper Luigi T • C 22:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Not sure where the content can be drawn from. Do high school teams meet the general notability guidelines? Certainly some professional players rose from the ranks in high school, but is the high school bracket noteworthy for an encyclopedia? I'm not going to say it isn't. It's just that this article is one sentence long and doesn't really justify its own page. It's as brief as a dictionary entry. — Paper Luigi T • C 04:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TLA (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable mayor. This article cites a lot of sources, but they're all just routine coverage of her mayoral administration by local outlets in New Jersey. Several of the articles aren't even news coverage, they're just pages on government websites. 55,000 is not a big enough population to inherently justify giving the mayor a Wikipedia page, and it seems like no other mayors of this town have Wikipedia pages except the ones who went on to hold higher office. I don't see anything she's done that makes her notable enough for a Wikipedia page. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 03:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. WP:SUSTAINED has been cited as met. Editors note that some clean-up can be helpful. (non-admin closure) TLA (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Currently, fails to meet the requirements of meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG 1keyhole ( talk) 02:27, 11 February 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 04:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Subject lacks the necessary WP:SIGCOV from secondary sources to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun ( talk) 02:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Refbombed article about an AI startup, packed with references that don’t mention the subject at all, or mention it in passing, or are PR. There are a few refs that discuss the subject in detail so it might be possible to stubify and keep this, but it seems marginal so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra ( talk) 03:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
09:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
20:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to establish consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
00:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Fails GNG and is insufficiently supported by reliable sources Paul W ( talk) 19:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
(Procedurally declined PROD) Not well documented in RS, not all mentions (mostly in the context of specific acts) appear to be referring to the same thing. The only non-stub this article could develop into is a WP:COATRACK. Mach61 ( talk) 21:53, 3 February 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
00:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)