The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I am not convinced this video game is actually notable - one of the sources even says "Information on this title is incredibly sparse" * Pppery * it has begun... 23:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
All the three articles, created recently by the same editor, exhibit the same type of problems as identified in the related deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terrorist incidents against Israelis in Israel and the Palestinian territories in 2023. — kashmīrī TALK 23:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Drmies ( talk) 00:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Delete Article does not reference any sources, as well as it is a very short article with less information, so what's the point for a Wikipedia's article with no sources and a very little information given to the readers? -⚒️ MinecraftPlayer321⚒️ | 💬 23:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Chairing a state party doesn't automatically make you notable, and it does not seem like she has gotten the in-depth coverage required to pass WP:GNG. Only 3 sources cited on the page: Ballotpedia, the state party's own website, and a candidate Q&A from when she ran for state senate. I can't find anything much better than that on Google. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 23:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTALBALL. No major candidate has declared for the Presidency, all this article contains in speculation about who might run in 2028. Esolo5002 ( talk) 23:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTALBALL. No major candidate has declared for the Presidency, all this article contains in speculation about who might run in 2028. Esolo5002 ( talk) 23:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Possibly a hoax. J. Minahan's book mentions the state in question very briefly and without any citations, and the two other sources don't mention "Free State of Chukotka" at all. Google search in Russian similarly yields only a few passing mentions on websites that don't look like reliable sources; no mentions in academic sources at all, which is unusual for historical states, even short-lived ones. Overall, the article fails WP:V. Finstergeist ( talk) 19:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Evenly divided between those editors who argue that the article subject is a hoax and those editors who think it isn't. Calling all historians!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Anne-Marie Losique. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
nonnotable TV entertainment production company - Altenmann >talk 19:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk)
22:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:08, 27 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 14:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Non notable minor deity in vodou, only can find a single passing mention in French academic literature, but not enough to establish notability under WP:GNG - article solely consists of a quote from Maya Deren which is also just a passing mention of the deity. LegalSmeagolian ( talk) 22:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to pass WP:NORG, couldn't find secondary SIGCOV of this church. Search is complicated by similarly named megachurches Mars Hill Church and Mars Hill Bible Church, but I don't think this church has any coverage. ~ A412 talk! 22:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk)
23:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 04:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Main contributor recently indeffed for promo. Person's claim to fame is winning 2 awards. Both awards are minor pro-diversity titles focused on encouraging women in STEM rather than being het result of a specific outstanding achievement. These received some coverage including a short profile in the Independent and some local press, but I don't think this coverage is significant or sustained enough to warrant an article. A BEFORE turns up that she has continued her career as a civil servant but has not reached any elected positions.
There was a previous nomination which closed as no consensus. My take on the existing coverage is that:
1. Although the outlets are independent and reliable, I don't think the coverage was significant (they are short, uncritical profiles in Katy's voice without any secondary commentary) or sustained.
2. I don't think the awards in question meet the bar of "well-known and significant award or honor". Although the awarding bodies are large in both cases, the actual awards are nothing like the degree of prestige required for WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NARTIST.
BrigadierG (
talk)
22:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We could use a few more opinions here!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Seems like a similar situation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television programmes broadcast by Vietnam Television (VTV). Citations provide coverage of individual shows, but do not pretend to cover VTV dramas broadcast in 2024 as a set, as required by WP:LISTN. signed, Rosguill talk 20:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.
The list passes Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Purposes of lists:
The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.
This structured list is a chronological ordering of all the Vietnam Television dramas that have been released in 2024. It is an annotated list that has the dramas' broadcast dates, title, number of episodes, producers, cast and crew, theme song(s), genre, and notes.
An editor supporting deletion said, "Every single VTV drama could be summarised on one article." A list containing all VTV dramas can coexist with a list containing VTV dramas broadcast in 2024. The lists serve different purposes. To avoid article size issues, a list of all dramas would necessarily have to cover less information than a list covering a specific year. A list containing only the dramas broadcast in 2024 is useful to readers, giving them an annotated list of what was broadcast that year.
splitting a long list into multiple sub-articles. The long list here would be "List of VTV dramas", while the sub-articles are "List of VTV dramas broadcast in 2023", "List of VTV dramas broadcast in 2024", etc.
The guideline gives the example, For example, TV show season lists are named in the form "Show title (season 1)", although the present guideline would have preferred "Show title: season 1" (the use of colons in the titles of works to indicate a subtitle, as in
Star Trek: The Next Generation, is a likely reason for this variance).
The split by year is similar here. The split by year is a valid spinout to ensure the main list does not get too long.
Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia.This is an index of all the Vietnam Television dramas that have been released in 2024.
Vietnam Television (VTV) produces Vietnamese-language dramas. Most English Wikipedia editors do not speak Vietnamese. This is why
Category:Vietnam Television original programming has only 10 articles on television series, while the Vietnamese Wikipedia's version of the category,
vi:Category:Chương trình truyền hình trên VTV, has many more.
Wikipedia:Systemic bias discusses this, noting that As a result of
systemic bias, Wikipedia underrepresents the perspectives of people in the
Global South
, which includes Vietnam. Although these articles do not exist on the English Wikipedia, they exist on the Vietnamese Wikipedia. Taking the 2023 list as an example (
vi:Danh sách phim VTV phát sóng năm 2023), there are detailed, well-sourced articles on 2023 VTV dramas such as
vi:Không ngại cưới, chỉ cần một lý do and
vi:Gia đình mình vui bất thình lình. There are not corresponding English Wikipedia articles because there are not enough English Wikipedia editors with the interest and Vietnamese-language skills to create them.
WP:NOTTVGUIDE says:
Electronic program guides. An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules,
format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable.
The policy says that historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable
.
2023–24 United States network television schedule exists because it is a "historically significant program list".
VTV and its dramas are highly influential in Vietnam, so a list of its dramas broadcast in 2024 is historically significant. Vietnam Television (VTV) is a national broadcaster that is watched by millions in Vietnam ( source 1 and source 2). This book from Routledge underscores the historical significance by demonstrating that VTV dramas have been the subject of academic study and newspaper reviews:
Cunard ( talk) 11:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)The success of imported series naturally urged Vietnamese television to make its own dramas. Producers were also prompted to focus on ordinary themes instead of repeating the old mantra of socialist heroism. Foreign soap operas thus enacted a new practice that barely existed in the previous history of Vietnamese television: competition. In 1994, three years after the success of The Rich Also Cry, the first Vietnamese television dramas were broadcast every weekend on a new program entitled Culture and Art on Sunday [Văn Nghệ Chủ Nhật]. One episode per week was an extremely low frequency for the genre of television drama but was already seen as a significant success of national television. A report in Lao Động newspaper in 1994 commented that the birth of Culture and Art on Sunday ‘demonstrated an audacious effort by VTV3 to produce quick and cheap dramas, given an extreme lack of money, technologies, and human resources’ (Tô, 1995). Major topics of Vietnamese television dramas in the late 1990s were the incompatibility between love and poverty, the desire of youngsters to escape obsolete social and cultural norms, or the bitter nostalgia of socialist veterans in market time. Just like soap operas anywhere else in the world, money emerged as the cause and solution of almost all problems. ‘Serving the audience’ also became a common concept in many reviews of television dramas that appeared abundantly in the culture section of many newspapers in the 1990s. Viewers were now treated as valued customers and ultimate judges, instead of merely passive receivers of statecontrolled messages. With the arrival of television dramas, the integration of market regulation and political duty became the defining dilemma of television in Vietnam.
The year-by-year list presents on a single page all the dramas that aired that year, grouping the dramas by the channel they aired on and further chronologically sorting them by when they were broadcast. It allows readers to easily find out what dramas aired that year, what genres were the most prevalent that year, what those dramas were about, and who starred in those dramas that year. It would cumbersome for readers to find this information in a single list crammed with information about decades of VTV television programs from a dozen channels.
Regarding I have no issue with a VTV programming article containing the network's full output
, I would prefer a standalone list. But per
Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, merging this list into a VTV programming article would be far superior to deletion as it would retain this "historically significant program list".
VTV is an influential broadcaster watched by millions in Vietnam. VTV dramas have been the subject of academic study and newspaper reviews. The policies and guidelines support retaining this list of VTV dramas. From
WP:NOTTVGUIDE, historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable
. From
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Information, The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.
From
Wikipedia:Article size, a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope
. From
Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists, be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge
.
Regarding the "PROMO" concern, the list is neutrally written. I see no violation of
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. The policy says Information about companies and products must be written in an
objective and unbiased style, free of
puffery.
I find the list written in an "objective and unbiased style, free of
puffery".
Cunard (
talk)
11:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Sources
VietNamNet is a sister newspaper of 2sao. The article discusses 13 VTV drama series (the names are translated from Vietnamese to English): Living with Mother-in-law, Come Home, Baby, When a Widower Cryed, Let's Say Love, The Blossoming Apple Tree, The Taste of Love, Under the Shade of the Tree of Happiness, Don't Make Mom Angry, My Family Suddenly Happy, Life Is Still Beautiful, Don't Talk About Love, Life is Beautiful Stars, and Is Life Still Beautiful.
The article discusses 14 VTV series (the names are translated from Vietnamese to English): The Taste of Friendship, Love the perch, Say words of love, Flower season returns, 11 months and 5 days, The Destiny of Money, Living with Mother-in-Law, The Arbitrator, A Lifetime of Resentment, Birth and Death, I Miss Someone, Quynh doll, Go Home, Baby, and Someone Else's Girl.
The article discusses three VTV dramas.
The article discusses three VTV dramas.
The article discusses three VTV dramas
Thời Đại is a foreign affairs magazine. The article discusses five VTV dramas.
Regarding
2023–24 United States network television schedule and
Lists of United States network television schedules, there was a strong consensus in the 2012 AfD
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The US network TV schedule articles (2nd nomination) that
WP:NOTTVGUIDE supported retaining these articles. Multiple editors quoted
WP:NOTTVGUIDE's "historically significant program list" wording. To disregard this longstanding consensus would require an RfC at
WT:NOT to remove this wording.
The content from a sockpuppet is no longer in the list.
The list was created by a sockpuppet in July 2023 with two entries: No Line Battle and Sunshine. Neither of these entries remain in the list, which has been completely rewritten and expanded by other editors including the established editor Mrgoahead ( talk · contribs), who has written most of the article.
Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Titles links to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (lists)#Long (split) list naming recommendations, which discusses the conventions for "splitting a long list into multiple sub-articles". The long list here is "List of VTV dramas", while the sub-articles are "List of VTV dramas broadcast in 2024", "List of VTV dramas broadcast in 2023", etc.
The guideline gives the example, "For example, TV show season lists are named in the form "Show title (season 1)", although the present guideline would have preferred "Show title: season 1" (the use of colons in the titles of works to indicate a subtitle, as in Star Trek: The Next Generation, is a likely reason for this variance)."
The split by year is similar here. The split by year is a valid spinout to ensure the main list does not get too long.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess additional sources provided in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS is not violated
WP:NOTNEWS redirects to
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The section says Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not
and lists four items. I reviewed each item to demonstrate that this list does not violate the policy:
Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories.– this article is not "original reporting". It is a list of television dramas.
News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events.– this article is not a news report. Enduring notability has been shown through academic sources and newspaper reviews.
Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be.– this article is not about any individuals.
Celebrity gossip and diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are.– this article is not about "celebrity gossip" or any individuals.
The list is incomplete and does not explain the importance of the programs. It is fine for the list to be imperfect.
Anwegmann wrote, "I would support this article once the season/year was over and the programming was confirmed as having aired." This raises a very good point about how the list can improved. The list includes five TV dramas that have not started airing yet. Two have unspecified airing times, while three will begin airing 4 March 2024, 5 March 2024, 11 March 2024. The list includes only one TV drama that had started airing. This is because the list is missing three TV dramas that are already being aired in 2024: vi:Chúng ta phải hạnh phúc (airing between 9 November 2023 and 4 March 2024), Chúng ta của 8 năm sau (airing between 6 November 2023 and 6 March 2024), and vi:Không ngại cưới, chỉ cần một lý do (aired between 21 September 2023 and 19 January 2024). The list can be improved by adding the three missing dramas. The list can be improved by removing the dramas that have not begun airing yet and adding them back after they've been confirmed to have aired.
Anwegmann wrote, "I understand the importance of these programs, but the importance is not obvious without proper explanation and/or contextualization within the article itself." I agree that the list can be improved by explaining the historical significance of the dramas as discussed in the academic sources and newspaper reviews."
The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved.
Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant
reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page.
Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required:
Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into
excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
This was part of a failed group nomination but for whatever reason I never got back to this it. It's one of a large group of post offices entered as settlements from Durham's place names book, but the most cursory look at maps and aerials shows that it locates to a single farmstead which has gotten larger over the years but which was never anything town-like. No GNIS entry, and the text of the article is about the post office, which isn't notable. Mangoe ( talk) 22:55, 27 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! 23:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
The sources in the article are all from the organization he works for, and there is a lack of in-depth third-party sources. 日期20220626 ( talk) 22:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Finished PhD in 2015, and seems to have fairly rapidly climbed the ranks to professor in March 2024 according to the article. However I'm not seeing how WP:NPROF is met. Seems like WP:TOOSOON. Kj cheetham ( talk) 20:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Ldm1954 ( talk) 01:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Article about a company that reads like a press release. I originally PRODed this but it was decline because sources might exist basically. It's a direct translation of the French article made by the same account, which was a SPA who made these articles then left. References given are hard to verify, and no inline citations are used. The French article uses the same references. Magazine Entreprendre exists and was around at the date given so you could probably find the issue, but Druckluftteknik is just the (mispelled) German word for air compressor technology and Pack News doesn't return anything useful. I don't think this has enough reliable sources to meet WP:NCORP but if it existed since 1870 like it claims it might have some coverage so I'll be happy to withdraw this if enough reliable sourcing is found. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 22:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Unnotable noblewoman. Seems to only have notability due to being a relative of notable people, which seems to be a case of WP:INHERIT. Browsing across the web shown nothing remotely able to give her enough notability to have an article. ''Flux55'' ( talk) 17:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
This page was created in November 2023 during a brief flurry by a user whose only edits have been to corporations and projects within those corporations' works. Applied sources do not put this structure past the bar for WP:NBUILDING. BusterD ( talk) 14:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to The Reformation in Economics. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
The subject does not satisfy notability requirements. There is no substantive coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There are a total of three reliable sources that have covered the subject in some way: (1) A Financial Times column that reviews several books and spends one paragraph on Pilkington's book [9], (2) An Irish Times review [10] of the book, and (3) an American Affairs (a magazine founded in 2017) review [11] of the book. While these reviews are on the border of satisfying WP:AUTHOR, they don't seem sufficient. There's nothing in the coverage on which to build an encyclopedic article. As it stands, the Wikipedia article appears intended to promote the subject (all the sources in the article are self-authored at the moment). Thenightaway ( talk) 22:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 22:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
unreferenced. One suspicious entry: Lauk Flying Wing. Peep Lauk is not notable Estopedist1 ( talk) 22:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Coronation Street characters (2024)#Emily Wilkinson. Daniel ( talk) 22:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
WP:FANCRUFT, appears to have a copyrighted screenshot of the show on the article, should remerge with List of Coronation Street characters (2024) -1ctinus📝 🗨 20:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 by User:Cryptic. Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, the rationale for opening a new discussion is incorrect: the language in question does not forbid G4 for previously-speedied pages, as long as they have also had a full AfD, and this one has. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Page recreated only hours after it was deleted as a result of the previous AfD. Deletion cannot be done via WP:G4 as the page was already speedy-deleted previously, hence the second AfD. Broc ( talk) 20:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy pings to ThaddeusSholto who tagged the page for speedy deletion and to Cactus.man who correctly declined the nomination. Broc ( talk) 20:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
This criterion also does not cover content undeleted via a deletion review, or that was only deleted via proposed deletion (including deletion discussions closed as "soft delete") or speedy deletion.Though it only applies to pages that are tagged under the G4 criterion, and not to other types of speedy criteria. CycloneYoris talk! 05:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 22:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Latvian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions ( 2010, 2012, 2013, etc.) Furthermore, the last two sources are on a Latvian rugby player, which is (probably) not even the same person, meaning there are even fewer sources of the footballer. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. I'm going to email TheEpicApartmentLord a copy of the article so they can work with Rusted AutoParts as far as determining what should be added to the existent draft. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 14:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Despite working on the article and being excited for the film, I have now realized that
WP:NFF is probably in effect here, as the film has not yet been confirmed to have commenced principal photography. Perhaps
it can be drafted for the time being, though.
Also a note for anyone who saw the previous template: I confused one of the AfD templates for the current one that is up. The previous AfD template did not make it so a discussion page was open. I do not think it screwed anything up, but if it did, please let me know via my
talk page so I can better learn what to do in the future, and I apologize in advance.
I have withdrawn my nomination for deletion, I have switched to draftify. Also, I am an idiot who had no idea what I was doing when I tried to close the article’s discussion, I was wrong to do that. This was a huge learning experience, and I apologize for the inconveniences I caused, I should’ve been more careful.
Not0nshoree ( talk) 19:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 22:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Latvian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions ( 2013, 2015, 2016, 2020, 2021, etc.) JTtheOG ( talk) 19:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
I couldn't find sources to show it meets WP:NPLACE or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 18:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Complex/
Rational
19:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 22:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
This is a non-notable JSON derivative markup language. The only sources cited on the page are a primary source from the project's official website, and two links to JSON specs (unrelated to this derivative language). I couldn't find any unconnected sources describing this language. StereoFolic ( talk) 18:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was draftify. Daniel ( talk) 22:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
WP:NFF, film is not released yet. Broc ( talk) 17:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Maha Shivratri. Daniel ( talk) 22:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Fasting should be discussed at Fasting. Rules on a Shivaratra fast should be discussed at Maha Shivratri. I am not seeing a proper WP:SCOPE for this article. Content is mostly WP:NOT; some dubious health claims and a general non-adherance to WP:NPOV. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. To avoid WP:CSD#G4, any recreation down the track would need some very effective sourcing. Daniel ( talk) 22:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Essentially a recreation via AFC with a different title, this article was previously deleted and salted in 2020 under the title SuperMarioLogan. Since then, the sources haven't improved substantially; there are a few articles about the creator winning an auction, and beyond that, we have passing mention of the series in this article from GoodMorningAmerica and two other articles; (a review in Common Sense Media passing mention in TeessideLive, a regional British news site). None of the other sources meet WP:RS guidelines. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Broc ( talk) 21:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Does not fulfill WP:GNG nor any criteria of WP:NGYMNASTICS having not won any medals in national or international competitions. Broc ( talk) 16:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. The minority of "keep" opinions must be given less weight because they do not address or rebut - by citing appropriate sources - the reason for which deletion is sought, namely, that there is insufficient coverage of the subject by reliable sources ( WP:GNG). Sandstein 07:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Flagged by someone claiming to be the subject's son, as a self-written vanity page, exaggerated and imbellished to such an extent as to be misinformation. The claim appears to be substantively correct. The only source that actually looks like a source is this about a production he was involved in, but it was a press release in what appears to be a local source, says so at the end. I could not verify many of the claims in the article either in the sources cited or independently. If reliable sources can be identified, I am happy to fix the article but it needs to be deleted if not. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
“Fire on Broadway”, which I assumed was a typo with quotes for
“Fire" on Broadway. I agree in hindsight that "in association with" should have equated to "co-produced" or something of the sort. Jay 💬 13:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
15:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages for this same reason below:
Not just too overreliant on a single source (though reliable third party sources are available), this list doesn't do much use as Oscar nominees are going to be inducted anyhow. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 15:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 22:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
This article reads as a promotional piece, rather than an article that has a subject that meets general notability and is verifiable by reliable sources. Cold Season ( talk) 15:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
A county-level branch of a political party with no specific claim to notability seperate from the larger party organisation. Fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Existing secondary sources do not focus on the county branch, rather covering election results by Republicans in Multnomah County. AusLondonder ( talk) 12:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 22:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
This was previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ctrl the Tour and the discussion there concluded that it should be redirected, as there wasn't sufficient significant coverage of this tour outside of what's already summarised in the album's page, Ctrl (SZA album). The page was then recreated under the slightly different name "Ctrl The Tour" in 2023, which I have just history merged into the original page. However, it still doesn't look from the article' s sourcing or elsewhere, as if there's sufficient coverage for this to be independent, so I'd suggest it be redirected once more. — Amakuru ( talk) 12:03, 20 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
14:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Marked as lacking sources since 2010. Most of the content was a copyvio. Searches provide nothing beyond blogs and gig listings. Nthep ( talk) 12:30, 20 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
14:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Very promotional in tone, next to no content that isn't advertising in nature. No proper references for primary information, most sources are not reliable. ~ Eejit43 ( talk) 14:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 17:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTDICT TheLongTone ( talk) 13:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Can't find sigcov for athletes, no mention of this person winning a medal. Doesn't appear to pass WP:NSPORT. toobigtokale ( talk) 12:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Disputed draftification. Patently not ready for main space. Single source reference. Empty section. No context. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Hymnology (tentatively), though I would note there is nothing at all wrong with a merge into more than one article, so certainly there is no issue with also merging some content to Anglican church music or any other appropriate target as well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I hate to have to do this, but I see no way that this passes GNG. This gets relatively few GHits, and by and large they are passing references in pages concerningother other work cited one of the four hymns (generally either Lo! He Comes With Clouds Descending or Hark! The Herald Angels Sing). Meanwhile, the English Hymnal was a quarter century away from publication, and at this very late date I would have to imagine that if one compared all the different current Anglican hymnals one would find far more than four hymns appearing in nearly all of them— I dare say that there are probably a couple hundred which appear in every last one. Of the runners-up, "Sun of My Soul, Thou Savior Dear" didn't make it into the 1940 Episcopal Hymnal and while " Jerusalem The Golden" was retained in the The Hymnal 1982, the other three sections of Bernard's hymn were not, and I have never in half a century sung it. I would also point out that hymnals of the era did not officially assign tunes to the texts, which further blunts things: some recent survey in the Episcopal Church identified "Alleluia, Sing to Jesus" as the favorite hymn, but it's a cinch that the preferred American tune, Hyfrydol, plays a large part in that. Furthermore, one can look in in the original work and see that this notion of a "great four" isn't his idea: it comes from the other work cited, by David Briggs, who I would point is not, at least by school affiliation, an Anglican in the first place (his school, Western Theological Seminary, which is in the Reformed tradition). Both of these works are more theological and devotional in character and are primarily interested in the writing of hymns in various eras, and not so much on the statistics. When all is said and done this just doesn't seem to have been that important an idea, and by the time the second edition of Briggs's work, it's likely that the number of such hymns was many times larger than four. Mangoe ( talk) 21:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion on the extent of sourcing would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Red-tailed hawk
(nest)
02:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
NotAGenious (
talk)
10:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on LEvalyn's redirect proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
asilvering (
talk)
22:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
But — people! — if we don't include Benham's observation and Julian 1892, p. 343 rubbishing King's methodology then Wikipedia isn't even as comprehensive as the encyclopaedias of the 19th century were in poking holes in this. We've sourced our article uncritically and primarily to the originator of the idea, with not even the third-party analyses that have been available since within a decade of its publication.
That said, looking for 20th century sources turns up Marks 1938 which confirms what this article says about Louis FitzGerald Benson doing a U.S. equivalent as The Best Church Hymns in 1898. (James F. King was vicar of the then St Mary's in Berwick-on-Tweed, Athel cb.) So limiting this to Anglican Hymnology might be a mistake. There's a hint in another source that Robert Ellis Thompson did the same as King and Benson with his 1893 The National Hymn Book. There's definitely a subject here, and the 19th century encyclopaedias suggest that it's somewhere under hymnology. See their article titles. But almost no-one mentions the number four.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for consensus for a merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
08:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Toyota transmissions#E-series. ✗ plicit 11:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Unsourced for more than four years, fails WP:PRODUCT. A before finds no independent coverage of the product. Possible re-direct? Theroadislong ( talk) 08:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Toyota transmissions#H-series. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 10:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Decline once and then rejected at WP:AFC moved by COI creator to mainspace, fails WP:PRODUCT. A before finds no independent coverage of the product and the article relies on primary Toyota sources. Possible re-direct? Theroadislong ( talk) 08:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Toyota transmissions#G-series. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 10:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Decline four times and then rejected at WP:AFC moved by COI creator to mainspace, fails WP:PRODUCT. A before finds no independent coverage of the product and the article relies on primary Toyota sources. Possible re-direct? Theroadislong ( talk) 08:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Toyota transmissions#C-series. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 10:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Declined three times and then rejected at WP:AFC moved by COI creator to mainspace, fails WP:PRODUCT. A before finds no independent coverage of the product and the article relies on primary Toyota sources. Possible re-direct? Theroadislong ( talk) 08:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Note: this article was previously deleted via AfD community consensus under an alternate capitalization at WP:Articles for deletion/Toyota C transmission. Left guide ( talk) 08:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. All of the individual sports mentions were removed from this article and then those edits were reverted to return to its current state. Rather than a quick renomination and replay of this AFD, I encourage interested editors to go to the article talk page to discuss which one of those options would serve readers/the project the best. Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Another WP:EXAMPLEFARM WP:LC listing that is more deserving of being listed on lists about individual leagues/championships than a standalone list. If we were going to keep this, then we'll have an article bloated with WP:FANCRUFT entries of everybody's favorite sport. Editors needs to know that Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY for your favorite sport; more deserving of an entry in Wikitionary than this per WP:ATD. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 17:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Editors needs to know that Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY for your favorite sport... and nominators need to know that AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP for your least-favorite article. You haven't given any reason why this fails to meet notability guidelines for inclusion, only that it is poorly written. jp× g 🗯️ 22:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus split between keep/merge and delete, with slightly more in favour of keep. Relisting for more clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
02:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is too unclear. Giving it another try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Toadette (
Let's discuss together!)
07:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
circlejerking [because] their favorite sport is at off season, and while we're at it, all the !delete votes basically seem to agree with your non-reason nomination. Do you want your WP:CIVIL warning now or when you lie about and insult those who disagree with you next? Kingsif ( talk) 22:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Readers can easily find the sport they are interested in.I can't. No sport that I'm interested in is listed. Neither can I see winning streaks in war, in casinos, computer games or anything else. Your rule of thumb essay is not policy. The policy reasons for deletion are clear, and I do not see any policy reasons for retaining this hot mess. I can add tiddlywinks and Fortnite, but editor curation of the list of winning streaks is WP:OR. I am not seeing any policy case for retention, and neither has anyone presented any sources that would show this or any listing would meet WP:LISTN. We can learn nothing by page hits. We do not know that any of those page hits were people satisfying their information requirement, and again, it is not at all clear how any information requirement is met by this. No one is saying there should be no mention of, say, the record basketball winning streaks - but if that is what people are searching for, they will find that and more and better relevant and targeted information on those pages rather than this. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 12:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
WP:SYNTHESIS. PepperBeast (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
02:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Toadette (
Let's discuss together!)
07:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Not a coherent list or article, but a grab-bag of vaguely connected elements. WP:SYNTHESIS. PepperBeast (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
This list might go on. Each of the sources justify the mention of Polo, Pony, Manipuri (or Meitei) Culture and History. Even, some might argue, modern Polo on Pony was invented in the state of Manipur. So, I don't see any non-coherent or vague compilation of list. As per Brusquedandelion, the list does not fulfill WP:SAL. In that specific policy, it is mentioned that, the all of the entries in a list not necessarily have to be notable as an independednt article, but it seems, in this list, all the entries are notable as independent article as well as have the same connection of being about Polo, Pony, Manipuri Culture. Therefore, I strongly Disagree with the nominator and vote to Keep Nokib Sarkar Poke 07:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
specifically mentions the connection between Polo and Manipuri Pony, as well as mentions the temple of the god of pony, Marjingreally has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. There is already an article on Sagol Kāngjei and that is not the article that is being discussed for deletion here. It is almost a given that any sufficiently long reliable source that discusses this sport will also discuss at least one instance when the sport is played, and in doing so mention one or perhaps several locations where this has happened. But this is not the same as discussing a list of places where the sport is played as a conjunct. You note that the WP:NLIST says
all of the entries in a list [do] not necessarily have to be notable as an independednt article, but this was never under dispute with respect to this article and isn't the cruz of my point. Nevertheless, since you seem to believe
all the entries are notable as independent articleI would strongly rebut this claim. A single mention of a game on a random website is generally not considered to be WP:SIGCOV by Wikipedians who curate and edit sports pages. But this is besides the point: we are not discussing whether each of these events should have a Wikipedia page, we are discussing whether a list of them warrants a Wikipedia page, and for the reasons I have already stated, per WP:NLIST guidelines, they clearly do not. Mentioning other random facts from WP:NLIST that aren't actually relevant here makes me wonder whether you are being intentionally obtuse to confuse the discourse by raising unnecessary and irrelevant issues and thereby impede the consensus-forming process. If that is not the case, I invite you to please consider the points being made rather than posting a kneejerk reaction just because of some sentimental value you have for this article. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 10:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
02:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Toadette (
Let's discuss together!)
07:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Reception/Legacy sources that was cited were trivial and wasn't talking about the character like the The New York Times, its all about the television show. WP:Before mostly came up were Bustle as a source, which is definitely unreliable from it looks. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 12:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
22:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Toadette (
Let's discuss together!)
07:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of The Great British Bake Off finalists (series 8–present)#Giuseppe Dell'Anno. ✗ plicit 06:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
This person may have won the twelfth series, but I wonder whether it suffices to help keep the standalone article. His academic career hasn't made an impact, and I doubt writing cookbooks (two so far) and guest appearances make him notable outside his win. Should be redirected to List of The Great British Bake Off finalists (series 8–present)#Giuseppe Dell'Anno. If WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, then how about either WP:PAGEDECIDE or WP:BIO1E? George Ho ( talk) 06:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.. I see [55] [56] [57] some follow-up coverage, but probably not enough to show persistence. Broc ( talk) 12:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Don't need a comprehensive list of all notable underwater divers, this is what categories for ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Underwater divers and its subcategories are for. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 12:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Related to Geysirhead's comment, the list is more annotated than most indexes, although not uniquely so. Regardless, indexes are list articles, so discussion of how
WP:NLIST applies would be relevant.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk)
05:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Don't need a comprehensive list of all notable underwater divers, this is what categories for Category:Underwater divers and its subcategories are for.I suggest that this is simply wrong, and that it is not possible to use the Category:Underwater divers and its subcategories to produce a "comprehensive list of all notable underwater divers" or even a non-comprehensive list of "notable underwater divers" which excludes underwater divers which are not notable as underwater divers, (ie. an equivalent to the index they proposed for deletion) without considerable post-processing by a knowledgeable editor. I challenge them to demonstrate their claim. If this cannot be done, the reason given for the nomination is invalid. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Purely promotional BLP. Not a single thing is properly verified. None of the things in it will make her automatically notable--a few TV appearances, a photo shoot or two--and I cannot find the coverage in Google News or Books that would prove notability by our standards. Note that the creator is blocked for a user name problem, and has an obvious conflict of interest. Drmies ( talk) 01:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Xymmax
So let it be written
So let it be done
05:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
By the way, @ Oaktree b, you mentioned earlier that you weren't sure that the original AFD was in regards to the same person as the current article is about. Is this AFD what you were referring to? It sounds like it's about the same person to me, but do you mind if I ask specifically what makes you think it may be someone else with the same or similar name? Vontheri ( talk) 23:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting,
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Petia_Pavlova lists quite a few sources. Were these evaluated?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:EVENT. A shooting with no fatalities (and many on WP not me believe number dead is an indicator of notability). LibStar ( talk) 05:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Battle of Parwan#Prelude. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 16:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
This battle does not have significant coverage in reliable sources.
The relevant sources (e.g. Barthold 1968 and Sverdrup 2017) only discuss it as a minor skirmish in the lead up to the Battle of Parwan, and describe it in three sentences or less. This is reflected in the weighting of the article, the vast majority of which is dedicated to "Background" and only two sentences to the actual battle. Additionally, as noted on the talk page, the source which states that this battle resulted in uprisings can be clearly seen to misread his source. Further justifications for keeping the article on the talk page were largely original research or WP:ILIKEIT.
Bringing this here as a previous WP:BLAR to Battle of Parwan#Prelude was reverted. I still think a redirect there is the best course of action. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 13:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
04:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Groove Collective. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 16:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
A lot of WP:ORIGINAL here. Current sourcing is just the person's music profiles. There is one article referenced, but I believe it is a non- WP:RELIABLE WordPress blog. TLA (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
04:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
This article shows no evidence of meeting WP:GNG: no sources in the article or available elsewhere provide reliable, independent, significant coverage of "The Preserve at Sharp Mountain, Georgia". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 04:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
No sources in article, only good source on svwiki is a short mention in Nordisk Familjebok in connection to his father. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. AlexandraAVX ( talk) 07:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
03:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Of the linked sources, several are not independent coverage, while others do not mention it at all. — Moriwen ( talk) 03:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 05:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
REDIRECT to husband Jeremi Wiśniowiecki's article. Subject non-notable in her own right. Nirva20 ( talk) 03:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Baku#Museums. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I couldn't find sources to show this meets WP:N, or a good WP:ATD. Boleyn ( talk) 15:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
02:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯
Raydann
(Talk)
03:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Subject does not fulfill notability criteria, I could not find any sources. The book Die Groot Gedagte is perhaps notable because of the prize it won. However, I was not able to find reviews for it, either. Broc ( talk) 15:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
08:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯
Raydann
(Talk)
02:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Czechoslovakia at the 1992 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh. Edit of the hat note can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 03:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG; no significant coverage or medal record. Corresponding article on Czech Wikipedia is unsourced and very short, which would help copy over English article otherwise. Google searches come up with silly, random namesakes. Given this man's current age, we can assume his bobsleigh career is over. CuteDolphin712 ( talk) 13:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯
Raydann
(Talk)
02:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Brzozowo, Sokółka County. There are some good arguments for deletion here, but redirection as an ATD wasn't soundly refuted. Owen× ☎ 16:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Likely does not meet WP:GEOLAND, included in TERYT and OSM as a separate unit, but is actually a sub-unit of Brzozowo per GUS and Geoportal. I also can't find anything on it besides a barn fire. Ilawa-Kataka ( talk) 05:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus not clear on which article should get the redirect to or delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
04:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around whether or not to implement the proposed
alternative to deletion would be helpful in achieving consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Red-tailed hawk
(nest)
22:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯
Raydann
(Talk)
02:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
No credible claim of notability. Only 3 sources. First reference does not mention Hakawi News, 2 and 3 are Wordpress pages on the official website. WP:Before shows zero independent coverage, although both Commons and Wikiquote are also being targeted with articles promoting Hakawi News and its editor, who has "apparently" won not only the French Legion of Honor but also a 2023 Academy Award. HouseOfChange ( talk) 02:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Sources have been added and are being supplemented Follow the page، Hakawi News. ( Ahmed brens ( talk) 19:06, 1 March 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 03:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
No citations found in 2019 Kenya census or in any Kenyan media. Not mapped. Additionally, whilst "Kab-" is a prefix denoting place, "Kap-" is not a Kalenjin prefix, and its various words for for "loud" and "sound" do not pertain. kencf0618 ( talk) 01:43, 27 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! 23:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I am not convinced this video game is actually notable - one of the sources even says "Information on this title is incredibly sparse" * Pppery * it has begun... 23:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
All the three articles, created recently by the same editor, exhibit the same type of problems as identified in the related deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terrorist incidents against Israelis in Israel and the Palestinian territories in 2023. — kashmīrī TALK 23:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Drmies ( talk) 00:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Delete Article does not reference any sources, as well as it is a very short article with less information, so what's the point for a Wikipedia's article with no sources and a very little information given to the readers? -⚒️ MinecraftPlayer321⚒️ | 💬 23:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Chairing a state party doesn't automatically make you notable, and it does not seem like she has gotten the in-depth coverage required to pass WP:GNG. Only 3 sources cited on the page: Ballotpedia, the state party's own website, and a candidate Q&A from when she ran for state senate. I can't find anything much better than that on Google. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 23:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTALBALL. No major candidate has declared for the Presidency, all this article contains in speculation about who might run in 2028. Esolo5002 ( talk) 23:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTALBALL. No major candidate has declared for the Presidency, all this article contains in speculation about who might run in 2028. Esolo5002 ( talk) 23:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Possibly a hoax. J. Minahan's book mentions the state in question very briefly and without any citations, and the two other sources don't mention "Free State of Chukotka" at all. Google search in Russian similarly yields only a few passing mentions on websites that don't look like reliable sources; no mentions in academic sources at all, which is unusual for historical states, even short-lived ones. Overall, the article fails WP:V. Finstergeist ( talk) 19:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Evenly divided between those editors who argue that the article subject is a hoax and those editors who think it isn't. Calling all historians!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Anne-Marie Losique. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
nonnotable TV entertainment production company - Altenmann >talk 19:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk)
22:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:08, 27 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 14:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Non notable minor deity in vodou, only can find a single passing mention in French academic literature, but not enough to establish notability under WP:GNG - article solely consists of a quote from Maya Deren which is also just a passing mention of the deity. LegalSmeagolian ( talk) 22:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to pass WP:NORG, couldn't find secondary SIGCOV of this church. Search is complicated by similarly named megachurches Mars Hill Church and Mars Hill Bible Church, but I don't think this church has any coverage. ~ A412 talk! 22:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk)
23:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 04:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Main contributor recently indeffed for promo. Person's claim to fame is winning 2 awards. Both awards are minor pro-diversity titles focused on encouraging women in STEM rather than being het result of a specific outstanding achievement. These received some coverage including a short profile in the Independent and some local press, but I don't think this coverage is significant or sustained enough to warrant an article. A BEFORE turns up that she has continued her career as a civil servant but has not reached any elected positions.
There was a previous nomination which closed as no consensus. My take on the existing coverage is that:
1. Although the outlets are independent and reliable, I don't think the coverage was significant (they are short, uncritical profiles in Katy's voice without any secondary commentary) or sustained.
2. I don't think the awards in question meet the bar of "well-known and significant award or honor". Although the awarding bodies are large in both cases, the actual awards are nothing like the degree of prestige required for WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NARTIST.
BrigadierG (
talk)
22:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We could use a few more opinions here!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Seems like a similar situation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television programmes broadcast by Vietnam Television (VTV). Citations provide coverage of individual shows, but do not pretend to cover VTV dramas broadcast in 2024 as a set, as required by WP:LISTN. signed, Rosguill talk 20:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.
The list passes Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Purposes of lists:
The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.
This structured list is a chronological ordering of all the Vietnam Television dramas that have been released in 2024. It is an annotated list that has the dramas' broadcast dates, title, number of episodes, producers, cast and crew, theme song(s), genre, and notes.
An editor supporting deletion said, "Every single VTV drama could be summarised on one article." A list containing all VTV dramas can coexist with a list containing VTV dramas broadcast in 2024. The lists serve different purposes. To avoid article size issues, a list of all dramas would necessarily have to cover less information than a list covering a specific year. A list containing only the dramas broadcast in 2024 is useful to readers, giving them an annotated list of what was broadcast that year.
splitting a long list into multiple sub-articles. The long list here would be "List of VTV dramas", while the sub-articles are "List of VTV dramas broadcast in 2023", "List of VTV dramas broadcast in 2024", etc.
The guideline gives the example, For example, TV show season lists are named in the form "Show title (season 1)", although the present guideline would have preferred "Show title: season 1" (the use of colons in the titles of works to indicate a subtitle, as in
Star Trek: The Next Generation, is a likely reason for this variance).
The split by year is similar here. The split by year is a valid spinout to ensure the main list does not get too long.
Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia.This is an index of all the Vietnam Television dramas that have been released in 2024.
Vietnam Television (VTV) produces Vietnamese-language dramas. Most English Wikipedia editors do not speak Vietnamese. This is why
Category:Vietnam Television original programming has only 10 articles on television series, while the Vietnamese Wikipedia's version of the category,
vi:Category:Chương trình truyền hình trên VTV, has many more.
Wikipedia:Systemic bias discusses this, noting that As a result of
systemic bias, Wikipedia underrepresents the perspectives of people in the
Global South
, which includes Vietnam. Although these articles do not exist on the English Wikipedia, they exist on the Vietnamese Wikipedia. Taking the 2023 list as an example (
vi:Danh sách phim VTV phát sóng năm 2023), there are detailed, well-sourced articles on 2023 VTV dramas such as
vi:Không ngại cưới, chỉ cần một lý do and
vi:Gia đình mình vui bất thình lình. There are not corresponding English Wikipedia articles because there are not enough English Wikipedia editors with the interest and Vietnamese-language skills to create them.
WP:NOTTVGUIDE says:
Electronic program guides. An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules,
format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable.
The policy says that historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable
.
2023–24 United States network television schedule exists because it is a "historically significant program list".
VTV and its dramas are highly influential in Vietnam, so a list of its dramas broadcast in 2024 is historically significant. Vietnam Television (VTV) is a national broadcaster that is watched by millions in Vietnam ( source 1 and source 2). This book from Routledge underscores the historical significance by demonstrating that VTV dramas have been the subject of academic study and newspaper reviews:
Cunard ( talk) 11:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)The success of imported series naturally urged Vietnamese television to make its own dramas. Producers were also prompted to focus on ordinary themes instead of repeating the old mantra of socialist heroism. Foreign soap operas thus enacted a new practice that barely existed in the previous history of Vietnamese television: competition. In 1994, three years after the success of The Rich Also Cry, the first Vietnamese television dramas were broadcast every weekend on a new program entitled Culture and Art on Sunday [Văn Nghệ Chủ Nhật]. One episode per week was an extremely low frequency for the genre of television drama but was already seen as a significant success of national television. A report in Lao Động newspaper in 1994 commented that the birth of Culture and Art on Sunday ‘demonstrated an audacious effort by VTV3 to produce quick and cheap dramas, given an extreme lack of money, technologies, and human resources’ (Tô, 1995). Major topics of Vietnamese television dramas in the late 1990s were the incompatibility between love and poverty, the desire of youngsters to escape obsolete social and cultural norms, or the bitter nostalgia of socialist veterans in market time. Just like soap operas anywhere else in the world, money emerged as the cause and solution of almost all problems. ‘Serving the audience’ also became a common concept in many reviews of television dramas that appeared abundantly in the culture section of many newspapers in the 1990s. Viewers were now treated as valued customers and ultimate judges, instead of merely passive receivers of statecontrolled messages. With the arrival of television dramas, the integration of market regulation and political duty became the defining dilemma of television in Vietnam.
The year-by-year list presents on a single page all the dramas that aired that year, grouping the dramas by the channel they aired on and further chronologically sorting them by when they were broadcast. It allows readers to easily find out what dramas aired that year, what genres were the most prevalent that year, what those dramas were about, and who starred in those dramas that year. It would cumbersome for readers to find this information in a single list crammed with information about decades of VTV television programs from a dozen channels.
Regarding I have no issue with a VTV programming article containing the network's full output
, I would prefer a standalone list. But per
Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, merging this list into a VTV programming article would be far superior to deletion as it would retain this "historically significant program list".
VTV is an influential broadcaster watched by millions in Vietnam. VTV dramas have been the subject of academic study and newspaper reviews. The policies and guidelines support retaining this list of VTV dramas. From
WP:NOTTVGUIDE, historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable
. From
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Information, The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.
From
Wikipedia:Article size, a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope
. From
Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists, be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge
.
Regarding the "PROMO" concern, the list is neutrally written. I see no violation of
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. The policy says Information about companies and products must be written in an
objective and unbiased style, free of
puffery.
I find the list written in an "objective and unbiased style, free of
puffery".
Cunard (
talk)
11:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Sources
VietNamNet is a sister newspaper of 2sao. The article discusses 13 VTV drama series (the names are translated from Vietnamese to English): Living with Mother-in-law, Come Home, Baby, When a Widower Cryed, Let's Say Love, The Blossoming Apple Tree, The Taste of Love, Under the Shade of the Tree of Happiness, Don't Make Mom Angry, My Family Suddenly Happy, Life Is Still Beautiful, Don't Talk About Love, Life is Beautiful Stars, and Is Life Still Beautiful.
The article discusses 14 VTV series (the names are translated from Vietnamese to English): The Taste of Friendship, Love the perch, Say words of love, Flower season returns, 11 months and 5 days, The Destiny of Money, Living with Mother-in-Law, The Arbitrator, A Lifetime of Resentment, Birth and Death, I Miss Someone, Quynh doll, Go Home, Baby, and Someone Else's Girl.
The article discusses three VTV dramas.
The article discusses three VTV dramas.
The article discusses three VTV dramas
Thời Đại is a foreign affairs magazine. The article discusses five VTV dramas.
Regarding
2023–24 United States network television schedule and
Lists of United States network television schedules, there was a strong consensus in the 2012 AfD
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The US network TV schedule articles (2nd nomination) that
WP:NOTTVGUIDE supported retaining these articles. Multiple editors quoted
WP:NOTTVGUIDE's "historically significant program list" wording. To disregard this longstanding consensus would require an RfC at
WT:NOT to remove this wording.
The content from a sockpuppet is no longer in the list.
The list was created by a sockpuppet in July 2023 with two entries: No Line Battle and Sunshine. Neither of these entries remain in the list, which has been completely rewritten and expanded by other editors including the established editor Mrgoahead ( talk · contribs), who has written most of the article.
Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Titles links to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (lists)#Long (split) list naming recommendations, which discusses the conventions for "splitting a long list into multiple sub-articles". The long list here is "List of VTV dramas", while the sub-articles are "List of VTV dramas broadcast in 2024", "List of VTV dramas broadcast in 2023", etc.
The guideline gives the example, "For example, TV show season lists are named in the form "Show title (season 1)", although the present guideline would have preferred "Show title: season 1" (the use of colons in the titles of works to indicate a subtitle, as in Star Trek: The Next Generation, is a likely reason for this variance)."
The split by year is similar here. The split by year is a valid spinout to ensure the main list does not get too long.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess additional sources provided in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS is not violated
WP:NOTNEWS redirects to
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The section says Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not
and lists four items. I reviewed each item to demonstrate that this list does not violate the policy:
Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories.– this article is not "original reporting". It is a list of television dramas.
News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events.– this article is not a news report. Enduring notability has been shown through academic sources and newspaper reviews.
Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be.– this article is not about any individuals.
Celebrity gossip and diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are.– this article is not about "celebrity gossip" or any individuals.
The list is incomplete and does not explain the importance of the programs. It is fine for the list to be imperfect.
Anwegmann wrote, "I would support this article once the season/year was over and the programming was confirmed as having aired." This raises a very good point about how the list can improved. The list includes five TV dramas that have not started airing yet. Two have unspecified airing times, while three will begin airing 4 March 2024, 5 March 2024, 11 March 2024. The list includes only one TV drama that had started airing. This is because the list is missing three TV dramas that are already being aired in 2024: vi:Chúng ta phải hạnh phúc (airing between 9 November 2023 and 4 March 2024), Chúng ta của 8 năm sau (airing between 6 November 2023 and 6 March 2024), and vi:Không ngại cưới, chỉ cần một lý do (aired between 21 September 2023 and 19 January 2024). The list can be improved by adding the three missing dramas. The list can be improved by removing the dramas that have not begun airing yet and adding them back after they've been confirmed to have aired.
Anwegmann wrote, "I understand the importance of these programs, but the importance is not obvious without proper explanation and/or contextualization within the article itself." I agree that the list can be improved by explaining the historical significance of the dramas as discussed in the academic sources and newspaper reviews."
The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved.
Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant
reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page.
Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required:
Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into
excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
This was part of a failed group nomination but for whatever reason I never got back to this it. It's one of a large group of post offices entered as settlements from Durham's place names book, but the most cursory look at maps and aerials shows that it locates to a single farmstead which has gotten larger over the years but which was never anything town-like. No GNIS entry, and the text of the article is about the post office, which isn't notable. Mangoe ( talk) 22:55, 27 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! 23:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
The sources in the article are all from the organization he works for, and there is a lack of in-depth third-party sources. 日期20220626 ( talk) 22:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Finished PhD in 2015, and seems to have fairly rapidly climbed the ranks to professor in March 2024 according to the article. However I'm not seeing how WP:NPROF is met. Seems like WP:TOOSOON. Kj cheetham ( talk) 20:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Ldm1954 ( talk) 01:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Article about a company that reads like a press release. I originally PRODed this but it was decline because sources might exist basically. It's a direct translation of the French article made by the same account, which was a SPA who made these articles then left. References given are hard to verify, and no inline citations are used. The French article uses the same references. Magazine Entreprendre exists and was around at the date given so you could probably find the issue, but Druckluftteknik is just the (mispelled) German word for air compressor technology and Pack News doesn't return anything useful. I don't think this has enough reliable sources to meet WP:NCORP but if it existed since 1870 like it claims it might have some coverage so I'll be happy to withdraw this if enough reliable sourcing is found. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 22:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Unnotable noblewoman. Seems to only have notability due to being a relative of notable people, which seems to be a case of WP:INHERIT. Browsing across the web shown nothing remotely able to give her enough notability to have an article. ''Flux55'' ( talk) 17:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
This page was created in November 2023 during a brief flurry by a user whose only edits have been to corporations and projects within those corporations' works. Applied sources do not put this structure past the bar for WP:NBUILDING. BusterD ( talk) 14:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to The Reformation in Economics. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
The subject does not satisfy notability requirements. There is no substantive coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There are a total of three reliable sources that have covered the subject in some way: (1) A Financial Times column that reviews several books and spends one paragraph on Pilkington's book [9], (2) An Irish Times review [10] of the book, and (3) an American Affairs (a magazine founded in 2017) review [11] of the book. While these reviews are on the border of satisfying WP:AUTHOR, they don't seem sufficient. There's nothing in the coverage on which to build an encyclopedic article. As it stands, the Wikipedia article appears intended to promote the subject (all the sources in the article are self-authored at the moment). Thenightaway ( talk) 22:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 22:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
unreferenced. One suspicious entry: Lauk Flying Wing. Peep Lauk is not notable Estopedist1 ( talk) 22:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Coronation Street characters (2024)#Emily Wilkinson. Daniel ( talk) 22:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
WP:FANCRUFT, appears to have a copyrighted screenshot of the show on the article, should remerge with List of Coronation Street characters (2024) -1ctinus📝 🗨 20:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 by User:Cryptic. Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, the rationale for opening a new discussion is incorrect: the language in question does not forbid G4 for previously-speedied pages, as long as they have also had a full AfD, and this one has. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Page recreated only hours after it was deleted as a result of the previous AfD. Deletion cannot be done via WP:G4 as the page was already speedy-deleted previously, hence the second AfD. Broc ( talk) 20:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy pings to ThaddeusSholto who tagged the page for speedy deletion and to Cactus.man who correctly declined the nomination. Broc ( talk) 20:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
This criterion also does not cover content undeleted via a deletion review, or that was only deleted via proposed deletion (including deletion discussions closed as "soft delete") or speedy deletion.Though it only applies to pages that are tagged under the G4 criterion, and not to other types of speedy criteria. CycloneYoris talk! 05:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 22:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Latvian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions ( 2010, 2012, 2013, etc.) Furthermore, the last two sources are on a Latvian rugby player, which is (probably) not even the same person, meaning there are even fewer sources of the footballer. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. I'm going to email TheEpicApartmentLord a copy of the article so they can work with Rusted AutoParts as far as determining what should be added to the existent draft. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 14:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Despite working on the article and being excited for the film, I have now realized that
WP:NFF is probably in effect here, as the film has not yet been confirmed to have commenced principal photography. Perhaps
it can be drafted for the time being, though.
Also a note for anyone who saw the previous template: I confused one of the AfD templates for the current one that is up. The previous AfD template did not make it so a discussion page was open. I do not think it screwed anything up, but if it did, please let me know via my
talk page so I can better learn what to do in the future, and I apologize in advance.
I have withdrawn my nomination for deletion, I have switched to draftify. Also, I am an idiot who had no idea what I was doing when I tried to close the article’s discussion, I was wrong to do that. This was a huge learning experience, and I apologize for the inconveniences I caused, I should’ve been more careful.
Not0nshoree ( talk) 19:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 22:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Latvian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions ( 2013, 2015, 2016, 2020, 2021, etc.) JTtheOG ( talk) 19:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
I couldn't find sources to show it meets WP:NPLACE or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 18:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Complex/
Rational
19:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 22:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
This is a non-notable JSON derivative markup language. The only sources cited on the page are a primary source from the project's official website, and two links to JSON specs (unrelated to this derivative language). I couldn't find any unconnected sources describing this language. StereoFolic ( talk) 18:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was draftify. Daniel ( talk) 22:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
WP:NFF, film is not released yet. Broc ( talk) 17:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Maha Shivratri. Daniel ( talk) 22:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Fasting should be discussed at Fasting. Rules on a Shivaratra fast should be discussed at Maha Shivratri. I am not seeing a proper WP:SCOPE for this article. Content is mostly WP:NOT; some dubious health claims and a general non-adherance to WP:NPOV. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. To avoid WP:CSD#G4, any recreation down the track would need some very effective sourcing. Daniel ( talk) 22:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Essentially a recreation via AFC with a different title, this article was previously deleted and salted in 2020 under the title SuperMarioLogan. Since then, the sources haven't improved substantially; there are a few articles about the creator winning an auction, and beyond that, we have passing mention of the series in this article from GoodMorningAmerica and two other articles; (a review in Common Sense Media passing mention in TeessideLive, a regional British news site). None of the other sources meet WP:RS guidelines. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Broc ( talk) 21:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Does not fulfill WP:GNG nor any criteria of WP:NGYMNASTICS having not won any medals in national or international competitions. Broc ( talk) 16:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. The minority of "keep" opinions must be given less weight because they do not address or rebut - by citing appropriate sources - the reason for which deletion is sought, namely, that there is insufficient coverage of the subject by reliable sources ( WP:GNG). Sandstein 07:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Flagged by someone claiming to be the subject's son, as a self-written vanity page, exaggerated and imbellished to such an extent as to be misinformation. The claim appears to be substantively correct. The only source that actually looks like a source is this about a production he was involved in, but it was a press release in what appears to be a local source, says so at the end. I could not verify many of the claims in the article either in the sources cited or independently. If reliable sources can be identified, I am happy to fix the article but it needs to be deleted if not. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
“Fire on Broadway”, which I assumed was a typo with quotes for
“Fire" on Broadway. I agree in hindsight that "in association with" should have equated to "co-produced" or something of the sort. Jay 💬 13:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
15:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages for this same reason below:
Not just too overreliant on a single source (though reliable third party sources are available), this list doesn't do much use as Oscar nominees are going to be inducted anyhow. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 15:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 22:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
This article reads as a promotional piece, rather than an article that has a subject that meets general notability and is verifiable by reliable sources. Cold Season ( talk) 15:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
A county-level branch of a political party with no specific claim to notability seperate from the larger party organisation. Fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Existing secondary sources do not focus on the county branch, rather covering election results by Republicans in Multnomah County. AusLondonder ( talk) 12:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 22:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
This was previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ctrl the Tour and the discussion there concluded that it should be redirected, as there wasn't sufficient significant coverage of this tour outside of what's already summarised in the album's page, Ctrl (SZA album). The page was then recreated under the slightly different name "Ctrl The Tour" in 2023, which I have just history merged into the original page. However, it still doesn't look from the article' s sourcing or elsewhere, as if there's sufficient coverage for this to be independent, so I'd suggest it be redirected once more. — Amakuru ( talk) 12:03, 20 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
14:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Marked as lacking sources since 2010. Most of the content was a copyvio. Searches provide nothing beyond blogs and gig listings. Nthep ( talk) 12:30, 20 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
14:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Very promotional in tone, next to no content that isn't advertising in nature. No proper references for primary information, most sources are not reliable. ~ Eejit43 ( talk) 14:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 17:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTDICT TheLongTone ( talk) 13:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Can't find sigcov for athletes, no mention of this person winning a medal. Doesn't appear to pass WP:NSPORT. toobigtokale ( talk) 12:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Disputed draftification. Patently not ready for main space. Single source reference. Empty section. No context. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Hymnology (tentatively), though I would note there is nothing at all wrong with a merge into more than one article, so certainly there is no issue with also merging some content to Anglican church music or any other appropriate target as well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I hate to have to do this, but I see no way that this passes GNG. This gets relatively few GHits, and by and large they are passing references in pages concerningother other work cited one of the four hymns (generally either Lo! He Comes With Clouds Descending or Hark! The Herald Angels Sing). Meanwhile, the English Hymnal was a quarter century away from publication, and at this very late date I would have to imagine that if one compared all the different current Anglican hymnals one would find far more than four hymns appearing in nearly all of them— I dare say that there are probably a couple hundred which appear in every last one. Of the runners-up, "Sun of My Soul, Thou Savior Dear" didn't make it into the 1940 Episcopal Hymnal and while " Jerusalem The Golden" was retained in the The Hymnal 1982, the other three sections of Bernard's hymn were not, and I have never in half a century sung it. I would also point out that hymnals of the era did not officially assign tunes to the texts, which further blunts things: some recent survey in the Episcopal Church identified "Alleluia, Sing to Jesus" as the favorite hymn, but it's a cinch that the preferred American tune, Hyfrydol, plays a large part in that. Furthermore, one can look in in the original work and see that this notion of a "great four" isn't his idea: it comes from the other work cited, by David Briggs, who I would point is not, at least by school affiliation, an Anglican in the first place (his school, Western Theological Seminary, which is in the Reformed tradition). Both of these works are more theological and devotional in character and are primarily interested in the writing of hymns in various eras, and not so much on the statistics. When all is said and done this just doesn't seem to have been that important an idea, and by the time the second edition of Briggs's work, it's likely that the number of such hymns was many times larger than four. Mangoe ( talk) 21:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion on the extent of sourcing would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Red-tailed hawk
(nest)
02:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
NotAGenious (
talk)
10:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on LEvalyn's redirect proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
asilvering (
talk)
22:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
But — people! — if we don't include Benham's observation and Julian 1892, p. 343 rubbishing King's methodology then Wikipedia isn't even as comprehensive as the encyclopaedias of the 19th century were in poking holes in this. We've sourced our article uncritically and primarily to the originator of the idea, with not even the third-party analyses that have been available since within a decade of its publication.
That said, looking for 20th century sources turns up Marks 1938 which confirms what this article says about Louis FitzGerald Benson doing a U.S. equivalent as The Best Church Hymns in 1898. (James F. King was vicar of the then St Mary's in Berwick-on-Tweed, Athel cb.) So limiting this to Anglican Hymnology might be a mistake. There's a hint in another source that Robert Ellis Thompson did the same as King and Benson with his 1893 The National Hymn Book. There's definitely a subject here, and the 19th century encyclopaedias suggest that it's somewhere under hymnology. See their article titles. But almost no-one mentions the number four.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for consensus for a merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
08:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Toyota transmissions#E-series. ✗ plicit 11:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Unsourced for more than four years, fails WP:PRODUCT. A before finds no independent coverage of the product. Possible re-direct? Theroadislong ( talk) 08:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Toyota transmissions#H-series. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 10:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Decline once and then rejected at WP:AFC moved by COI creator to mainspace, fails WP:PRODUCT. A before finds no independent coverage of the product and the article relies on primary Toyota sources. Possible re-direct? Theroadislong ( talk) 08:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Toyota transmissions#G-series. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 10:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Decline four times and then rejected at WP:AFC moved by COI creator to mainspace, fails WP:PRODUCT. A before finds no independent coverage of the product and the article relies on primary Toyota sources. Possible re-direct? Theroadislong ( talk) 08:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Toyota transmissions#C-series. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 10:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Declined three times and then rejected at WP:AFC moved by COI creator to mainspace, fails WP:PRODUCT. A before finds no independent coverage of the product and the article relies on primary Toyota sources. Possible re-direct? Theroadislong ( talk) 08:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Note: this article was previously deleted via AfD community consensus under an alternate capitalization at WP:Articles for deletion/Toyota C transmission. Left guide ( talk) 08:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. All of the individual sports mentions were removed from this article and then those edits were reverted to return to its current state. Rather than a quick renomination and replay of this AFD, I encourage interested editors to go to the article talk page to discuss which one of those options would serve readers/the project the best. Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Another WP:EXAMPLEFARM WP:LC listing that is more deserving of being listed on lists about individual leagues/championships than a standalone list. If we were going to keep this, then we'll have an article bloated with WP:FANCRUFT entries of everybody's favorite sport. Editors needs to know that Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY for your favorite sport; more deserving of an entry in Wikitionary than this per WP:ATD. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 17:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Editors needs to know that Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY for your favorite sport... and nominators need to know that AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP for your least-favorite article. You haven't given any reason why this fails to meet notability guidelines for inclusion, only that it is poorly written. jp× g 🗯️ 22:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus split between keep/merge and delete, with slightly more in favour of keep. Relisting for more clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
02:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is too unclear. Giving it another try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Toadette (
Let's discuss together!)
07:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
circlejerking [because] their favorite sport is at off season, and while we're at it, all the !delete votes basically seem to agree with your non-reason nomination. Do you want your WP:CIVIL warning now or when you lie about and insult those who disagree with you next? Kingsif ( talk) 22:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Readers can easily find the sport they are interested in.I can't. No sport that I'm interested in is listed. Neither can I see winning streaks in war, in casinos, computer games or anything else. Your rule of thumb essay is not policy. The policy reasons for deletion are clear, and I do not see any policy reasons for retaining this hot mess. I can add tiddlywinks and Fortnite, but editor curation of the list of winning streaks is WP:OR. I am not seeing any policy case for retention, and neither has anyone presented any sources that would show this or any listing would meet WP:LISTN. We can learn nothing by page hits. We do not know that any of those page hits were people satisfying their information requirement, and again, it is not at all clear how any information requirement is met by this. No one is saying there should be no mention of, say, the record basketball winning streaks - but if that is what people are searching for, they will find that and more and better relevant and targeted information on those pages rather than this. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 12:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
WP:SYNTHESIS. PepperBeast (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
02:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Toadette (
Let's discuss together!)
07:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Not a coherent list or article, but a grab-bag of vaguely connected elements. WP:SYNTHESIS. PepperBeast (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
This list might go on. Each of the sources justify the mention of Polo, Pony, Manipuri (or Meitei) Culture and History. Even, some might argue, modern Polo on Pony was invented in the state of Manipur. So, I don't see any non-coherent or vague compilation of list. As per Brusquedandelion, the list does not fulfill WP:SAL. In that specific policy, it is mentioned that, the all of the entries in a list not necessarily have to be notable as an independednt article, but it seems, in this list, all the entries are notable as independent article as well as have the same connection of being about Polo, Pony, Manipuri Culture. Therefore, I strongly Disagree with the nominator and vote to Keep Nokib Sarkar Poke 07:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
specifically mentions the connection between Polo and Manipuri Pony, as well as mentions the temple of the god of pony, Marjingreally has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. There is already an article on Sagol Kāngjei and that is not the article that is being discussed for deletion here. It is almost a given that any sufficiently long reliable source that discusses this sport will also discuss at least one instance when the sport is played, and in doing so mention one or perhaps several locations where this has happened. But this is not the same as discussing a list of places where the sport is played as a conjunct. You note that the WP:NLIST says
all of the entries in a list [do] not necessarily have to be notable as an independednt article, but this was never under dispute with respect to this article and isn't the cruz of my point. Nevertheless, since you seem to believe
all the entries are notable as independent articleI would strongly rebut this claim. A single mention of a game on a random website is generally not considered to be WP:SIGCOV by Wikipedians who curate and edit sports pages. But this is besides the point: we are not discussing whether each of these events should have a Wikipedia page, we are discussing whether a list of them warrants a Wikipedia page, and for the reasons I have already stated, per WP:NLIST guidelines, they clearly do not. Mentioning other random facts from WP:NLIST that aren't actually relevant here makes me wonder whether you are being intentionally obtuse to confuse the discourse by raising unnecessary and irrelevant issues and thereby impede the consensus-forming process. If that is not the case, I invite you to please consider the points being made rather than posting a kneejerk reaction just because of some sentimental value you have for this article. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 10:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
02:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Toadette (
Let's discuss together!)
07:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Reception/Legacy sources that was cited were trivial and wasn't talking about the character like the The New York Times, its all about the television show. WP:Before mostly came up were Bustle as a source, which is definitely unreliable from it looks. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 12:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
22:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Toadette (
Let's discuss together!)
07:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of The Great British Bake Off finalists (series 8–present)#Giuseppe Dell'Anno. ✗ plicit 06:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
This person may have won the twelfth series, but I wonder whether it suffices to help keep the standalone article. His academic career hasn't made an impact, and I doubt writing cookbooks (two so far) and guest appearances make him notable outside his win. Should be redirected to List of The Great British Bake Off finalists (series 8–present)#Giuseppe Dell'Anno. If WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, then how about either WP:PAGEDECIDE or WP:BIO1E? George Ho ( talk) 06:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.. I see [55] [56] [57] some follow-up coverage, but probably not enough to show persistence. Broc ( talk) 12:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Don't need a comprehensive list of all notable underwater divers, this is what categories for ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Underwater divers and its subcategories are for. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 12:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Related to Geysirhead's comment, the list is more annotated than most indexes, although not uniquely so. Regardless, indexes are list articles, so discussion of how
WP:NLIST applies would be relevant.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk)
05:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Don't need a comprehensive list of all notable underwater divers, this is what categories for Category:Underwater divers and its subcategories are for.I suggest that this is simply wrong, and that it is not possible to use the Category:Underwater divers and its subcategories to produce a "comprehensive list of all notable underwater divers" or even a non-comprehensive list of "notable underwater divers" which excludes underwater divers which are not notable as underwater divers, (ie. an equivalent to the index they proposed for deletion) without considerable post-processing by a knowledgeable editor. I challenge them to demonstrate their claim. If this cannot be done, the reason given for the nomination is invalid. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Purely promotional BLP. Not a single thing is properly verified. None of the things in it will make her automatically notable--a few TV appearances, a photo shoot or two--and I cannot find the coverage in Google News or Books that would prove notability by our standards. Note that the creator is blocked for a user name problem, and has an obvious conflict of interest. Drmies ( talk) 01:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Xymmax
So let it be written
So let it be done
05:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
By the way, @ Oaktree b, you mentioned earlier that you weren't sure that the original AFD was in regards to the same person as the current article is about. Is this AFD what you were referring to? It sounds like it's about the same person to me, but do you mind if I ask specifically what makes you think it may be someone else with the same or similar name? Vontheri ( talk) 23:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting,
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Petia_Pavlova lists quite a few sources. Were these evaluated?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:EVENT. A shooting with no fatalities (and many on WP not me believe number dead is an indicator of notability). LibStar ( talk) 05:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Battle of Parwan#Prelude. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 16:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
This battle does not have significant coverage in reliable sources.
The relevant sources (e.g. Barthold 1968 and Sverdrup 2017) only discuss it as a minor skirmish in the lead up to the Battle of Parwan, and describe it in three sentences or less. This is reflected in the weighting of the article, the vast majority of which is dedicated to "Background" and only two sentences to the actual battle. Additionally, as noted on the talk page, the source which states that this battle resulted in uprisings can be clearly seen to misread his source. Further justifications for keeping the article on the talk page were largely original research or WP:ILIKEIT.
Bringing this here as a previous WP:BLAR to Battle of Parwan#Prelude was reverted. I still think a redirect there is the best course of action. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 13:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
04:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Groove Collective. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 16:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
A lot of WP:ORIGINAL here. Current sourcing is just the person's music profiles. There is one article referenced, but I believe it is a non- WP:RELIABLE WordPress blog. TLA (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
04:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
This article shows no evidence of meeting WP:GNG: no sources in the article or available elsewhere provide reliable, independent, significant coverage of "The Preserve at Sharp Mountain, Georgia". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 04:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
No sources in article, only good source on svwiki is a short mention in Nordisk Familjebok in connection to his father. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. AlexandraAVX ( talk) 07:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
03:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Of the linked sources, several are not independent coverage, while others do not mention it at all. — Moriwen ( talk) 03:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 05:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
REDIRECT to husband Jeremi Wiśniowiecki's article. Subject non-notable in her own right. Nirva20 ( talk) 03:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Baku#Museums. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I couldn't find sources to show this meets WP:N, or a good WP:ATD. Boleyn ( talk) 15:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
02:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯
Raydann
(Talk)
03:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Subject does not fulfill notability criteria, I could not find any sources. The book Die Groot Gedagte is perhaps notable because of the prize it won. However, I was not able to find reviews for it, either. Broc ( talk) 15:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
08:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯
Raydann
(Talk)
02:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Czechoslovakia at the 1992 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh. Edit of the hat note can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 03:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG; no significant coverage or medal record. Corresponding article on Czech Wikipedia is unsourced and very short, which would help copy over English article otherwise. Google searches come up with silly, random namesakes. Given this man's current age, we can assume his bobsleigh career is over. CuteDolphin712 ( talk) 13:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯
Raydann
(Talk)
02:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Brzozowo, Sokółka County. There are some good arguments for deletion here, but redirection as an ATD wasn't soundly refuted. Owen× ☎ 16:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Likely does not meet WP:GEOLAND, included in TERYT and OSM as a separate unit, but is actually a sub-unit of Brzozowo per GUS and Geoportal. I also can't find anything on it besides a barn fire. Ilawa-Kataka ( talk) 05:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus not clear on which article should get the redirect to or delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
04:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around whether or not to implement the proposed
alternative to deletion would be helpful in achieving consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Red-tailed hawk
(nest)
22:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯
Raydann
(Talk)
02:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
No credible claim of notability. Only 3 sources. First reference does not mention Hakawi News, 2 and 3 are Wordpress pages on the official website. WP:Before shows zero independent coverage, although both Commons and Wikiquote are also being targeted with articles promoting Hakawi News and its editor, who has "apparently" won not only the French Legion of Honor but also a 2023 Academy Award. HouseOfChange ( talk) 02:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Sources have been added and are being supplemented Follow the page، Hakawi News. ( Ahmed brens ( talk) 19:06, 1 March 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 03:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
No citations found in 2019 Kenya census or in any Kenyan media. Not mapped. Additionally, whilst "Kab-" is a prefix denoting place, "Kap-" is not a Kalenjin prefix, and its various words for for "loud" and "sound" do not pertain. kencf0618 ( talk) 01:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)