The result was delete. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 13:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Previously deleted for WP:G11, and not much has changed since then. Every citation is either a press release or doesn't have SigCov. BrigadierG ( talk) 23:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I found no significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 ( talk) 23:11, 7 June 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 11:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Semi-advertorialized article about a primary school, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for schools. As always, schools (especially at the primary level) are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them in media or books -- but this is "referenced" entirely to the school's own self-published website about itself, which is not support for notability, and is written in a tone that resembles the school writing about itself ("in the center, you'll find an open book and a scroll, representing the thirst for knowledge and the quest to uncover it") rather than objective third-party analysis. Bearcat ( talk) 15:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:56, 7 June 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 11:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet the criteria for WP:NMUSIC or WP:SIGCOV. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Ali Khamenei. Merger with additional or alternative targets can be discussed editorially. After discarding clearly canvassed votes and ones not based on P&G, there is a rough consensus to keep the content, but not as a standalone article. Concerns about the merged article size are valid, but are secondary to notability issues. Owen× ☎ 11:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Does not need to be a separate article and not notable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
sparked mixed reactions on social media, a phrase which applies to almost everything. Walsh90210 ( talk) 23:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet and several different Redirect/Merge target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:54, 7 June 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 11:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable wrestler with no sources in the article Niafied ( talk) 07:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:52, 7 June 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 11:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Current sources in the article don't pass WP:GNG and I couldn't find sources through a WP:BEFORE which discussed him in-depth. Suonii180 ( talk) 17:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. The rough consensus is that the sources don't support a claim of notability according to Wikipedia's guideline for actors. Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a voice actor and singer, not
properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for actors or singers. As always, neither actors nor singers are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass
WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them and their work -- but this is very heavily
reference bombed to primary sources that are not support for notability (songs sourced to Spotify or YouTube or their own lyrics on Genius, acting credits sourced to IMDb, YouTube "interviews" where he's talking about himself, Facebook posts, etc.), with virtually no evidence of GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about him shown at all.
This is different enough in form from the prior versions that I wouldn't feel comfortable speedying it as a recreation of deleted content without a new discussion, but it hasn't built any stronger case for the subject passing any notability criteria than the prior versions did. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced better than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Cardus without prejudice against a selective merge. Owen× ☎ 12:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Came across the article on the Christian think tank Cardus today, which appears to be the result of WP:UPE. I stubified that rather than nominate it for deletion because it looks like there's enough out there for WP:ORG. But that led me to this, a long article on one of Cardus's reports, again with no good independent sourcing at all (but a whole lot of text). Wouldn't be surprised if this were UPE too. In any event, if there's a little bit of coverage it can be summarized in the main article. WP:GNG fail here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:22, 24 May 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)
18:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:51, 7 June 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! 23:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I found mentions of the subject in reliable sources, but I didn't find significant coverage. The single reference in the article only verifies that Contreras worked with Current 93 and Baby Dee. toweli ( talk) 17:06, 24 May 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)
18:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Bodhendra Saraswati II. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
The tomb lacks wide coverage in RS. Most of the text is covered in Bodhendra Saraswathi, whose tomb the subject is. The article has little information on the architecture of the tomb, but rather concentrates more on Bodhendra and his death Redtigerxyz Talk 15:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
18:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to The Open Source Definition. Not 100% sure I got this one right but if I didn't, I'm sure someone will tell me or take this to DRV. Liz Read! Talk! 00:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable precursor of The Open Source Definition. I was barely able to scrape up enough independent analysis to create a viable article about the OSD and the related Open Definition. There is much less available on the Debian definition.
The last AfD was in 2007 and notability was not considered.
Furthermore, I cannot support this article's existence per WP:NOPAGE because the Debian definition, slightly modified, was adopted as the OSD and the texts are very similar [6] [7]. ( t · c) buidhe 22:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already visited AFD before so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see whether there could be any consensus on Redirection or on a Redirect target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There are 3 different target articles being proposed here. To carry out this option as a closure, we need to settle on one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. After discarding blocked and sock accounts, and anon IPs relying on irrelevant arguments, we're left with a clear consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 21:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Non of the sources besides https://www.firstpost.com/art-and-culture/abhirup-dhar-probes-the-paranormal-in-new-book-ghost-hunter-gaurav-tiwari-9969841.html show notability. We need atleast 3 such sources to justify inclusion. Sohom ( talk) 22:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please remember to sign your comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
The only independent source given, Thöle, only mentions the CWOC in passing. I can't find any source that actually covers their activities. There's no evidence that this communion is more than a loose agreement of three small like-minded denominations. Leefeni aures audiendi audiat 21:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Article has been PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Previously deleted and salted as Meridian Gaming Ltd/ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meridian Gaming Ltd * Pppery * it has begun... 23:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Extended commentary on
WP:ORGCRIT and why an article might need to be deleted
|
---|
|
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Due to the previous AFD, I do not think that this discussion is eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I still contest deletation considering how many pages wikipedia contains about irrelevant companies with poor, dead or wrong references considering non commerical style of this page, considering it summerize true facts. -- Backij ( talk) 08:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted by Ponyo under criterion G3. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 22:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
No references, and I literally can't find anything about this TV series, although the generic name doesn't really help. Very likely fails WP:GNG, although the "TBA" gives hope that it might become notable sometime in the future. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 22:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Owen× ☎ 21:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:GNG, WP:NOTGUIDE WP:ADVERT. This is more of a flyer than encyclopedic article and it's evident by contents like "During 2012, the program fee was $470 if paid before January 2012, or $495 after January 1. This fee includes all meals and lodging, training materials, and a course patch. " Graywalls ( talk) 21:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Owen× ☎ 21:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Unsourced, appears to fail WP:GNG based on a quick Google (web/news/books) search. Regards, HaeB ( talk) 21:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Semi-advertorialized article about a regional graphic design award, not
properly sourced as passing notability criteria for events. As always, events are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass
WP:GNG on third-party media coverage about them -- but this is "referenced" entirely to the organization's own
self-published content about itself, with absolutely no evidence of third-party attention shown at all.
It also warrants note that this was a
conflict of interest from the start, as the article creator's username of "Gdcbc" corresponds letter-for-letter to the name of the organization that presents this award, the Graphic Designers of Canada, British Columbia.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to pass GNG on its sourceability.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Perplex City. Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
There's zero RS talking about this. All sources on article now are primary. Only one I could find was [12] which does not sufficiently establish passing WP:GNG Soni ( talk) 18:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Namibian first-class cricketers. Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Namibian first-class cricketers as I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Krishna Kumar (actor). Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNGACTOR. She has an appearance in a single movie which alone doesn't show notability. I can't find any sources online as well upon WP:BEFORE 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 17:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 13:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Stub article with an unopposed election. Not like the 2022 one which was still meaningful. This is why no other cong election pages exist Pharaoh496 ( talk) 17:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Owen× ☎ 21:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Inherently original research. Compare WP:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in computer science (2nd nomination). Was previously kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in networks and security but I think this is worth a reevaluation a decade later. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malinaccier ( talk) 17:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
This appears to be a small church with no particular claim to be notable - either because of history or current activity. Suggest delete unless someone can evidence notability Newhaven lad ( talk) 17:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Written extremely like an advertisement and has many other problems. Myrealnamm ( 💬pros · ✏️cons) 17:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Semi-advertorialized
WP:BLP of a journalist, not
properly referenced as passing notability criteria for journalists. As always, journalists are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to have third-party coverage and analysis about them and the impact of their work in reliable sources other than their own employers -- but the sole reference cited here is from her own employer at the time, and thus isn't independent of her for the purposes of building notability, and the article has been tagged for needing more sourcing since 2010 without improvement.
In addition, the whole thing is written very much like somebody did a thinly veiled rewrite of her own staff profile from an employer rather than a proper encyclopedia.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have more than just her own former employer for sourcing.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:44, 7 June 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. Malinaccier ( talk) 17:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a smalltown local politician, not
properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for local politicians. As always, politicians at the local level of office are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the inclusion test for a local politician hinges on showing a significant depth and volume of reliable source coverage about their work -- specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, significant effects their leadership had on the development of the town or city, and on and so forth -- but this is basically just "he is a politician who exists", referenced mainly to
primary sources that are not support for notability, while the closest thing to reliable source coverage about him is covering him in the context of undergoing surgery rather than in the context of anything related to making him notable as a politician.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much more and better sourcing than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:39, 7 June 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 redirect's undeletion. Star Mississippi 15:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Very poorly written, and too much overlap in the article with Genetic studies on Turkish people (which parts of were apparently copy-pasted here) to warrant a separate article. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 15:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. given article improvements and consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 00:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Journalist falls short of WP:NBIO and WP:GNG tests; no evidence of WP:SIGCOV of him separate from his own writing and coverage of his books. (His book "Turn the Beat Around" would likely pass WP:NBOOK if an article were created on it, but Shapiro's notability cannot be WP:INHERITED from it.) Dclemens1971 ( talk) 16:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a difference of opinion on whether
WP:AUTHOR is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Malinaccier (
talk)
15:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Owen× ☎ 12:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Article is a BLP of a non-notable author, references are self-published sources inc Facebook. No particular claim of notability, says she's exec director of some company but that's not immediately verifiable from their home page. She taught some courses at some organisations, that seems to be about it. -- D'n'B- t -- 17:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
22:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An evaluation of newly brought up sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jake Wartenberg (
talk)
14:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Geschichte ( talk) 18:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to be notable independently of his senate run, for which Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill#Political candidates would apply, with the sources given being candidate databases and interviews. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 14:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Elli ( talk | contribs) 14:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. There's nothing from WP:BEFORE to establish notability either. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 14:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Golmaal (film series). Discussion about redirecting to another target can continue on the target's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 13:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. M S Hassan ( talk) 13:40, 7 June 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 14:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
The article does not pass WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG TheNuggeteer ( talk) 13:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Owen× ☎ 13:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
The article does not pass WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG TheNuggeteer ( talk) 13:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Owen× ☎ 13:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
There's already information about the void galaxy on the article about the local void in the section that contains the list of void galaxies, so I prefer its information in the Local void article or the Void galaxy article, if you want the information of this article to be move there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 ( talk • contribs) 11:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was Speedy/procedural keep - this relates to longstanding conflict/disruption related to the history/legacy of the famous Romanian football team 'Steaua București', with two clubs ( FCSB and CSA Steaua București) both claiming the heritage. AFD is totally the wrong venue to deal with any perceived issues related to this, FSCB is clearly notable.. Giant Snowman 12:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
The information presented here is mostly false. The date the club was founded is wrong, the records are wrong, the history is wrong, former players are wrong, about 80% of the entire article is wrong.
If you go to the club's own website, you find nothing about the information presented here. It says here that Fcsb has 27 domestic titles. When its chairman of the board was asked if this is true, he denied it. https://as.ro/fotbal/liga-1/mihai-stoica-explicatie-total-neasteptata-motivul-pentru-care-numarul-27-va-fi-trecut-pe-tricourile-campioanei-fcsb-398416.html So why keep this article? It makes no sense. Just because there is some wrong information posted on some website? That is the same as fake news. Does Wikipedia support fake news now? TPTB ( talk) 13:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment AfD is not for debating the content. It is to establish WP:notabilty and appropriate WP inclusion/exclusion. Please feel free to correct the info with WP:reliable sources or reframe the AfD proposal. If the sources are geniune and reliable, btw we might need a conversation about how to use them.
Comment: this is an invalid and arguably malicious nomination. As can be seen on the talk pages of this article and various others on related entities, there is a long-running legal dispute. The nom is likely to be proved correct that FCSB will be disassociated from most if not all of the historic achievements of the Steaua Bucharest club in due course, but AFAIK this is not definitive at present in terms of reliable sources stating exactly what can be allocated to whom. Regardless, the FCSB entity is an extant sports club (and won the Romanian championship this season just gone) so is unequivocally a valid topic for an article, and would be still valid as a topic as a means of clarification on the events of the past years even if it were dissolved altogether tomorrow. The nom has seemingly lost their patience in this matter and now simply wants to have all the information deleted rather than have contentious information removed by the proper means and processes. Crowsus ( talk) 16:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Owen× ☎ 13:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTDIRECTORY BrigadierG ( talk) 12:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Assam cricketers#B. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
No more information available on this topic, The article did not edit from much time. And no importance of this article.... Many regions to delete it. Manoj Bhagawati is/was not famous cricketer. Paigaonwasii. — Preceding undated comment added 08:43, 30 May 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,
✗
plicit
11:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters#King Grayskull. Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
No evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕 Boneless Pizza!🍕 ( 🔔) 11:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of Gargoyles characters#Demona. Owen× ☎ 13:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
The only sigcov source here [15] and a bit useful IGN source [16] still doesn't pass WP:GNG with the demonstrated sources. The best thing is to merge it into a list of characters. 🍕 Boneless Pizza!🍕 ( 🔔) 11:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Owen× ☎ 13:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
There's already information about the void galaxy on the article about the local void in the section that contains the list of void galaxies and also has similarities with the article about Pisces A, so I prefer its information in the Local void article or the Void galaxy article, if you want the information of this article to be move there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Owen× ☎ 13:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
There's already information about the void galaxy on the article about the local void in the section that contains the list of void galaxies, so I prefer its information in the Local void article or the Void galaxy article, if you want the information of this article to be move there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Owen× ☎ 13:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
There's already information about the void galaxy on the article about the local void in the section that contains the list of void galaxies, so I prefer its information in the Local void article or the Void galaxy article, if you want the information of this article to be move there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 ( talk • contribs) 11:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Owen× ☎ 13:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
There's already information about the void galaxy on the article about the local void in the section that contains the list of void galaxies, so I prefer its information in the Local void article or the Void galaxy article, if you want the information of this article to be move there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 7 June 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 11:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Would be better suited for a definition on wikitionary, I think. Heyallkatehere ( talk) 10:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Note: There is no argument for deletion being made and this could have been procedurally closed. At this stage, that would be a super vote, so NC it is. Links being dead, an unproven allegation of it being "stolen from a draft" are arguments for history merge and clean up. Year-old AfC comments are not binding, and no argument has been made for why this can't be cleaned up in mainspace Star Mississippi 15:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
There is already a draft for this that has been rejected a few times. Pretty sure the author of the draft got tired and moved it to mainspace with no concensus. 48JCL ( talk) 22:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Argument has been very messy thus far, would appreciate some clear comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Toadspike
[Talk]
09:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Dynamical mean-field theory. Owen× ☎ 13:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Page probably created by students in the group of the originator of the algorithm. All relevant refs to the method are from one group, there are no secondary sources. It should be trimmed down to a paragraph or two and merged into Dynamical mean-field theory since it is a variant of that very well established and used approach. We should not have separate articles on every minor DFT variant IMO. Ldm1954 ( talk) 08:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
and critical disorder strengths can be obtained through cluster extensions of these theories (Jarrell and Krishnamurthy, 2001; Ekuma et al., 2014; Terletska et al., 2014), that's not good evidence the topic needs its own article here. I have written an introductory guide for physicists trying to contribute to Wikipedia that may be helpful. XOR'easter ( talk) 02:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. I do not know if Gmp007 is the article subject or a student or colleague but the consensus among experienced editors is that it is TOOSOON and this article right now should be deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Assistant professor with an h-factor of 22 and no notable awards and no notable mentions. Novice editor (his first article) ignored AfC declination and moved to main space, twice deleting COI tags. On new page patrol both notability and COI were tagged and draftified; novice editor removed tags and a moved back to main space. Hence AfD. Ldm1954 ( talk) 07:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Delete. I know nothing about Chinedu Ekuma beyond what is in the article, and that does not add up to notability. For a young scientist his career is respectable, but that's not enough. He may become notable in the future, but he's not there yet. Athel cb ( talk) 10:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Opinions are all over the map here. Editors interested in a Merge can pursue that option outside of this AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 06:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
02:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep, merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
07:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 09:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Coverage and sourcing is just They exist" and champions of two cups of some type. North8000 ( talk) 23:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Local sources must be independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage. None of reference in the article provide reports beyond routine coverage, such as information about the team itself. Ckfasdf ( talk) 02:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
07:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 09:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:OR / WP:MADEUP coinage. I find no evidence of the term "Western Pennsylvania Professional Football Circuit" existing prior to this article's creation in 2012; every source that has used it has come afterward. Even in post-2012 material I see no WP:SIGCOV in sources that clearly qualify as WP:RS. The "circuit" is not mentioned in any of the article's references except for RetroSeasons (which postdates the WP article by several years and on one of its pages copies almost verbatim from it). One might agree or disagree that the early independent teams of western PA loosely constituted a "circuit", but it's not for Wikipedia to make up a capitalized name for it and treat it as an established concept. This isn't a case like the Ohio League, which, while not a league in any strict or formal sense, is attested in its own time and by historians. T. Cadwallader Phloog ( talk) 23:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
07:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 09:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Meany's (source 3) [24] definition of places is less stringent than Wikipedia's definition, which is legally recognized places. Meany wrote that Swofford (the man) set up a post office in the Swofford valley and later moved it to Mossy Rock. Places don't move, but post offices do (sometimes in shoe boxes). Washington State place names published in 1971 [25] Doesn't list swofford as a place. A rather unreliable source [26], but commonly referenced nonetheless lists this place, but all of the reliable sources used for their mention call it "Swofford Valley". Reading newspapers from the area reveals that the post office served the Swofford valley, and the people who lived in the valley used it's name to define where they lived. The Centralia Daily Chronicle in 1976 (July 1, 1976 Page 31 [27]) explains that the valley had a rural farming community with a post office and a drug store. The reality is that these were probably not separate buildings, and it would not be all that unusual for this to actually be Swofford's residence as well. It is not a legally recognized place. Furthermore it's full name is "Swofford Valley". The confusion arises because post offices in the 1800's could only have one word names. If it is not deleted here I want want it moved to Swofford Valley, Washington. James.folsom ( talk) 22:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
07:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 04:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY, one being about one of its commentators and announcements, some being more deserving in an article about the coverage but not this list; barely much to help this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 19:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 55 sources added since nomination,
WP:HEYMAN.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk)
19:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
06:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Robert Gordon University#Garthdee campus. No argument has been made for it being independently notable. With the information already being present, there's no need to merge but the history is retained if someone feels something worth adding. Star Mississippi 14:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
This whole page reads like an overly detailed promotional pamphlet for the Robert Gordon University, and the main Robert Gordon University article has most, if not all, of the useful information from this article in its Garthdee campus section UltrasonicMadness ( talk) 19:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
06:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
In its current state, I'm not sure how this article meets our policy for notability of organizations. All of the cited sources are from periodicals and organizations directly affiliated with this organization (1 from Socialist Middle East, 1 from Alternativa Socialista, 3 from Asian Marxist Review, 1 from Periodismo de Izquierda, 1 from MST, 2 from the Socialist Laborers Party and 5 from the International Socialist League itself). Looking through Google Scholar, almost all of the results I see are about the South African International Socialist League, I can't find any clear cases of significant coverage of this organization in independent, reliable sources.
Despite linking to 25 websites and facebook pages affiliated with this organization, it doesn't appear that any of these affiliates are independently notable either, so I'm not sure what case can be made for this article needing to exist. Also, the only pages that appear to link to this one are just long lists of Trotskyist internationals. I don't think every non-notable Trotskyist international necessitates individual pages. Grnrchst ( talk) 09:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I think this fails WP: N. I found this which gives a review of 9wm in a few sentences and some mentions in a couple of books, but nothing more than that. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 15:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete Fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Can be mentioned as an educational institution in /info/en/?search=Kanyakumari_district Wikilover3509 ( talk) 14:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Why not? Merge discussions can occur outside of this AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 04:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Merge Fails to meet WP:GNG. Better to merge either with /info/en/?search=University_of_Texas_at_Austin or /info/en/?search=Texas_Exes Wikilover3509 ( talk) 13:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please focus on one target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit 11:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to meet WP:N, made by non-notable company. Boleyn ( talk) 09:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
:Delete per
WP:NCORP
104.7.152.180 (
talk)
14:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Thanks for improvements to the article over this AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
fails general notability guideline. ltb d l ( talk) 06:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
The subject of this article is a business with no proven notability. As written, it contains no references. A limited web search reveals no feature stories or in-depth articles that would indicate that this organization should be included in an encyclopedia. A single story in Daily Variety [ [32]] from 2006 was all I could unearth
I had previously submitted it for PROD but the reviewer somehow felt this was worth keeping. Volcom95 ( talk) 06:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) LibStar ( talk) 21:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
This article is more about the companies he founded which already have their own articles. His life doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 00:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Duffbeerforme, I don't get your position at all. We always consider sources brought up in an AFD discussion, not just the current state of the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Participants believe this article subject meets WP:JUDGE. Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Failed WP:GNG. Nothing significant except an obituary Ontor22 ( talk) 06:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Participants disagree with nominator and believe the subject meets WP:JUDGE Liz Read! Talk! 04:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
No significant and independent coverage. Does not meet the conditions of WP:JUDGE Ontor22 ( talk) 06:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
No evidence of SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Triptothecottage ( talk) 05:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
This subject fails WP:GNG as well as WP:ANYBIO because he is not the actual subject of significant in-depth coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. He is mentioned in sources covering other topics. That's not enough. JFHJr ( ㊟) 05:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. I'd normally accept Redirect as a sensible ATD in such cases, but the fact that the copyright violating text existed from the very first version of the page, and the limited amount of editing done since, makes Redirect over a selective delrev a poor choice in this case. Any editor is welcome to recreate the page as a redirect, although I don't see much value in that. Owen× ☎ 12:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
This is a service product related to BSA/Scouting/Boy Scouts of America and given the guide book like nature of this article and lack of SIRS devoted to this service product, I argue that it should be re-directed to Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) or another appropriate target. I've boldly re-directed but it was reverted, so I am putting it up for consensus discussion Graywalls ( talk) 02:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
ILSC helps crew members with leadership positions..., copied from this Word doc. And that's just from comparing the current text to the sources it cites; I'm guessing there's more copyvio in the history and/or non-cited sources. JoelleJay ( talk) 03:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of building or structure fires#2018. Malinaccier ( talk) 02:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Fails Wikipedia:Notability (events). No evidence of lasting effects based on GNews Archives and GBooks search. A brief and cited mention at List_of_building_or_structure_fires#2018 can also be an alternative to deletion. -- Lenticel ( talk) 02:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malinaccier ( talk) 02:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
The same article was deleted at Cam Guarino by User:Kuru. I tagged this article for speedy deletion but it was declined by User:GB fan. User:Namiba 02:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Malinaccier ( talk) 02:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
List with only 2 entries, only one of which has an article. Does not meet WP:STANDALONELIST. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk • contribs) 02:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to International reactions to the Israel–Hamas war. (non-admin closure) Josethewikier ( talk) 02:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I've created this article copy-pasting from the main article ( Israel–Hamas war) 1 month ago, but I think this article is very poorly written and I cannot help but find the International Reactions to the Israel–Hamas war article to be thousands of times better than this one. I believe this article should be deleted. Maybe one or two things can be merged into the above article, but I don't really see how. It's also a possibility to rename the above article to remove the word "international" after the potential deletion of this one, but I digress. Josethewikier ( talk) 01:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I shall withdraw this AfD and redirect to above article then. (unless I should G7?) Josethewikier ( talk) 16:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. The consensus in this discussion is that this article meets WP:NPLACE and there is also little articulated support for the deletion nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Proposing to merge/redirect to Flat Bush (Most of the area falls under Flat Bush). Not gazetted/included in Auckland Council's official map tool and fails GNG, no sigcov turns up in a search with most results pertaining to a school and one even stating the area is Otara: https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/Addressing_Pupil_s_Behaviour/UlAAhkusknAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22clover+park%22+auckland&pg=PT109&printsec=frontcover Traumnovelle ( talk) 01:04, 7 June 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 11:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Likely fails Wikipedia:ORGSIG Lord serious pig 21:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 13:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Previously deleted for WP:G11, and not much has changed since then. Every citation is either a press release or doesn't have SigCov. BrigadierG ( talk) 23:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I found no significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 ( talk) 23:11, 7 June 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 11:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Semi-advertorialized article about a primary school, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for schools. As always, schools (especially at the primary level) are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them in media or books -- but this is "referenced" entirely to the school's own self-published website about itself, which is not support for notability, and is written in a tone that resembles the school writing about itself ("in the center, you'll find an open book and a scroll, representing the thirst for knowledge and the quest to uncover it") rather than objective third-party analysis. Bearcat ( talk) 15:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:56, 7 June 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 11:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet the criteria for WP:NMUSIC or WP:SIGCOV. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Ali Khamenei. Merger with additional or alternative targets can be discussed editorially. After discarding clearly canvassed votes and ones not based on P&G, there is a rough consensus to keep the content, but not as a standalone article. Concerns about the merged article size are valid, but are secondary to notability issues. Owen× ☎ 11:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Does not need to be a separate article and not notable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
sparked mixed reactions on social media, a phrase which applies to almost everything. Walsh90210 ( talk) 23:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet and several different Redirect/Merge target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:54, 7 June 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 11:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable wrestler with no sources in the article Niafied ( talk) 07:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:52, 7 June 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 11:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Current sources in the article don't pass WP:GNG and I couldn't find sources through a WP:BEFORE which discussed him in-depth. Suonii180 ( talk) 17:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. The rough consensus is that the sources don't support a claim of notability according to Wikipedia's guideline for actors. Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a voice actor and singer, not
properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for actors or singers. As always, neither actors nor singers are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass
WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them and their work -- but this is very heavily
reference bombed to primary sources that are not support for notability (songs sourced to Spotify or YouTube or their own lyrics on Genius, acting credits sourced to IMDb, YouTube "interviews" where he's talking about himself, Facebook posts, etc.), with virtually no evidence of GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about him shown at all.
This is different enough in form from the prior versions that I wouldn't feel comfortable speedying it as a recreation of deleted content without a new discussion, but it hasn't built any stronger case for the subject passing any notability criteria than the prior versions did. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced better than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Cardus without prejudice against a selective merge. Owen× ☎ 12:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Came across the article on the Christian think tank Cardus today, which appears to be the result of WP:UPE. I stubified that rather than nominate it for deletion because it looks like there's enough out there for WP:ORG. But that led me to this, a long article on one of Cardus's reports, again with no good independent sourcing at all (but a whole lot of text). Wouldn't be surprised if this were UPE too. In any event, if there's a little bit of coverage it can be summarized in the main article. WP:GNG fail here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:22, 24 May 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)
18:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:51, 7 June 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! 23:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I found mentions of the subject in reliable sources, but I didn't find significant coverage. The single reference in the article only verifies that Contreras worked with Current 93 and Baby Dee. toweli ( talk) 17:06, 24 May 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)
18:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Bodhendra Saraswati II. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
The tomb lacks wide coverage in RS. Most of the text is covered in Bodhendra Saraswathi, whose tomb the subject is. The article has little information on the architecture of the tomb, but rather concentrates more on Bodhendra and his death Redtigerxyz Talk 15:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
18:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to The Open Source Definition. Not 100% sure I got this one right but if I didn't, I'm sure someone will tell me or take this to DRV. Liz Read! Talk! 00:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable precursor of The Open Source Definition. I was barely able to scrape up enough independent analysis to create a viable article about the OSD and the related Open Definition. There is much less available on the Debian definition.
The last AfD was in 2007 and notability was not considered.
Furthermore, I cannot support this article's existence per WP:NOPAGE because the Debian definition, slightly modified, was adopted as the OSD and the texts are very similar [6] [7]. ( t · c) buidhe 22:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already visited AFD before so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see whether there could be any consensus on Redirection or on a Redirect target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There are 3 different target articles being proposed here. To carry out this option as a closure, we need to settle on one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. After discarding blocked and sock accounts, and anon IPs relying on irrelevant arguments, we're left with a clear consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 21:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Non of the sources besides https://www.firstpost.com/art-and-culture/abhirup-dhar-probes-the-paranormal-in-new-book-ghost-hunter-gaurav-tiwari-9969841.html show notability. We need atleast 3 such sources to justify inclusion. Sohom ( talk) 22:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please remember to sign your comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
The only independent source given, Thöle, only mentions the CWOC in passing. I can't find any source that actually covers their activities. There's no evidence that this communion is more than a loose agreement of three small like-minded denominations. Leefeni aures audiendi audiat 21:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Article has been PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Previously deleted and salted as Meridian Gaming Ltd/ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meridian Gaming Ltd * Pppery * it has begun... 23:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Extended commentary on
WP:ORGCRIT and why an article might need to be deleted
|
---|
|
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Due to the previous AFD, I do not think that this discussion is eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I still contest deletation considering how many pages wikipedia contains about irrelevant companies with poor, dead or wrong references considering non commerical style of this page, considering it summerize true facts. -- Backij ( talk) 08:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted by Ponyo under criterion G3. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 22:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
No references, and I literally can't find anything about this TV series, although the generic name doesn't really help. Very likely fails WP:GNG, although the "TBA" gives hope that it might become notable sometime in the future. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 22:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Owen× ☎ 21:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:GNG, WP:NOTGUIDE WP:ADVERT. This is more of a flyer than encyclopedic article and it's evident by contents like "During 2012, the program fee was $470 if paid before January 2012, or $495 after January 1. This fee includes all meals and lodging, training materials, and a course patch. " Graywalls ( talk) 21:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Owen× ☎ 21:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Unsourced, appears to fail WP:GNG based on a quick Google (web/news/books) search. Regards, HaeB ( talk) 21:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Semi-advertorialized article about a regional graphic design award, not
properly sourced as passing notability criteria for events. As always, events are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass
WP:GNG on third-party media coverage about them -- but this is "referenced" entirely to the organization's own
self-published content about itself, with absolutely no evidence of third-party attention shown at all.
It also warrants note that this was a
conflict of interest from the start, as the article creator's username of "Gdcbc" corresponds letter-for-letter to the name of the organization that presents this award, the Graphic Designers of Canada, British Columbia.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to pass GNG on its sourceability.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Perplex City. Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
There's zero RS talking about this. All sources on article now are primary. Only one I could find was [12] which does not sufficiently establish passing WP:GNG Soni ( talk) 18:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Namibian first-class cricketers. Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Namibian first-class cricketers as I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Krishna Kumar (actor). Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNGACTOR. She has an appearance in a single movie which alone doesn't show notability. I can't find any sources online as well upon WP:BEFORE 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 17:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 13:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Stub article with an unopposed election. Not like the 2022 one which was still meaningful. This is why no other cong election pages exist Pharaoh496 ( talk) 17:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Owen× ☎ 21:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Inherently original research. Compare WP:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in computer science (2nd nomination). Was previously kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in networks and security but I think this is worth a reevaluation a decade later. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malinaccier ( talk) 17:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
This appears to be a small church with no particular claim to be notable - either because of history or current activity. Suggest delete unless someone can evidence notability Newhaven lad ( talk) 17:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Written extremely like an advertisement and has many other problems. Myrealnamm ( 💬pros · ✏️cons) 17:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Semi-advertorialized
WP:BLP of a journalist, not
properly referenced as passing notability criteria for journalists. As always, journalists are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to have third-party coverage and analysis about them and the impact of their work in reliable sources other than their own employers -- but the sole reference cited here is from her own employer at the time, and thus isn't independent of her for the purposes of building notability, and the article has been tagged for needing more sourcing since 2010 without improvement.
In addition, the whole thing is written very much like somebody did a thinly veiled rewrite of her own staff profile from an employer rather than a proper encyclopedia.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have more than just her own former employer for sourcing.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:44, 7 June 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. Malinaccier ( talk) 17:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a smalltown local politician, not
properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for local politicians. As always, politicians at the local level of office are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the inclusion test for a local politician hinges on showing a significant depth and volume of reliable source coverage about their work -- specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, significant effects their leadership had on the development of the town or city, and on and so forth -- but this is basically just "he is a politician who exists", referenced mainly to
primary sources that are not support for notability, while the closest thing to reliable source coverage about him is covering him in the context of undergoing surgery rather than in the context of anything related to making him notable as a politician.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much more and better sourcing than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:39, 7 June 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 redirect's undeletion. Star Mississippi 15:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Very poorly written, and too much overlap in the article with Genetic studies on Turkish people (which parts of were apparently copy-pasted here) to warrant a separate article. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 15:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. given article improvements and consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 00:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Journalist falls short of WP:NBIO and WP:GNG tests; no evidence of WP:SIGCOV of him separate from his own writing and coverage of his books. (His book "Turn the Beat Around" would likely pass WP:NBOOK if an article were created on it, but Shapiro's notability cannot be WP:INHERITED from it.) Dclemens1971 ( talk) 16:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a difference of opinion on whether
WP:AUTHOR is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Malinaccier (
talk)
15:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Owen× ☎ 12:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Article is a BLP of a non-notable author, references are self-published sources inc Facebook. No particular claim of notability, says she's exec director of some company but that's not immediately verifiable from their home page. She taught some courses at some organisations, that seems to be about it. -- D'n'B- t -- 17:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
22:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An evaluation of newly brought up sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jake Wartenberg (
talk)
14:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Geschichte ( talk) 18:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to be notable independently of his senate run, for which Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill#Political candidates would apply, with the sources given being candidate databases and interviews. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 14:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Elli ( talk | contribs) 14:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. There's nothing from WP:BEFORE to establish notability either. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 14:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Golmaal (film series). Discussion about redirecting to another target can continue on the target's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 13:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. M S Hassan ( talk) 13:40, 7 June 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 14:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
The article does not pass WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG TheNuggeteer ( talk) 13:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Owen× ☎ 13:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
The article does not pass WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG TheNuggeteer ( talk) 13:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Owen× ☎ 13:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
There's already information about the void galaxy on the article about the local void in the section that contains the list of void galaxies, so I prefer its information in the Local void article or the Void galaxy article, if you want the information of this article to be move there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 ( talk • contribs) 11:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was Speedy/procedural keep - this relates to longstanding conflict/disruption related to the history/legacy of the famous Romanian football team 'Steaua București', with two clubs ( FCSB and CSA Steaua București) both claiming the heritage. AFD is totally the wrong venue to deal with any perceived issues related to this, FSCB is clearly notable.. Giant Snowman 12:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
The information presented here is mostly false. The date the club was founded is wrong, the records are wrong, the history is wrong, former players are wrong, about 80% of the entire article is wrong.
If you go to the club's own website, you find nothing about the information presented here. It says here that Fcsb has 27 domestic titles. When its chairman of the board was asked if this is true, he denied it. https://as.ro/fotbal/liga-1/mihai-stoica-explicatie-total-neasteptata-motivul-pentru-care-numarul-27-va-fi-trecut-pe-tricourile-campioanei-fcsb-398416.html So why keep this article? It makes no sense. Just because there is some wrong information posted on some website? That is the same as fake news. Does Wikipedia support fake news now? TPTB ( talk) 13:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment AfD is not for debating the content. It is to establish WP:notabilty and appropriate WP inclusion/exclusion. Please feel free to correct the info with WP:reliable sources or reframe the AfD proposal. If the sources are geniune and reliable, btw we might need a conversation about how to use them.
Comment: this is an invalid and arguably malicious nomination. As can be seen on the talk pages of this article and various others on related entities, there is a long-running legal dispute. The nom is likely to be proved correct that FCSB will be disassociated from most if not all of the historic achievements of the Steaua Bucharest club in due course, but AFAIK this is not definitive at present in terms of reliable sources stating exactly what can be allocated to whom. Regardless, the FCSB entity is an extant sports club (and won the Romanian championship this season just gone) so is unequivocally a valid topic for an article, and would be still valid as a topic as a means of clarification on the events of the past years even if it were dissolved altogether tomorrow. The nom has seemingly lost their patience in this matter and now simply wants to have all the information deleted rather than have contentious information removed by the proper means and processes. Crowsus ( talk) 16:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Owen× ☎ 13:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTDIRECTORY BrigadierG ( talk) 12:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Assam cricketers#B. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
No more information available on this topic, The article did not edit from much time. And no importance of this article.... Many regions to delete it. Manoj Bhagawati is/was not famous cricketer. Paigaonwasii. — Preceding undated comment added 08:43, 30 May 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,
✗
plicit
11:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters#King Grayskull. Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
No evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕 Boneless Pizza!🍕 ( 🔔) 11:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of Gargoyles characters#Demona. Owen× ☎ 13:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
The only sigcov source here [15] and a bit useful IGN source [16] still doesn't pass WP:GNG with the demonstrated sources. The best thing is to merge it into a list of characters. 🍕 Boneless Pizza!🍕 ( 🔔) 11:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Owen× ☎ 13:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
There's already information about the void galaxy on the article about the local void in the section that contains the list of void galaxies and also has similarities with the article about Pisces A, so I prefer its information in the Local void article or the Void galaxy article, if you want the information of this article to be move there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Owen× ☎ 13:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
There's already information about the void galaxy on the article about the local void in the section that contains the list of void galaxies, so I prefer its information in the Local void article or the Void galaxy article, if you want the information of this article to be move there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Owen× ☎ 13:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
There's already information about the void galaxy on the article about the local void in the section that contains the list of void galaxies, so I prefer its information in the Local void article or the Void galaxy article, if you want the information of this article to be move there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 ( talk • contribs) 11:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Owen× ☎ 13:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
There's already information about the void galaxy on the article about the local void in the section that contains the list of void galaxies, so I prefer its information in the Local void article or the Void galaxy article, if you want the information of this article to be move there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 7 June 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 11:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Would be better suited for a definition on wikitionary, I think. Heyallkatehere ( talk) 10:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Note: There is no argument for deletion being made and this could have been procedurally closed. At this stage, that would be a super vote, so NC it is. Links being dead, an unproven allegation of it being "stolen from a draft" are arguments for history merge and clean up. Year-old AfC comments are not binding, and no argument has been made for why this can't be cleaned up in mainspace Star Mississippi 15:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
There is already a draft for this that has been rejected a few times. Pretty sure the author of the draft got tired and moved it to mainspace with no concensus. 48JCL ( talk) 22:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Argument has been very messy thus far, would appreciate some clear comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Toadspike
[Talk]
09:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Dynamical mean-field theory. Owen× ☎ 13:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Page probably created by students in the group of the originator of the algorithm. All relevant refs to the method are from one group, there are no secondary sources. It should be trimmed down to a paragraph or two and merged into Dynamical mean-field theory since it is a variant of that very well established and used approach. We should not have separate articles on every minor DFT variant IMO. Ldm1954 ( talk) 08:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
and critical disorder strengths can be obtained through cluster extensions of these theories (Jarrell and Krishnamurthy, 2001; Ekuma et al., 2014; Terletska et al., 2014), that's not good evidence the topic needs its own article here. I have written an introductory guide for physicists trying to contribute to Wikipedia that may be helpful. XOR'easter ( talk) 02:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. I do not know if Gmp007 is the article subject or a student or colleague but the consensus among experienced editors is that it is TOOSOON and this article right now should be deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Assistant professor with an h-factor of 22 and no notable awards and no notable mentions. Novice editor (his first article) ignored AfC declination and moved to main space, twice deleting COI tags. On new page patrol both notability and COI were tagged and draftified; novice editor removed tags and a moved back to main space. Hence AfD. Ldm1954 ( talk) 07:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Delete. I know nothing about Chinedu Ekuma beyond what is in the article, and that does not add up to notability. For a young scientist his career is respectable, but that's not enough. He may become notable in the future, but he's not there yet. Athel cb ( talk) 10:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Opinions are all over the map here. Editors interested in a Merge can pursue that option outside of this AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 06:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
02:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep, merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
07:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 09:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Coverage and sourcing is just They exist" and champions of two cups of some type. North8000 ( talk) 23:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Local sources must be independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage. None of reference in the article provide reports beyond routine coverage, such as information about the team itself. Ckfasdf ( talk) 02:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
07:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 09:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:OR / WP:MADEUP coinage. I find no evidence of the term "Western Pennsylvania Professional Football Circuit" existing prior to this article's creation in 2012; every source that has used it has come afterward. Even in post-2012 material I see no WP:SIGCOV in sources that clearly qualify as WP:RS. The "circuit" is not mentioned in any of the article's references except for RetroSeasons (which postdates the WP article by several years and on one of its pages copies almost verbatim from it). One might agree or disagree that the early independent teams of western PA loosely constituted a "circuit", but it's not for Wikipedia to make up a capitalized name for it and treat it as an established concept. This isn't a case like the Ohio League, which, while not a league in any strict or formal sense, is attested in its own time and by historians. T. Cadwallader Phloog ( talk) 23:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
07:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 09:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Meany's (source 3) [24] definition of places is less stringent than Wikipedia's definition, which is legally recognized places. Meany wrote that Swofford (the man) set up a post office in the Swofford valley and later moved it to Mossy Rock. Places don't move, but post offices do (sometimes in shoe boxes). Washington State place names published in 1971 [25] Doesn't list swofford as a place. A rather unreliable source [26], but commonly referenced nonetheless lists this place, but all of the reliable sources used for their mention call it "Swofford Valley". Reading newspapers from the area reveals that the post office served the Swofford valley, and the people who lived in the valley used it's name to define where they lived. The Centralia Daily Chronicle in 1976 (July 1, 1976 Page 31 [27]) explains that the valley had a rural farming community with a post office and a drug store. The reality is that these were probably not separate buildings, and it would not be all that unusual for this to actually be Swofford's residence as well. It is not a legally recognized place. Furthermore it's full name is "Swofford Valley". The confusion arises because post offices in the 1800's could only have one word names. If it is not deleted here I want want it moved to Swofford Valley, Washington. James.folsom ( talk) 22:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
07:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 04:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY, one being about one of its commentators and announcements, some being more deserving in an article about the coverage but not this list; barely much to help this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 19:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 55 sources added since nomination,
WP:HEYMAN.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk)
19:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
06:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Robert Gordon University#Garthdee campus. No argument has been made for it being independently notable. With the information already being present, there's no need to merge but the history is retained if someone feels something worth adding. Star Mississippi 14:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
This whole page reads like an overly detailed promotional pamphlet for the Robert Gordon University, and the main Robert Gordon University article has most, if not all, of the useful information from this article in its Garthdee campus section UltrasonicMadness ( talk) 19:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
06:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
In its current state, I'm not sure how this article meets our policy for notability of organizations. All of the cited sources are from periodicals and organizations directly affiliated with this organization (1 from Socialist Middle East, 1 from Alternativa Socialista, 3 from Asian Marxist Review, 1 from Periodismo de Izquierda, 1 from MST, 2 from the Socialist Laborers Party and 5 from the International Socialist League itself). Looking through Google Scholar, almost all of the results I see are about the South African International Socialist League, I can't find any clear cases of significant coverage of this organization in independent, reliable sources.
Despite linking to 25 websites and facebook pages affiliated with this organization, it doesn't appear that any of these affiliates are independently notable either, so I'm not sure what case can be made for this article needing to exist. Also, the only pages that appear to link to this one are just long lists of Trotskyist internationals. I don't think every non-notable Trotskyist international necessitates individual pages. Grnrchst ( talk) 09:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I think this fails WP: N. I found this which gives a review of 9wm in a few sentences and some mentions in a couple of books, but nothing more than that. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 15:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete Fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Can be mentioned as an educational institution in /info/en/?search=Kanyakumari_district Wikilover3509 ( talk) 14:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Why not? Merge discussions can occur outside of this AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 04:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Merge Fails to meet WP:GNG. Better to merge either with /info/en/?search=University_of_Texas_at_Austin or /info/en/?search=Texas_Exes Wikilover3509 ( talk) 13:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please focus on one target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit 11:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to meet WP:N, made by non-notable company. Boleyn ( talk) 09:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
:Delete per
WP:NCORP
104.7.152.180 (
talk)
14:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Thanks for improvements to the article over this AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
fails general notability guideline. ltb d l ( talk) 06:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
The subject of this article is a business with no proven notability. As written, it contains no references. A limited web search reveals no feature stories or in-depth articles that would indicate that this organization should be included in an encyclopedia. A single story in Daily Variety [ [32]] from 2006 was all I could unearth
I had previously submitted it for PROD but the reviewer somehow felt this was worth keeping. Volcom95 ( talk) 06:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) LibStar ( talk) 21:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
This article is more about the companies he founded which already have their own articles. His life doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 00:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Duffbeerforme, I don't get your position at all. We always consider sources brought up in an AFD discussion, not just the current state of the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Participants believe this article subject meets WP:JUDGE. Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Failed WP:GNG. Nothing significant except an obituary Ontor22 ( talk) 06:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Participants disagree with nominator and believe the subject meets WP:JUDGE Liz Read! Talk! 04:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
No significant and independent coverage. Does not meet the conditions of WP:JUDGE Ontor22 ( talk) 06:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
No evidence of SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Triptothecottage ( talk) 05:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
This subject fails WP:GNG as well as WP:ANYBIO because he is not the actual subject of significant in-depth coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. He is mentioned in sources covering other topics. That's not enough. JFHJr ( ㊟) 05:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. I'd normally accept Redirect as a sensible ATD in such cases, but the fact that the copyright violating text existed from the very first version of the page, and the limited amount of editing done since, makes Redirect over a selective delrev a poor choice in this case. Any editor is welcome to recreate the page as a redirect, although I don't see much value in that. Owen× ☎ 12:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
This is a service product related to BSA/Scouting/Boy Scouts of America and given the guide book like nature of this article and lack of SIRS devoted to this service product, I argue that it should be re-directed to Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) or another appropriate target. I've boldly re-directed but it was reverted, so I am putting it up for consensus discussion Graywalls ( talk) 02:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
ILSC helps crew members with leadership positions..., copied from this Word doc. And that's just from comparing the current text to the sources it cites; I'm guessing there's more copyvio in the history and/or non-cited sources. JoelleJay ( talk) 03:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of building or structure fires#2018. Malinaccier ( talk) 02:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Fails Wikipedia:Notability (events). No evidence of lasting effects based on GNews Archives and GBooks search. A brief and cited mention at List_of_building_or_structure_fires#2018 can also be an alternative to deletion. -- Lenticel ( talk) 02:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malinaccier ( talk) 02:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
The same article was deleted at Cam Guarino by User:Kuru. I tagged this article for speedy deletion but it was declined by User:GB fan. User:Namiba 02:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Malinaccier ( talk) 02:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
List with only 2 entries, only one of which has an article. Does not meet WP:STANDALONELIST. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk • contribs) 02:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to International reactions to the Israel–Hamas war. (non-admin closure) Josethewikier ( talk) 02:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I've created this article copy-pasting from the main article ( Israel–Hamas war) 1 month ago, but I think this article is very poorly written and I cannot help but find the International Reactions to the Israel–Hamas war article to be thousands of times better than this one. I believe this article should be deleted. Maybe one or two things can be merged into the above article, but I don't really see how. It's also a possibility to rename the above article to remove the word "international" after the potential deletion of this one, but I digress. Josethewikier ( talk) 01:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I shall withdraw this AfD and redirect to above article then. (unless I should G7?) Josethewikier ( talk) 16:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. The consensus in this discussion is that this article meets WP:NPLACE and there is also little articulated support for the deletion nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Proposing to merge/redirect to Flat Bush (Most of the area falls under Flat Bush). Not gazetted/included in Auckland Council's official map tool and fails GNG, no sigcov turns up in a search with most results pertaining to a school and one even stating the area is Otara: https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/Addressing_Pupil_s_Behaviour/UlAAhkusknAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22clover+park%22+auckland&pg=PT109&printsec=frontcover Traumnovelle ( talk) 01:04, 7 June 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 11:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Likely fails Wikipedia:ORGSIG Lord serious pig 21:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)