The result was no consensus. I see no consensus in this long-running discussion so that's how I'm closing it...editors can discuss a possible Merge on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
This film was canceled before it even began filming (like happens to many other films). This article does not meet the threshold for notability stated in WP:NFF. Gonnym ( talk) 13:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
08:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Disputes and problems are common and derail productions all the time, there is not indication the ones that impacted this are anything notable that merits an article....hhm, yes, there is an indication and it's precisely the coverage addressing the failure of the production directly and in depth in numerous (again, more exist, as I am sure your BEFORE has shown you) articles in very reliable media. I have no further comment. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
00:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
In addition, the movie 1905 he was preparing in the past originally had Tony Leung Chiu-wai (Wai Tsai) as the leading actor. That's it. Is that what you call "SIGCOV"? Owen× ☎ 09:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
In addition, the movie 1905 he was preparing in the past originally had Tony Leung Chiu-wai (Wai Tsai) as the leading actoris more than a trivial mention of the film, or was your original claim that all 12 sources provide SIGCOV a lie? At this point, you have two options: (1) admit that your original assertion was incorrect, and amend it, at which point we can address your amended statement; or (2) dig your heels in deeper, and make it clear to anyone reading this that you are not above twisting the truth to push your agenda. Owen× ☎ 10:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't see why WP:FFEXCEPTIONS should not be applied in this case to override WP:NFF. By the way, this is not even my article. I am just a random passer-by. What's in it for me to be dishonest? Or what agenda could I possibly have? Assuming bad faith much? Or perhaps the real issue is that you were triggered when someone pointed out that your statements contained untrue and misleading elements. And now you are trying to turn the tables with your strawman arguments (still ridiculed by your "this one source with the least coverage mentions so few about the film, so the all other sources you cited, or the sources other users cited must also be the same") and accuse me of being the one who is dishonest, in an attempt to make yourself look more credible. This is my final reply and I will let the closing admin decide. — Prince of Erebor( The Book of Mazarbul) 11:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
In addition, the movie "1905" he was preparing in the past originally had Tony Leung Chiu-wai as the leading actor. He also came to Taiwan to scout the location, but was unable to start filming for some reason. He said regretfully: "I really want to come to Taiwan to film, of course. I also hope to find Tony Leung to act."Which argument is actually misleading here? — Prince of Erebor( The Book of Mazarbul) 10:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
directly and in detail, and I believe the extensive coverage on pre-production and legacy fulfills the criteria of both WP:GNG and WP:FFEXCEPTIONS. Therefore, I believe this article should be kept.
directly and in detail. All twelve of the sources I listed fulfilled this criteria and are not passing or run-out-of-mill mentions. I have presented these arguments above twice, but was never addressed. No thorough analysis or substantive arguments basing on the other sources I listed out were raised. Therefore, I respectfully retain my stance of Keep in this relisting, as I believe the film has well fulfilled the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:NFFEXCEPTIONS. I will not summarise or address the opinions of Mushy Yank, Readerofthepack, Timothy, OwenX, DCsansei, and BD2412 to avoid further disputes or being accused of making strawman arguments.
dishonest" or accused of "
pushing my agenda" to keep my "
pet page". Also, just to keep record, I think two sentences I replied in the discussion on the original closer's talk page perfectly sums up the scenario.
Did you really review all the sources presented in the discussion thoroughly before you cast your Delete !vote, so you would realise that plenty of the sources are unrelated to production difficulties? Is that also an act of dishonesty?Up till this point, I still see no addresses on why was the sources I cited about pre-production and legacy were mistakenly summarized as covering the production itself (and the subsequent doubts on whether the sources had indeed been reviewed), nor why was the source I clearly mentioned was to prove the film has legacy and fulfill FFEXCEPTIONS, was falsefully trimmed down and quoted to prove that it touches nothing about the film's production details. I guess everyone reading this discussion call tell who is really being dishonest and taking disagreements too personally. That is all I have to comment. — Prince of Erebor( The Book of Mazarbul) 17:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
21:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not showing as overdue, but definitely is so there's a log issue. Hoping this works this time
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
21:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet the threshold of WP:SINGER, WP:NMUSICOTHER, or WP:ANYBIO. Online searches, including through JSTOR and newspaper archives, turn up no WP:SIGCOV. CurryTime7-24 ( talk) 23:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
An ordinary Russian journalist. There is no noticeable importance.-- Анатолий Росдашин ( talk) 23:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Based on the block log and User talk:M66JX, it appears this article was created by a now-banned editor secretly working for Precisionary Instruments. The language is pervasively promotional, despite several editors making changes to tone it down. I'm not sure there needs to be a dedicated article on this topic, but WP:TNT seems like a good solution. -- Beland ( talk) 23:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of NYPD Blue characters. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Character that was in under 30 episode. Article is all plot. Cant find anything good. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Rather than add another week of relisting, I'll just close this now as No consensus. Interested editors can move this discussion to the article talk page, both about a possible Rename or a future Merge to another article or articles. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
No named event of this name in sources. Events not independently notable to warrant a stand alone article (GNG/NOTNEWS). The brief incursion into Huliaipole is already sufficiently covered at Southern Ukraine campaign. Ongoing shelling is sufficiently covered at Huliaipole. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of the sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Owen×
☎
20:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
On 5 November, Ivan Fedorov gave an interview with Ukrinform, in which he claimed that detained residents of Melitopol were being used by the Russian military to dig trenches around Huliaipole.
How many residents of the Melitopol district are in captivity? Daily statistics change. More than a hundred Someone is already in a pre-trial detention center in Moscow, someone is digging trenches near Huliaipole. They are looking for partisans, but cannot find them.
[Russian forces] ... deployed artillery to attack more than 30 settlements, including Levadne, Olhivske, Malynivka, Huliaipole, Bilohirya (Zaporizhzhia Oblast); Zmiivka, Lvove, Tokarivka, Antonivka, Veletenske, Stanislav (Kherson Oblast) and the city of Kherson.
Around 20 civilian settlements came under Russian artillery and mortar fire, including Poltavka, Huliaipole, Charivne, Mala Tokmachka and Robotyne (Zaporizhzhia Oblast).
The team [of Ukrainian volunteers] has been setting up a shelter in Huliaipole, a devastated town in the Zaporizhzhia region.
Collectively, these sources are an indiscriminate collection of routine reporting that lack depth and produce no evidence of lasting independent notability. They do not establish WP:NEVENT. There is some relevance to the article on Huliaipole and the southern Ukraine campaign but that which is noteworthy from such reporting has already been effectively summarised in those articles. This is not a named event there is no reasonable rationale to maintain the article as a place-holder. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or keep without prejudice to a moving the page?
Move is not a
valid AfD outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
voorts (
talk/
contributions)
22:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
This is getting excessive. Yet another content fork article of a non-battle in this war. Uncountable such articles have been deleted already, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Tokmak, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Chuhuiv, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Dvorichna, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Krasnohorivka, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Russian offensive, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Orlivka. Measures should be taken against users continously recreating content forks and lacking the capacity of discerning if a topic is notable or not.
Fighting at Urozhaine is not notable nor relevant enough for having an article of its own. It can be covered in any other article such as Southern Ukraine campaign or Urozhaine. There was already fighting in the village last year and it was covered at 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. The content of this article is already pretty ridiculous, it is said "Little is known for the battle itself" so I don't know why do we have an article for it ("as it just started"; see WP:DEADLINE). This battle over a small settlement is very unlikely to become notable in the future, and if it does the time for having an article will be then and not now. Also a source from 25 April 2024 is given to confirm territorial changes of the battle that supposedly started on 1 May. Super Ψ Dro 12:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:29, 11 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, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I can't find any evidence to substantiate a Major League Baseball player with this name. The article was created back in 2012 by User:AndyGoff. This appears to be a hoax. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 22:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. None of the sources even half meets corporate GNG criteria. The article reads like a self-written PR piece and the sources are just pieced together announcements, events and some self-written items. North8000 ( talk) 15:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list 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, fourteen of those are wiki pages, and the rest, if not unsourced, is WP:PRIMARY. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 17:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
This TV drama fails to meet WP:NTV as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage. ROTM coverage like this and this and even INTERVIEWS like is not enough to meet GNG.
Not every TV drama aired on TV channels inherently get a WP page. In Pakistan, we only have TV dramas, nothing else, so we don't need an article on each one of them based solely on some ROTM or paid/PR coverage — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 17:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
significant coverage.not merely ROTM coverage or interviews like I mentioned above. A Google search also doesn't yield anything solid in RS that could be considered
significant coverage.Hope this clarifies. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 18:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source review/analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Owen× ☎ 11:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:OR, WP:TRIVIA, better suited via categories and galleries at c:, since we are not a list of galleries. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 19:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
"This is not an article that discusses things,"not describe all list articles? As for
"but a more-or-less arbitrary set of images.", the "images" part can only be said here because the subject matter is a list of flags, so including flagicons is only natural. As for the arbitrary nature, that's the fault of the lack of a defined criteria, which is fixable through discussion and not an inherent flaw with the article necessitating deletion. Per WP:NOTGALLERY,
"Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of: #2) Internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists for browsing or to assist with article organization and navigation; for these, please follow relevant guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists."As this is a list article for readers to browse and assists with navigating to other pages on the encyclopedia, whether they're articles about flags or about the locations said flags represent, I'm afraid I don't quite understand what makes this list article different from any other. Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Also, notice that this is the 2nd nomination. There's a reason the 1st one didn't pass. – Ahmadiskandarshah ( talk) 06:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
internal links– they are meant for people to go somewhere else, not to be read.)
Do not combine material ... to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.
photographs or media files with no accompanying text. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context(which, again, is not possible for most of these color combinations).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:06, 18 May 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! 23:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails GNG, nothing found in article or BEFORE that this meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if reliable sources are found with indepth coverage meeting SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 17:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Rusty4321
talk
contribs
19:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 09:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Reliant entirely on primary sources and a press release. Tagged non-notable for 9 years without improvement. Previously dePRODed in 2009 claiming software is fairly widenly used and thus probably notable
- this is irrelevant unless sourcing is provided, which it hasn't for 15 years.
* Pppery *
it has begun...
16:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Rusty4321
talk
contribs
19:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:04, 18 May 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.
All Keep votes were either from sockpuppets or sockmasters so I think it's okay to discount them and close this as a Soft Deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Article about a band, not
properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing
WP:NMUSIC. The main notability claim being attempted here is that one of its members was previously associated with a different band, which is not "inherently" notable without
WP:GNG-worthy sourcing -- but seven of the 16 footnotes here (close to half) are the band's own
self-published content about itself on their own website or Bandcamp, which is not notability-supporting sourcing as it isn't independent of them, and the other nine aren't coverage about this band, but either glancingly mention this band in the process of being about something else, or are completely tangential sourcing about people associated with this band doing other unrelated things that have nothing to do with this band, none of which helps to support this band's notability either.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have much, much better sourcing than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. E/C with Owen. I'd normally consider draftification ahead of its potential launch, but given socking concerns I don't think that's a viable solution here. Star Mississippi 13:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Promo sock creation for an airline that might begin operations late 2024. Fails GNG and NCORP, sources in article and found in BEFORE do not have WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 22:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. A redirect discussion can continue on the Talk Star Mississippi 13:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Should be either merged or deleted. Event doesn't require its own article. Wikibear47 ( talk) 19:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Owen×
☎
22:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. Three different Redirect/Merge target articles have been mentioned, we have to get that down to one suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Such events occur commonly; for example, see similar incidents [22], [23]. War Wounded ( talk) 02:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Even with the nom blocked, we have sufficient input from established editors making the case Star Mississippi 13:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
With the deletion of
2018 Garland mayoral special election, I think some of the other articles part of
WP:CLUSTERFUCK should be reassessed.
Okmrman (
talk)
22:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Okmrman is indef-blocked for sockpuppetry.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 01:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Similarly one of these pages again that fail WP:HISTRS, some are also primary sources. Noorullah ( talk) 20:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
The subject played for the Italy national rugby league team, but I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. BLPs require strong sourcing and all I really found was four sentences of coverage here. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:09, 4 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, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 20:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Obscure P2P application with no significant coverage. Helpful Raccoon ( talk) 21:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 20:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a diplomat, not
properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for diplomats. As always, ambassadors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass
WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about their work in independent third-party sources such as media or books -- but this is referenced entirely to
primary source content
self-published by the government (i.e. her own employer), with absolutely no evidence of
WP:GNG-worthy sourcing shown at all.
Further, this was draftspaced last year per
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer M. Adams, before being arbitrarily moved back into mainspace earlier this month on the grounds that her nomination had finally been confirmed by the Senate -- but since the notability bar for ambassadors hinges on GNG-worthy coverage, and not on the simple fact of having been confirmed into the position per se, that should never have happened without the draft being significantly improved with stronger sourcing first.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable in the absence of significantly better sourcing than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz Read! Talk! 20:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
No substantial operating history other than being a diginet coatrack. Should be redirected to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Editors seeking a Merge can start a discussion on the article talk page and the talk page of the target article. Liz Read! Talk! 20:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Contested WP:PROD for a game show winner lacking independent notability per WP:GNG and WP:BLP for two key reasons:
(1) On notability, in contrast to other reality television show winners with articles, there is no evidence in the article of other public aspects to Whelan that would justify their discussion beyond the appearance on the show: no post-appearance career, appearance on other media, other notable contributions. Whelan's other personal details in the coverage are not the reason she is notable and themselves would not give rise to an article.
(2) My view is that there is no content on this page that could not be better subject to a WP:MERGE on the page Squid Game: The Challenge. Even if Whelan is deemed notable due to the coverage of her appearance on the show, the four sentences about her, if the sum of information known about her, is hardly information that isn't simple to cover on the article for the one thing she primarily inherits her potential notability from.
As ever, open to views! VRXCES ( talk) 22:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
07:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
19:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 03:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent 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. Of the sources per WP:RS; one is a blogpost, one is a dead link, all the other four is WP:PRIMARY and the rest of this list are unsourced. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 07:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
19:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 20:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent 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. Of the sources per WP:RS; one is about an announcer, each one of the others is about the Bowl games, with this being given a passing mention. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 06:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
19:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. There is no consensus to delete. Arguments for moving to Pedantry are strong, but that is outside the scope of this AfD. Owen× ☎ 13:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Dictionary definition with etymology. Violates WP:NOTDICT. - Skipple ☎ 03:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep - I don't wish to be, er. pedantic here, but the criterion for notability is not whether the article is poorly-cited, but whether there are suitable sources out there in the world. Pedantry is unfortunately definitely a notable topic. Sources include the famous essay Of Pedantry by Michel de Montaigne, alongside a mass of modern research papers on a wide variety of aspects of pedantry. A good newspaper article is Why do pedants pedant? in The Guardian. There's plenty more out there. The article needs to be rewritten, but that's not a matter for AfD. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete as per nomination. This is just a dictionary definition with a couple of cites. Per WP:!, it needs expansion to be useful which might be possible. If someone does this then perhaps reconsider. Ldm1954 ( talk) 07:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are there editors up for rewriting this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
19:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Possible hoax. Orphan. No references. The creator was banned with their talk page cluttered with deleted articles they made. No evidence for the mountain existing (all sources I found are clearly "sourced from Wikipedia"; including Google Maps, which is semi-user generated). No official mapping or biodiversity agency has ever covered it. The coordinates provided are to a slightly elevated hill in Naturpark Reinhardswald, and the official website yields no results when "Gladerberg" is searched ( https://www.naturpark-reinhardswald.de/content/search?SearchText=Gladerberg). I'm new here and assuming a "speedy delete" is reserved for emergencies? If so, this is not an emergency. BlueSharkLagoon ( talk) 16:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
The second highest elevation of the Reinhardswald's forest is the Gahrenberg with 472 m.I think the proposed article is likely a mistranslation/spelling mistake. BlueSharkLagoon ( talk) 19:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by TV One (Pakistan)#Drama series. Liz Read! Talk! 20:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Sarwat Nazir#Plays and dramas. Liz Read! Talk! 20:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Eveready Pictures#Television. Liz Read! Talk! 20:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Nadeem Baig (director)#Television. Liz Read! Talk! 20:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Yasir Nawaz#Television serials. Liz Read! Talk! 20:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I couldn't even find ROTM coverage except some namechecks coverage and much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:27, 18 May 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! 20:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails NACTOR since he didn't have major roles in TV dramas. The subject also doesn't seems to meet GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:05, 18 May 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! 21:00, 25 May 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. The most I found were three sentences here. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
This list should probably just be a category. It claims to be a list of notable kosher supermarkets, but in actuality we do not have articles on three of the entries. Our own article on H-E-B does not contain the word "kosher" and it's inclusion here is apparently based on one specific store having an extensive kosher section. That leaves two entries if we are actually limiting the list to notable kosher grocers. I believe simply having a category, which already exists and is on the two valid entries, is sufficient without a list article with no real criteria for being listed. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. Contested PROD. JTtheOG ( talk) 17:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete as WP:G11. jp× g 🗯️ 03:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. There are insufficient independent, third party publications to support notability: lacks WP:SIGCOV. The sources found in a WP:BEFORE search seem to be recursive in that they all seem to circle back to each other, echoing phrases used. The two sources cited in the article read like promotional pieces. Geoff | Who, me? 17:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. I see a strong consensus to Keep this article. Editors are encouraged to remove incorrect or inflated figures and keep it up-to-date with available reliable sources. Liz Read! Talk! 21:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
It is not possible for anyone to record how many records of a particular artist have been sold nationally or internationally. Now even if we were to mention only what WP:RSs have said, then this list would be among those articles that fail that requirement the most.
This list is nothing but a WP:LISTCRUFT. This list has been probematic to core. Various RfC have been carried out but there has been no solution for this list. [32] [33]
As noted by the reliable sources, Elvis Presley, The Beatles are widely regarded to have sold more than 1 billion records, [34] [35] while Michael Jackson has sold over 750 million records. [36] However, this page is evidently misrepresenting their figures.
This list does not make mention of Bing Crosby who is known to have sold over 900 million records. [37] Could it be because Crosby does not have enough fans who are eager to impose their POV on this page? That appears to be biggest factor behind the names (at least the top ones) found on this list.
Not just that, but this list does not even list any artists from the most populated countries like India and China where some artists have clearly sold more than 200 million records such as A. R. Rahman, [38] Wei Wei [39] and more.
It would make more sense to have this list deleted instead of wasting any more time on it. Ratnahastin ( talk) 16:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Sadia Jabbar#Former productions. Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 16:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Islam in Romania. Going with an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
This is a cancelled proposal. Wikipedia is not a repository for unrealized projects without lasting coverage. Aintabli ( talk) 05:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
without lasting coverage, which addresses that. If this proposal is still discussed years after its cancellation, please let me know. I was unable to find any mention of it past its cancellation in 2018. The Romanian version of this article is even more lacking. Aintabli ( talk) 06:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Desertarun (
talk)
16:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Given the discussion, there is no clearly fitting redirect target as an ATD Star Mississippi 13:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTDICT. Since this term seems to be used in several different contexts, it can redirect to Reproduction (disambiguation). Helpful Raccoon ( talk) 00:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two different Redirection target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again we have two differernt Redirect suggestions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Desertarun (
talk)
16:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 13:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to have any notable or significant credits. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 03:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Desertarun (
talk)
16:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 16:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC criteria; for example, publication output with 46 citations in total from 4 documents doesn't suggest significant impact in the field. The 'selected publications' seems to be all publications. There is evidence of grants (one in the form of the award), but none seem to sufficient to meet the prize criteria of WP:NBIO. Klbrain ( talk) 16:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Owen× ☎ 21:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Unlikely to become notable, if the team is defunct. Unsourced (though I know that's probably fixable). Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 11:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
01:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see a review of newly found sources to see if GNG is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Agreeing with Liz here, we also need clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Rusty4321
talk
contribs
14:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Dennis Villarojo. Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS. I see nothing here to suggest that this cermony is in any way notable, although I suppose there might be a case for merging to Dennis Villarojo is there is actually aything of any real importance in this article. Which I doubt. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC) TheLongTone ( talk) 14:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
commentJust how much is there worth merging? TheLongTone ( talk) 13:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails GNG as well WP:NORG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 14:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 -- wooden superman 12:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous
WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 09:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 -- wooden superman 12:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous
WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 09:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 -- wooden superman 12:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous
WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 21:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
If the article focuses solely on the conflicts between the Gauda kingdom and the Guptas, it lacks WP:RS and historians do not consider these mutual campaigns as a single state of war, known as the "Gauda—Gupta War(s)". If we include the mutual conflicts between the Guptas and Gaudas in the article's scope, it becomes a result of original research and the synthesis of multiple conflicts. The conflicts involving Ishanavarman, Jivitagupta I, and Gopachandra are mentioned, but figures such as Kumaragupta III, Dharmaditya, and Samacharadeva are not addressed in the War section, but in the infobox. Upon reviewing the sources, authors are uncertain about the statements, with a weak consensus. In essence, the article combines non-notable military conflicts, cited by low-quality sources, involving different kingdoms—the Maukhari dynasty and the Later Gupta dynasty—against the Gauda kingdom, and labels it as the "Gauda—Gupta War". It adds minor conflicts to create the impression of significance, which is not justified. The article fails to meet GNG and contains original research. There are significant issues to address, AFD is limiting the discourse. Imperial [AFCND] 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
It's quite likely that the war of Ishanavarman against the Gaudas whom he had forced to take shelter on the sea shore and the victory of Jivitagupta I over the enemies who stood on the sea-shore, refer to the expeditions launched by the Maukharis and the Later Guptas, separately or jointly, against the kings of Bengal discussed above who had declared their independence of the empire and had assumed the imperial title. Probably, the Maukhari and the Later Gupta rulers undertook these campaigns in the name of the Gupta emperor who was their nominal overlord, though their success increased their own power, and not of the emperor.From Goyal (1967).
The people of Gauda (W. Bengal) also achieved prominence, and a Maukhari chief claims to have defeated them. The Later Guptas also fought against some enemies who lived on the sea-shore. The reference in both cases may be to the kings of Bengal mentioned above, and the military campaigns of the Maukharis and the Later Guptas might have been undertaken, jointly or severally, on behalf of the Gupta emperor, their nominal overlord.Majumdar (1970).
cited with low quality sourcesis referring my earlier statement in the proposal
authors are uncertain about the statements, with a weak consensus, take the time to read the whole proposal reason. The weakness of the statements from the sources are evident from the above quotes, presented by yourself above.
It's quite likely that...Probably, the Maukhari and the Later Gupta rulers un...from Goyal and
The reference in both cases may be to the kings of Bengal mentioned above...and the Later Guptas might have been undertaken, jointly orfrom Majumdar. Keeping this weak statements aside, surprisingly I couldn't find any latest records about the event(s).-- Imperial [AFCND] 17:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
AFD is limiting the discourse, I need a bigger space to expose the whole mess within the article. And no need to drag Sasanian–Kushan Wars here. Take that to the respective talk section if you have any problem with it. Imperial [AFCND] 17:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Owen×
☎
20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
09:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Neither source cited mentions a station with this name. Source 2 is also deprecated generally unreliable per
WP:AOPLACES. I could not find other sources online. Please redirect this page to
Line 1, Ho Chi Minh City Metro.
Toadspike (
talk)
10:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
09:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
but multiple sources are generally expected.Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 12:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
No citations to reputable sources in psychiatry or psychology. Entirely based on popular culture and tabloid references, with little-to-no evidence backing them. –Sincerely, A Lime 23:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
09:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sources are mostly dependent and passing mentions. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 18:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
09:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Prod challenged so bringing here. Totally unsourced, original research, before finds nothing. Theroadislong ( talk) 07:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
09:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since the previous deletion discussion. The sources that I could find are mostly either primary, or school/college databases. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 08:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete It is just one of 1093 schools run by by Delhi Directorate of Education. There are no notable achievements of the school or any notable alumni. Wikilover3509 ( talk) 11:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
No evidence that this formation meets the GNG. Of the currently-cited sources, 2, 3, and 5 are self-published, not independent, and not reliable (except for direct quotes from Navy documents in source 3). Source 1 [62] seems to list only establishment and disestablishment dates (not sigcov), which is more than I expected from a source supposedly covering "1910-1920" – it seems the citing editor made a typo, the citation should read "1910-2010". Source 4 [63] doesn't seem to mention this unit at all. In sum, there are 0 sources that count toward the GNG, and I couldn't find anything in a before search. Toadspike ( talk) 10:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
07:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete without prejudice to re-creating under a more general title. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 21:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOT a repository of links. This isn't really an article, it is a statement and some links. I've approached the editor with some help on his talk page. Note there is also a Draft version by the same editor. The editor seems to have a history of just adding lists of links in articles rather than citations or prose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jake Wartenberg (
talk)
13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
07:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 13:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Also LISTCRUFT (or WP:CRUFT). The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are about the game itself, many of those are YouTube links and none of those assert notability to this list. I also advise them to start a Fandom page if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 09:57, 3 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)
14:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
07:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
would be perfect for an article discussing the history of broadcasting in regards to this game– Then move it, don't delete it and require it to be started completely all over. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 22:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 13:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
This doesn't seem to meet WP:DIRECTOR or even WP:ANYBIO. A Google search doesn't turn up anything that aligns with WP:GNG. It's likely a case of UPE — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 16:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
06:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Owen× ☎ 10:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
The subject does not meet WP:NACTOR. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one Inherently notable. A quick Google search doesn't yield anything either which can meet WP:GNG either. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 16:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
*Keep - appears to be
WP:NACTOR with
[102] and
[103]. Having worked in films and critically acclaimed series as well. Google search also yields potential material to improve his article with. Should be tagged for "Additional Citations".
Sameeerrr (
talk)
15:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC) ( Blocked
sockpuppet)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
06:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not willing to slog through dozens of sources to evaluate them. I am, however, willing to look at a few sources in detail if somebody else (i.e. you) does the footwork to figure out which ones are the best.I have already looked a seven or so sources but I am willing to look at a three more you believe are the best ones. S0091 ( talk) 15:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Libraa2019 ( talk) 18:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I am willing to look at a three more. Please refer my comments in my delete !vote for my assessment. If those are the best ones, then they do not meet GNG nor BASIC. The two The News Internationals (though you only list one) I can see counting toward BASIC but they are not enough. And yet again you are focusing on Saqib by bringing up some other AfD which has absolutely no bearing on this one. I tried to help you focus on what matters but it's falling on deaf ears so I am done. Too much of my time wasted. S0091 ( talk) 18:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Libraa2019 ( talk) 19:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 03:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Poorly sourced rugby BLP with no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of independent coverage available online. The few third-party sources that do cover him directly are not in-depth ( 1, 2). JTtheOG ( talk) 19:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
06:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a New Zealand rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was routine transfer news 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) JTtheOG ( talk) 19:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
06:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. given improvements made to the article since its nomination. Thanks to the editors who rescued this article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT and has for 14 years. A search in news returns the coveted "1 result". Allan Nonymous ( talk) 19:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
19:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams.Sports teams qualify for notability by meeting WP:GNG, according to WP:NSPORT, which says, in boldface,
The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline.— Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 05:59, 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!
06:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Japan Karate Association. Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Has been on the list of articles not meeting
WP:NBIO for 14 years. A bare number of sources (two) and no corresponding Japanese article strongly suggest he does not meet
WP:GNG in addition to clearly failing
WP:NSPORT.
Allan Nonymous (
talk)
12:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
06:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Rolex. Liz Read! Talk! 07:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability. Co-founder of Rolex. Article is basically just tidbits of Rolex history with mentions of him. Half of the small amount of material in the article is Rolex history that doesn't even mention him. The same with sources; there are no sources on him much less GNG sources. I did a search with the same results. Rolex history with just mentions of him in that context. Article was prodded by others in October and de-prodded by creator. During NPP work I did a merge/redirect into Rolex (there was no real material to merge) and creator reversed that. I don't think that the creator understands wp:notability; I left a note on their talk page explaining that it's about coverage. North8000 ( talk) 12:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can a consensus be reached for redirecting to Rolex as Jfire proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Safari Scribe
Edits!
Talk!
05:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Owen× ☎ 21:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:EVENT and WP:LASTING.
I note the previous AfDs and the contentious debate surrounding this article. It was previously deleted at an AfD in 2018, then restored by a deletion review in 2021. It survived a second AfD on the basis of continuing coverage and publication of new information which (allegedly) demonstrated the significance and lasting impact of this incident. This new information was almost entirely related to:
Any time that an incident resulted in a news spike, it is likely that the release of the accident report may receive at least some coverage in secondary sources, but more often than not, this just means that the official investigation has concluded. Notability would be inherited from the content of that report, rather than its existence. In this case, it appears the report recommended changing routine inspection intervals for operators of PW4000 engines. This is a fairly predictable outcome that impacts a specific group of operators - more notable would be an unexpected finding that leads to sweeping changes to regulations across the industry as a whole, but even then it would be more appropriate to cover this in Pratt & Whitney PW4000 article. The article itself quotes the NTSB as saying they had not confirmed a link to the other incidents mentioned above that generated the media spike. Of the references cited that have been published from 2020 onwards, there is little to indicate significant WP:LASTING coverage of this incident. Most either provide trivial mentions of United 1175 while discussing other incidents, are WP:SENSATIONAL, or do not demonstrate WP:PERSISTENCE in the form of detailed case studies, rather they are rehashing what was already reported on in 2018. Other additions to the article in a bid to demonstrate notability have been irrelevant or unencyclopedic - including several paragraphs detailing the history Boeing 777 fatal accidents and hull-losses, an individual's filing of a lawsuit for emotional distress or timelines of the crew performing routine procedures such as initiating fuel crossfeeds and lowering the landing gear. I just removed a sentance and reference from 2018 that said United were planning to offer passengers on flight 1175 refunds! Dfadden ( talk) 05:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The event has become notable since it resulted in a new mandate by the Federal Aviation Administration ( WP:LASTING) and it has continued to receive sustained coverage years after the event ( WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE), even if some of those sources are prompted by another event happening or by regional or local sources that have some connection with the event. If the event were non-notable, it would not continue to receive significant coverage years later.
Sources published from one month to four years after the event (ordered chronologically) that provide significant coverage about United Airlines Flight 1175:
From a Google Translate of https://www.facebook.com/notes/1674174042602267/: "Founded on April 26, 2011, Transponder 1200 is a journalistic medium specialized in aviation that, for more than eight years, has positioned ourselves as a benchmark in the global aeronautical industry. With correspondents in Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, Ecuador, France, Germany and Mexico, we are a medium in constant growth, innovative and improving our publishing house, always managing to be in the taste of our readers, partners and clients. We are affiliated to the Federation of Associations of Mexican Journalists A.C., by APECOMOR."
The article notes, "After the 2018 failure on the United 777, the FAA mandated that fan blades on the type of engine involved undergo special thermal-acoustic image inspections—using sound waves to detect signs of cracks—every 6,500 flights."
The article notes, "But an NTSB investigation of the Feb. 13, 2018, malfunction of a Pratt & Whitney engine on the Honolulu-bound United flight faulted the company for not doing more stringent inspections."
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Few reliable sources on the city are available, and those that are cover essentially the same information as is present in this section of She Zhijiang's page. Ordinarily I would say that the information should be merged, but none of the unique info on the page is referenced. Zygmeyer ( talk) 05:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Bharat Jodo Yatra. Liz Read! Talk! 07:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Article is of questionable notability and definitely a WP:NOTNEWS. Bharat Jodo Yatra exists, and there's no reason for timeline to exist other than as "dumping content".
Last merge discussion was opposed and ended in No consensus with the only reasoning being it was "written with effort" Soni ( talk) 04:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Questionable notability Amigao ( talk) 22:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
04:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was draftify. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 13:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Possible
WP:AUTOBIO of a non-notable writer. (The photo was uploaded by the same user as "own work" and the editor's user page redirects to this article.) Of sources in the article, only
this Calgary Herald piece qualifies toward
WP:GNG. Sources 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 are links to the author's own writing. Sources 2 and 6 are to the school paper of the subject's alma mater and thus disqualified toward notability per
WP:RSSM. Sources 10-12 are
WP:INTERVIEWS and thus disqualified toward notability as primary sources. There is no evidence that he would qualify under any criterion of
WP:AUTHOR.
Dclemens1971 (
talk)
03:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Zero sources/references at all. Noorullah ( talk) 02:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator should check and see if sources have been removed before claiming an article is unsourced. They were added back and then removed again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) LibStar ( talk) 00:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:MUSICBIO. A search under "Blue MC" or Marisa Lock yielded little. LibStar ( talk) 02:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Only source is GNIS, and no other information could be found. Satellite images suggest this is just an industrial area on the outskirts of Philomath, OR. Apparently there was once a Flynn Covered Bridge in the area: [147], which might be notable, but nothing about a "community" of Flynn was found, so this is a failure of WP:GEOLAND. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 02:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 03:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:BEFORE yields nothing of use. Only film databases and user generated content. Printed coverage in foreign language is unlikely, as the subject seems to have played minor roles in not many major works. However, if they exist, one may list so. X ( talk) 03:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep which does not preclude a potential merger. Whether it's a weak keep or a N/C is moot as consensus to delete the content isn't going to emerge from this discussion and input has tapered off. If a SNG needs deprecating and that happens, this can be revisited sooner than the typical AfD timeline. Star Mississippi 13:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
This soprano has not received significant coverage in independent sources, bar this one article.
Citations 2, 3, and 7 are from institutions with which Hinterdobler has been associated. The rest provide insignificant coverage, often not more than a half-sentence.
As there is only one source which is both independent and provides significant coverage, the relevant notability criteria ( WP:BASIC/ WP:MUSICBIO) are not met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. While there is the caveat that this coverage should not be trivial, I don't think it is in this case, based on the measure of trivial coverage provided in the notability guideline (the bare mention of Three Blind Mice), as the coverage identified through this review process examines and weighs the tropic's performance quality. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 22:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
In college, Binton Krill was in a band called Five Eye Lice. Five Eye Lice toured the West Coast in 1988.). I nevertheless think there's sufficient coverage that rises so above the Three Blind Mice example to the point that it's not trivial coverage. As for lower thresholds, I don't think there's consensus in the Wikipedia community for book-length coverage to be considered a lower threshold for significant coverage. With the exception of, say, multivolume biographies/histories, book-length coverage probably tends to be expected to be the upper threshold/expectation for significant coverage. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 06:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now this looks like No consensus as editors are very divided about whether or not notability is established by the existing sources. I notice that a great deal of new content and new sourcs have been added since this article's nomination; a source review of this new content would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
01:58, 18 May 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! 02:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not have WP:SIRS. // Timothy :: talk 01:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn
Shopping mall without sources to establish WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Current sources are primary; WP:BEFORE search is complicated by the Marmara Park Avenue Hotel, but nothing that meets GNG comes up. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 01:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
An article about a business person that doesn't present WP:SIGCOV. The sources rather based on the company which doesn't still meet WP:ORGCRIT. Lacks minimum sourcing, and here isn't the case of clean up, it is not MILL either but haven't attain notability. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 00:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:GNG and also, being a registrar doesn't inherently make one notable. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 00:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I see no consensus in this long-running discussion so that's how I'm closing it...editors can discuss a possible Merge on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
This film was canceled before it even began filming (like happens to many other films). This article does not meet the threshold for notability stated in WP:NFF. Gonnym ( talk) 13:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
08:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Disputes and problems are common and derail productions all the time, there is not indication the ones that impacted this are anything notable that merits an article....hhm, yes, there is an indication and it's precisely the coverage addressing the failure of the production directly and in depth in numerous (again, more exist, as I am sure your BEFORE has shown you) articles in very reliable media. I have no further comment. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
00:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
In addition, the movie 1905 he was preparing in the past originally had Tony Leung Chiu-wai (Wai Tsai) as the leading actor. That's it. Is that what you call "SIGCOV"? Owen× ☎ 09:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
In addition, the movie 1905 he was preparing in the past originally had Tony Leung Chiu-wai (Wai Tsai) as the leading actoris more than a trivial mention of the film, or was your original claim that all 12 sources provide SIGCOV a lie? At this point, you have two options: (1) admit that your original assertion was incorrect, and amend it, at which point we can address your amended statement; or (2) dig your heels in deeper, and make it clear to anyone reading this that you are not above twisting the truth to push your agenda. Owen× ☎ 10:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't see why WP:FFEXCEPTIONS should not be applied in this case to override WP:NFF. By the way, this is not even my article. I am just a random passer-by. What's in it for me to be dishonest? Or what agenda could I possibly have? Assuming bad faith much? Or perhaps the real issue is that you were triggered when someone pointed out that your statements contained untrue and misleading elements. And now you are trying to turn the tables with your strawman arguments (still ridiculed by your "this one source with the least coverage mentions so few about the film, so the all other sources you cited, or the sources other users cited must also be the same") and accuse me of being the one who is dishonest, in an attempt to make yourself look more credible. This is my final reply and I will let the closing admin decide. — Prince of Erebor( The Book of Mazarbul) 11:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
In addition, the movie "1905" he was preparing in the past originally had Tony Leung Chiu-wai as the leading actor. He also came to Taiwan to scout the location, but was unable to start filming for some reason. He said regretfully: "I really want to come to Taiwan to film, of course. I also hope to find Tony Leung to act."Which argument is actually misleading here? — Prince of Erebor( The Book of Mazarbul) 10:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
directly and in detail, and I believe the extensive coverage on pre-production and legacy fulfills the criteria of both WP:GNG and WP:FFEXCEPTIONS. Therefore, I believe this article should be kept.
directly and in detail. All twelve of the sources I listed fulfilled this criteria and are not passing or run-out-of-mill mentions. I have presented these arguments above twice, but was never addressed. No thorough analysis or substantive arguments basing on the other sources I listed out were raised. Therefore, I respectfully retain my stance of Keep in this relisting, as I believe the film has well fulfilled the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:NFFEXCEPTIONS. I will not summarise or address the opinions of Mushy Yank, Readerofthepack, Timothy, OwenX, DCsansei, and BD2412 to avoid further disputes or being accused of making strawman arguments.
dishonest" or accused of "
pushing my agenda" to keep my "
pet page". Also, just to keep record, I think two sentences I replied in the discussion on the original closer's talk page perfectly sums up the scenario.
Did you really review all the sources presented in the discussion thoroughly before you cast your Delete !vote, so you would realise that plenty of the sources are unrelated to production difficulties? Is that also an act of dishonesty?Up till this point, I still see no addresses on why was the sources I cited about pre-production and legacy were mistakenly summarized as covering the production itself (and the subsequent doubts on whether the sources had indeed been reviewed), nor why was the source I clearly mentioned was to prove the film has legacy and fulfill FFEXCEPTIONS, was falsefully trimmed down and quoted to prove that it touches nothing about the film's production details. I guess everyone reading this discussion call tell who is really being dishonest and taking disagreements too personally. That is all I have to comment. — Prince of Erebor( The Book of Mazarbul) 17:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
21:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not showing as overdue, but definitely is so there's a log issue. Hoping this works this time
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
21:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet the threshold of WP:SINGER, WP:NMUSICOTHER, or WP:ANYBIO. Online searches, including through JSTOR and newspaper archives, turn up no WP:SIGCOV. CurryTime7-24 ( talk) 23:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
An ordinary Russian journalist. There is no noticeable importance.-- Анатолий Росдашин ( talk) 23:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Based on the block log and User talk:M66JX, it appears this article was created by a now-banned editor secretly working for Precisionary Instruments. The language is pervasively promotional, despite several editors making changes to tone it down. I'm not sure there needs to be a dedicated article on this topic, but WP:TNT seems like a good solution. -- Beland ( talk) 23:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of NYPD Blue characters. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Character that was in under 30 episode. Article is all plot. Cant find anything good. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Rather than add another week of relisting, I'll just close this now as No consensus. Interested editors can move this discussion to the article talk page, both about a possible Rename or a future Merge to another article or articles. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
No named event of this name in sources. Events not independently notable to warrant a stand alone article (GNG/NOTNEWS). The brief incursion into Huliaipole is already sufficiently covered at Southern Ukraine campaign. Ongoing shelling is sufficiently covered at Huliaipole. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of the sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Owen×
☎
20:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
On 5 November, Ivan Fedorov gave an interview with Ukrinform, in which he claimed that detained residents of Melitopol were being used by the Russian military to dig trenches around Huliaipole.
How many residents of the Melitopol district are in captivity? Daily statistics change. More than a hundred Someone is already in a pre-trial detention center in Moscow, someone is digging trenches near Huliaipole. They are looking for partisans, but cannot find them.
[Russian forces] ... deployed artillery to attack more than 30 settlements, including Levadne, Olhivske, Malynivka, Huliaipole, Bilohirya (Zaporizhzhia Oblast); Zmiivka, Lvove, Tokarivka, Antonivka, Veletenske, Stanislav (Kherson Oblast) and the city of Kherson.
Around 20 civilian settlements came under Russian artillery and mortar fire, including Poltavka, Huliaipole, Charivne, Mala Tokmachka and Robotyne (Zaporizhzhia Oblast).
The team [of Ukrainian volunteers] has been setting up a shelter in Huliaipole, a devastated town in the Zaporizhzhia region.
Collectively, these sources are an indiscriminate collection of routine reporting that lack depth and produce no evidence of lasting independent notability. They do not establish WP:NEVENT. There is some relevance to the article on Huliaipole and the southern Ukraine campaign but that which is noteworthy from such reporting has already been effectively summarised in those articles. This is not a named event there is no reasonable rationale to maintain the article as a place-holder. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or keep without prejudice to a moving the page?
Move is not a
valid AfD outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
voorts (
talk/
contributions)
22:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
This is getting excessive. Yet another content fork article of a non-battle in this war. Uncountable such articles have been deleted already, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Tokmak, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Chuhuiv, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Dvorichna, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Krasnohorivka, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Russian offensive, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Orlivka. Measures should be taken against users continously recreating content forks and lacking the capacity of discerning if a topic is notable or not.
Fighting at Urozhaine is not notable nor relevant enough for having an article of its own. It can be covered in any other article such as Southern Ukraine campaign or Urozhaine. There was already fighting in the village last year and it was covered at 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. The content of this article is already pretty ridiculous, it is said "Little is known for the battle itself" so I don't know why do we have an article for it ("as it just started"; see WP:DEADLINE). This battle over a small settlement is very unlikely to become notable in the future, and if it does the time for having an article will be then and not now. Also a source from 25 April 2024 is given to confirm territorial changes of the battle that supposedly started on 1 May. Super Ψ Dro 12:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:29, 11 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, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I can't find any evidence to substantiate a Major League Baseball player with this name. The article was created back in 2012 by User:AndyGoff. This appears to be a hoax. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 22:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. None of the sources even half meets corporate GNG criteria. The article reads like a self-written PR piece and the sources are just pieced together announcements, events and some self-written items. North8000 ( talk) 15:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list 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, fourteen of those are wiki pages, and the rest, if not unsourced, is WP:PRIMARY. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 17:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
This TV drama fails to meet WP:NTV as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage. ROTM coverage like this and this and even INTERVIEWS like is not enough to meet GNG.
Not every TV drama aired on TV channels inherently get a WP page. In Pakistan, we only have TV dramas, nothing else, so we don't need an article on each one of them based solely on some ROTM or paid/PR coverage — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 17:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
significant coverage.not merely ROTM coverage or interviews like I mentioned above. A Google search also doesn't yield anything solid in RS that could be considered
significant coverage.Hope this clarifies. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 18:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source review/analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Owen× ☎ 11:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:OR, WP:TRIVIA, better suited via categories and galleries at c:, since we are not a list of galleries. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 19:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
"This is not an article that discusses things,"not describe all list articles? As for
"but a more-or-less arbitrary set of images.", the "images" part can only be said here because the subject matter is a list of flags, so including flagicons is only natural. As for the arbitrary nature, that's the fault of the lack of a defined criteria, which is fixable through discussion and not an inherent flaw with the article necessitating deletion. Per WP:NOTGALLERY,
"Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of: #2) Internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists for browsing or to assist with article organization and navigation; for these, please follow relevant guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists."As this is a list article for readers to browse and assists with navigating to other pages on the encyclopedia, whether they're articles about flags or about the locations said flags represent, I'm afraid I don't quite understand what makes this list article different from any other. Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Also, notice that this is the 2nd nomination. There's a reason the 1st one didn't pass. – Ahmadiskandarshah ( talk) 06:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
internal links– they are meant for people to go somewhere else, not to be read.)
Do not combine material ... to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.
photographs or media files with no accompanying text. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context(which, again, is not possible for most of these color combinations).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:06, 18 May 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! 23:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails GNG, nothing found in article or BEFORE that this meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if reliable sources are found with indepth coverage meeting SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 17:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Rusty4321
talk
contribs
19:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 09:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Reliant entirely on primary sources and a press release. Tagged non-notable for 9 years without improvement. Previously dePRODed in 2009 claiming software is fairly widenly used and thus probably notable
- this is irrelevant unless sourcing is provided, which it hasn't for 15 years.
* Pppery *
it has begun...
16:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Rusty4321
talk
contribs
19:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:04, 18 May 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.
All Keep votes were either from sockpuppets or sockmasters so I think it's okay to discount them and close this as a Soft Deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Article about a band, not
properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing
WP:NMUSIC. The main notability claim being attempted here is that one of its members was previously associated with a different band, which is not "inherently" notable without
WP:GNG-worthy sourcing -- but seven of the 16 footnotes here (close to half) are the band's own
self-published content about itself on their own website or Bandcamp, which is not notability-supporting sourcing as it isn't independent of them, and the other nine aren't coverage about this band, but either glancingly mention this band in the process of being about something else, or are completely tangential sourcing about people associated with this band doing other unrelated things that have nothing to do with this band, none of which helps to support this band's notability either.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have much, much better sourcing than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. E/C with Owen. I'd normally consider draftification ahead of its potential launch, but given socking concerns I don't think that's a viable solution here. Star Mississippi 13:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Promo sock creation for an airline that might begin operations late 2024. Fails GNG and NCORP, sources in article and found in BEFORE do not have WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 22:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. A redirect discussion can continue on the Talk Star Mississippi 13:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Should be either merged or deleted. Event doesn't require its own article. Wikibear47 ( talk) 19:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Owen×
☎
22:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. Three different Redirect/Merge target articles have been mentioned, we have to get that down to one suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Such events occur commonly; for example, see similar incidents [22], [23]. War Wounded ( talk) 02:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Even with the nom blocked, we have sufficient input from established editors making the case Star Mississippi 13:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
With the deletion of
2018 Garland mayoral special election, I think some of the other articles part of
WP:CLUSTERFUCK should be reassessed.
Okmrman (
talk)
22:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Okmrman is indef-blocked for sockpuppetry.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 01:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Similarly one of these pages again that fail WP:HISTRS, some are also primary sources. Noorullah ( talk) 20:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
The subject played for the Italy national rugby league team, but I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. BLPs require strong sourcing and all I really found was four sentences of coverage here. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:09, 4 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, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 20:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Obscure P2P application with no significant coverage. Helpful Raccoon ( talk) 21:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 20:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a diplomat, not
properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for diplomats. As always, ambassadors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass
WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about their work in independent third-party sources such as media or books -- but this is referenced entirely to
primary source content
self-published by the government (i.e. her own employer), with absolutely no evidence of
WP:GNG-worthy sourcing shown at all.
Further, this was draftspaced last year per
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer M. Adams, before being arbitrarily moved back into mainspace earlier this month on the grounds that her nomination had finally been confirmed by the Senate -- but since the notability bar for ambassadors hinges on GNG-worthy coverage, and not on the simple fact of having been confirmed into the position per se, that should never have happened without the draft being significantly improved with stronger sourcing first.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable in the absence of significantly better sourcing than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz Read! Talk! 20:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
No substantial operating history other than being a diginet coatrack. Should be redirected to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Editors seeking a Merge can start a discussion on the article talk page and the talk page of the target article. Liz Read! Talk! 20:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Contested WP:PROD for a game show winner lacking independent notability per WP:GNG and WP:BLP for two key reasons:
(1) On notability, in contrast to other reality television show winners with articles, there is no evidence in the article of other public aspects to Whelan that would justify their discussion beyond the appearance on the show: no post-appearance career, appearance on other media, other notable contributions. Whelan's other personal details in the coverage are not the reason she is notable and themselves would not give rise to an article.
(2) My view is that there is no content on this page that could not be better subject to a WP:MERGE on the page Squid Game: The Challenge. Even if Whelan is deemed notable due to the coverage of her appearance on the show, the four sentences about her, if the sum of information known about her, is hardly information that isn't simple to cover on the article for the one thing she primarily inherits her potential notability from.
As ever, open to views! VRXCES ( talk) 22:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
07:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
19:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 03:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent 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. Of the sources per WP:RS; one is a blogpost, one is a dead link, all the other four is WP:PRIMARY and the rest of this list are unsourced. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 07:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
19:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 20:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent 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. Of the sources per WP:RS; one is about an announcer, each one of the others is about the Bowl games, with this being given a passing mention. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 06:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
19:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. There is no consensus to delete. Arguments for moving to Pedantry are strong, but that is outside the scope of this AfD. Owen× ☎ 13:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Dictionary definition with etymology. Violates WP:NOTDICT. - Skipple ☎ 03:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep - I don't wish to be, er. pedantic here, but the criterion for notability is not whether the article is poorly-cited, but whether there are suitable sources out there in the world. Pedantry is unfortunately definitely a notable topic. Sources include the famous essay Of Pedantry by Michel de Montaigne, alongside a mass of modern research papers on a wide variety of aspects of pedantry. A good newspaper article is Why do pedants pedant? in The Guardian. There's plenty more out there. The article needs to be rewritten, but that's not a matter for AfD. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete as per nomination. This is just a dictionary definition with a couple of cites. Per WP:!, it needs expansion to be useful which might be possible. If someone does this then perhaps reconsider. Ldm1954 ( talk) 07:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are there editors up for rewriting this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
19:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Possible hoax. Orphan. No references. The creator was banned with their talk page cluttered with deleted articles they made. No evidence for the mountain existing (all sources I found are clearly "sourced from Wikipedia"; including Google Maps, which is semi-user generated). No official mapping or biodiversity agency has ever covered it. The coordinates provided are to a slightly elevated hill in Naturpark Reinhardswald, and the official website yields no results when "Gladerberg" is searched ( https://www.naturpark-reinhardswald.de/content/search?SearchText=Gladerberg). I'm new here and assuming a "speedy delete" is reserved for emergencies? If so, this is not an emergency. BlueSharkLagoon ( talk) 16:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
The second highest elevation of the Reinhardswald's forest is the Gahrenberg with 472 m.I think the proposed article is likely a mistranslation/spelling mistake. BlueSharkLagoon ( talk) 19:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by TV One (Pakistan)#Drama series. Liz Read! Talk! 20:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Sarwat Nazir#Plays and dramas. Liz Read! Talk! 20:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Eveready Pictures#Television. Liz Read! Talk! 20:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Nadeem Baig (director)#Television. Liz Read! Talk! 20:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Yasir Nawaz#Television serials. Liz Read! Talk! 20:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I couldn't even find ROTM coverage except some namechecks coverage and much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:27, 18 May 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! 20:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails NACTOR since he didn't have major roles in TV dramas. The subject also doesn't seems to meet GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:05, 18 May 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! 21:00, 25 May 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. The most I found were three sentences here. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
This list should probably just be a category. It claims to be a list of notable kosher supermarkets, but in actuality we do not have articles on three of the entries. Our own article on H-E-B does not contain the word "kosher" and it's inclusion here is apparently based on one specific store having an extensive kosher section. That leaves two entries if we are actually limiting the list to notable kosher grocers. I believe simply having a category, which already exists and is on the two valid entries, is sufficient without a list article with no real criteria for being listed. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. Contested PROD. JTtheOG ( talk) 17:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete as WP:G11. jp× g 🗯️ 03:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. There are insufficient independent, third party publications to support notability: lacks WP:SIGCOV. The sources found in a WP:BEFORE search seem to be recursive in that they all seem to circle back to each other, echoing phrases used. The two sources cited in the article read like promotional pieces. Geoff | Who, me? 17:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. I see a strong consensus to Keep this article. Editors are encouraged to remove incorrect or inflated figures and keep it up-to-date with available reliable sources. Liz Read! Talk! 21:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
It is not possible for anyone to record how many records of a particular artist have been sold nationally or internationally. Now even if we were to mention only what WP:RSs have said, then this list would be among those articles that fail that requirement the most.
This list is nothing but a WP:LISTCRUFT. This list has been probematic to core. Various RfC have been carried out but there has been no solution for this list. [32] [33]
As noted by the reliable sources, Elvis Presley, The Beatles are widely regarded to have sold more than 1 billion records, [34] [35] while Michael Jackson has sold over 750 million records. [36] However, this page is evidently misrepresenting their figures.
This list does not make mention of Bing Crosby who is known to have sold over 900 million records. [37] Could it be because Crosby does not have enough fans who are eager to impose their POV on this page? That appears to be biggest factor behind the names (at least the top ones) found on this list.
Not just that, but this list does not even list any artists from the most populated countries like India and China where some artists have clearly sold more than 200 million records such as A. R. Rahman, [38] Wei Wei [39] and more.
It would make more sense to have this list deleted instead of wasting any more time on it. Ratnahastin ( talk) 16:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Sadia Jabbar#Former productions. Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 16:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Islam in Romania. Going with an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
This is a cancelled proposal. Wikipedia is not a repository for unrealized projects without lasting coverage. Aintabli ( talk) 05:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
without lasting coverage, which addresses that. If this proposal is still discussed years after its cancellation, please let me know. I was unable to find any mention of it past its cancellation in 2018. The Romanian version of this article is even more lacking. Aintabli ( talk) 06:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Desertarun (
talk)
16:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Given the discussion, there is no clearly fitting redirect target as an ATD Star Mississippi 13:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTDICT. Since this term seems to be used in several different contexts, it can redirect to Reproduction (disambiguation). Helpful Raccoon ( talk) 00:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two different Redirection target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again we have two differernt Redirect suggestions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Desertarun (
talk)
16:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 13:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to have any notable or significant credits. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 03:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Desertarun (
talk)
16:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 16:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC criteria; for example, publication output with 46 citations in total from 4 documents doesn't suggest significant impact in the field. The 'selected publications' seems to be all publications. There is evidence of grants (one in the form of the award), but none seem to sufficient to meet the prize criteria of WP:NBIO. Klbrain ( talk) 16:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Owen× ☎ 21:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Unlikely to become notable, if the team is defunct. Unsourced (though I know that's probably fixable). Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 11:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
01:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see a review of newly found sources to see if GNG is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Agreeing with Liz here, we also need clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Rusty4321
talk
contribs
14:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Dennis Villarojo. Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS. I see nothing here to suggest that this cermony is in any way notable, although I suppose there might be a case for merging to Dennis Villarojo is there is actually aything of any real importance in this article. Which I doubt. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC) TheLongTone ( talk) 14:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
commentJust how much is there worth merging? TheLongTone ( talk) 13:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails GNG as well WP:NORG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 14:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 -- wooden superman 12:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous
WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 09:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 -- wooden superman 12:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous
WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 09:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 -- wooden superman 12:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous
WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 21:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
If the article focuses solely on the conflicts between the Gauda kingdom and the Guptas, it lacks WP:RS and historians do not consider these mutual campaigns as a single state of war, known as the "Gauda—Gupta War(s)". If we include the mutual conflicts between the Guptas and Gaudas in the article's scope, it becomes a result of original research and the synthesis of multiple conflicts. The conflicts involving Ishanavarman, Jivitagupta I, and Gopachandra are mentioned, but figures such as Kumaragupta III, Dharmaditya, and Samacharadeva are not addressed in the War section, but in the infobox. Upon reviewing the sources, authors are uncertain about the statements, with a weak consensus. In essence, the article combines non-notable military conflicts, cited by low-quality sources, involving different kingdoms—the Maukhari dynasty and the Later Gupta dynasty—against the Gauda kingdom, and labels it as the "Gauda—Gupta War". It adds minor conflicts to create the impression of significance, which is not justified. The article fails to meet GNG and contains original research. There are significant issues to address, AFD is limiting the discourse. Imperial [AFCND] 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
It's quite likely that the war of Ishanavarman against the Gaudas whom he had forced to take shelter on the sea shore and the victory of Jivitagupta I over the enemies who stood on the sea-shore, refer to the expeditions launched by the Maukharis and the Later Guptas, separately or jointly, against the kings of Bengal discussed above who had declared their independence of the empire and had assumed the imperial title. Probably, the Maukhari and the Later Gupta rulers undertook these campaigns in the name of the Gupta emperor who was their nominal overlord, though their success increased their own power, and not of the emperor.From Goyal (1967).
The people of Gauda (W. Bengal) also achieved prominence, and a Maukhari chief claims to have defeated them. The Later Guptas also fought against some enemies who lived on the sea-shore. The reference in both cases may be to the kings of Bengal mentioned above, and the military campaigns of the Maukharis and the Later Guptas might have been undertaken, jointly or severally, on behalf of the Gupta emperor, their nominal overlord.Majumdar (1970).
cited with low quality sourcesis referring my earlier statement in the proposal
authors are uncertain about the statements, with a weak consensus, take the time to read the whole proposal reason. The weakness of the statements from the sources are evident from the above quotes, presented by yourself above.
It's quite likely that...Probably, the Maukhari and the Later Gupta rulers un...from Goyal and
The reference in both cases may be to the kings of Bengal mentioned above...and the Later Guptas might have been undertaken, jointly orfrom Majumdar. Keeping this weak statements aside, surprisingly I couldn't find any latest records about the event(s).-- Imperial [AFCND] 17:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
AFD is limiting the discourse, I need a bigger space to expose the whole mess within the article. And no need to drag Sasanian–Kushan Wars here. Take that to the respective talk section if you have any problem with it. Imperial [AFCND] 17:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Owen×
☎
20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
09:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Neither source cited mentions a station with this name. Source 2 is also deprecated generally unreliable per
WP:AOPLACES. I could not find other sources online. Please redirect this page to
Line 1, Ho Chi Minh City Metro.
Toadspike (
talk)
10:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
09:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
but multiple sources are generally expected.Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 12:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
No citations to reputable sources in psychiatry or psychology. Entirely based on popular culture and tabloid references, with little-to-no evidence backing them. –Sincerely, A Lime 23:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
09:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sources are mostly dependent and passing mentions. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 18:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
09:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Prod challenged so bringing here. Totally unsourced, original research, before finds nothing. Theroadislong ( talk) 07:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
09:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since the previous deletion discussion. The sources that I could find are mostly either primary, or school/college databases. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 08:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete It is just one of 1093 schools run by by Delhi Directorate of Education. There are no notable achievements of the school or any notable alumni. Wikilover3509 ( talk) 11:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
No evidence that this formation meets the GNG. Of the currently-cited sources, 2, 3, and 5 are self-published, not independent, and not reliable (except for direct quotes from Navy documents in source 3). Source 1 [62] seems to list only establishment and disestablishment dates (not sigcov), which is more than I expected from a source supposedly covering "1910-1920" – it seems the citing editor made a typo, the citation should read "1910-2010". Source 4 [63] doesn't seem to mention this unit at all. In sum, there are 0 sources that count toward the GNG, and I couldn't find anything in a before search. Toadspike ( talk) 10:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
07:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete without prejudice to re-creating under a more general title. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 21:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOT a repository of links. This isn't really an article, it is a statement and some links. I've approached the editor with some help on his talk page. Note there is also a Draft version by the same editor. The editor seems to have a history of just adding lists of links in articles rather than citations or prose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jake Wartenberg (
talk)
13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
07:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 13:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Also LISTCRUFT (or WP:CRUFT). The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are about the game itself, many of those are YouTube links and none of those assert notability to this list. I also advise them to start a Fandom page if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 09:57, 3 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)
14:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
07:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
would be perfect for an article discussing the history of broadcasting in regards to this game– Then move it, don't delete it and require it to be started completely all over. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 22:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 13:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
This doesn't seem to meet WP:DIRECTOR or even WP:ANYBIO. A Google search doesn't turn up anything that aligns with WP:GNG. It's likely a case of UPE — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 16:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
06:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Owen× ☎ 10:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
The subject does not meet WP:NACTOR. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one Inherently notable. A quick Google search doesn't yield anything either which can meet WP:GNG either. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 16:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
*Keep - appears to be
WP:NACTOR with
[102] and
[103]. Having worked in films and critically acclaimed series as well. Google search also yields potential material to improve his article with. Should be tagged for "Additional Citations".
Sameeerrr (
talk)
15:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC) ( Blocked
sockpuppet)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
06:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not willing to slog through dozens of sources to evaluate them. I am, however, willing to look at a few sources in detail if somebody else (i.e. you) does the footwork to figure out which ones are the best.I have already looked a seven or so sources but I am willing to look at a three more you believe are the best ones. S0091 ( talk) 15:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Libraa2019 ( talk) 18:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I am willing to look at a three more. Please refer my comments in my delete !vote for my assessment. If those are the best ones, then they do not meet GNG nor BASIC. The two The News Internationals (though you only list one) I can see counting toward BASIC but they are not enough. And yet again you are focusing on Saqib by bringing up some other AfD which has absolutely no bearing on this one. I tried to help you focus on what matters but it's falling on deaf ears so I am done. Too much of my time wasted. S0091 ( talk) 18:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Libraa2019 ( talk) 19:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 03:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Poorly sourced rugby BLP with no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of independent coverage available online. The few third-party sources that do cover him directly are not in-depth ( 1, 2). JTtheOG ( talk) 19:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
06:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a New Zealand rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was routine transfer news 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) JTtheOG ( talk) 19:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
06:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. given improvements made to the article since its nomination. Thanks to the editors who rescued this article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT and has for 14 years. A search in news returns the coveted "1 result". Allan Nonymous ( talk) 19:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
19:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams.Sports teams qualify for notability by meeting WP:GNG, according to WP:NSPORT, which says, in boldface,
The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline.— Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 05:59, 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!
06:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Japan Karate Association. Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Has been on the list of articles not meeting
WP:NBIO for 14 years. A bare number of sources (two) and no corresponding Japanese article strongly suggest he does not meet
WP:GNG in addition to clearly failing
WP:NSPORT.
Allan Nonymous (
talk)
12:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
06:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Rolex. Liz Read! Talk! 07:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability. Co-founder of Rolex. Article is basically just tidbits of Rolex history with mentions of him. Half of the small amount of material in the article is Rolex history that doesn't even mention him. The same with sources; there are no sources on him much less GNG sources. I did a search with the same results. Rolex history with just mentions of him in that context. Article was prodded by others in October and de-prodded by creator. During NPP work I did a merge/redirect into Rolex (there was no real material to merge) and creator reversed that. I don't think that the creator understands wp:notability; I left a note on their talk page explaining that it's about coverage. North8000 ( talk) 12:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can a consensus be reached for redirecting to Rolex as Jfire proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Safari Scribe
Edits!
Talk!
05:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Owen× ☎ 21:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:EVENT and WP:LASTING.
I note the previous AfDs and the contentious debate surrounding this article. It was previously deleted at an AfD in 2018, then restored by a deletion review in 2021. It survived a second AfD on the basis of continuing coverage and publication of new information which (allegedly) demonstrated the significance and lasting impact of this incident. This new information was almost entirely related to:
Any time that an incident resulted in a news spike, it is likely that the release of the accident report may receive at least some coverage in secondary sources, but more often than not, this just means that the official investigation has concluded. Notability would be inherited from the content of that report, rather than its existence. In this case, it appears the report recommended changing routine inspection intervals for operators of PW4000 engines. This is a fairly predictable outcome that impacts a specific group of operators - more notable would be an unexpected finding that leads to sweeping changes to regulations across the industry as a whole, but even then it would be more appropriate to cover this in Pratt & Whitney PW4000 article. The article itself quotes the NTSB as saying they had not confirmed a link to the other incidents mentioned above that generated the media spike. Of the references cited that have been published from 2020 onwards, there is little to indicate significant WP:LASTING coverage of this incident. Most either provide trivial mentions of United 1175 while discussing other incidents, are WP:SENSATIONAL, or do not demonstrate WP:PERSISTENCE in the form of detailed case studies, rather they are rehashing what was already reported on in 2018. Other additions to the article in a bid to demonstrate notability have been irrelevant or unencyclopedic - including several paragraphs detailing the history Boeing 777 fatal accidents and hull-losses, an individual's filing of a lawsuit for emotional distress or timelines of the crew performing routine procedures such as initiating fuel crossfeeds and lowering the landing gear. I just removed a sentance and reference from 2018 that said United were planning to offer passengers on flight 1175 refunds! Dfadden ( talk) 05:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The event has become notable since it resulted in a new mandate by the Federal Aviation Administration ( WP:LASTING) and it has continued to receive sustained coverage years after the event ( WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE), even if some of those sources are prompted by another event happening or by regional or local sources that have some connection with the event. If the event were non-notable, it would not continue to receive significant coverage years later.
Sources published from one month to four years after the event (ordered chronologically) that provide significant coverage about United Airlines Flight 1175:
From a Google Translate of https://www.facebook.com/notes/1674174042602267/: "Founded on April 26, 2011, Transponder 1200 is a journalistic medium specialized in aviation that, for more than eight years, has positioned ourselves as a benchmark in the global aeronautical industry. With correspondents in Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, Ecuador, France, Germany and Mexico, we are a medium in constant growth, innovative and improving our publishing house, always managing to be in the taste of our readers, partners and clients. We are affiliated to the Federation of Associations of Mexican Journalists A.C., by APECOMOR."
The article notes, "After the 2018 failure on the United 777, the FAA mandated that fan blades on the type of engine involved undergo special thermal-acoustic image inspections—using sound waves to detect signs of cracks—every 6,500 flights."
The article notes, "But an NTSB investigation of the Feb. 13, 2018, malfunction of a Pratt & Whitney engine on the Honolulu-bound United flight faulted the company for not doing more stringent inspections."
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Few reliable sources on the city are available, and those that are cover essentially the same information as is present in this section of She Zhijiang's page. Ordinarily I would say that the information should be merged, but none of the unique info on the page is referenced. Zygmeyer ( talk) 05:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Bharat Jodo Yatra. Liz Read! Talk! 07:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Article is of questionable notability and definitely a WP:NOTNEWS. Bharat Jodo Yatra exists, and there's no reason for timeline to exist other than as "dumping content".
Last merge discussion was opposed and ended in No consensus with the only reasoning being it was "written with effort" Soni ( talk) 04:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Questionable notability Amigao ( talk) 22:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
04:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was draftify. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 13:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Possible
WP:AUTOBIO of a non-notable writer. (The photo was uploaded by the same user as "own work" and the editor's user page redirects to this article.) Of sources in the article, only
this Calgary Herald piece qualifies toward
WP:GNG. Sources 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 are links to the author's own writing. Sources 2 and 6 are to the school paper of the subject's alma mater and thus disqualified toward notability per
WP:RSSM. Sources 10-12 are
WP:INTERVIEWS and thus disqualified toward notability as primary sources. There is no evidence that he would qualify under any criterion of
WP:AUTHOR.
Dclemens1971 (
talk)
03:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Zero sources/references at all. Noorullah ( talk) 02:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator should check and see if sources have been removed before claiming an article is unsourced. They were added back and then removed again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) LibStar ( talk) 00:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:MUSICBIO. A search under "Blue MC" or Marisa Lock yielded little. LibStar ( talk) 02:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Only source is GNIS, and no other information could be found. Satellite images suggest this is just an industrial area on the outskirts of Philomath, OR. Apparently there was once a Flynn Covered Bridge in the area: [147], which might be notable, but nothing about a "community" of Flynn was found, so this is a failure of WP:GEOLAND. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 02:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 03:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:BEFORE yields nothing of use. Only film databases and user generated content. Printed coverage in foreign language is unlikely, as the subject seems to have played minor roles in not many major works. However, if they exist, one may list so. X ( talk) 03:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep which does not preclude a potential merger. Whether it's a weak keep or a N/C is moot as consensus to delete the content isn't going to emerge from this discussion and input has tapered off. If a SNG needs deprecating and that happens, this can be revisited sooner than the typical AfD timeline. Star Mississippi 13:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
This soprano has not received significant coverage in independent sources, bar this one article.
Citations 2, 3, and 7 are from institutions with which Hinterdobler has been associated. The rest provide insignificant coverage, often not more than a half-sentence.
As there is only one source which is both independent and provides significant coverage, the relevant notability criteria ( WP:BASIC/ WP:MUSICBIO) are not met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. While there is the caveat that this coverage should not be trivial, I don't think it is in this case, based on the measure of trivial coverage provided in the notability guideline (the bare mention of Three Blind Mice), as the coverage identified through this review process examines and weighs the tropic's performance quality. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 22:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
In college, Binton Krill was in a band called Five Eye Lice. Five Eye Lice toured the West Coast in 1988.). I nevertheless think there's sufficient coverage that rises so above the Three Blind Mice example to the point that it's not trivial coverage. As for lower thresholds, I don't think there's consensus in the Wikipedia community for book-length coverage to be considered a lower threshold for significant coverage. With the exception of, say, multivolume biographies/histories, book-length coverage probably tends to be expected to be the upper threshold/expectation for significant coverage. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 06:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now this looks like No consensus as editors are very divided about whether or not notability is established by the existing sources. I notice that a great deal of new content and new sourcs have been added since this article's nomination; a source review of this new content would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
01:58, 18 May 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! 02:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not have WP:SIRS. // Timothy :: talk 01:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn
Shopping mall without sources to establish WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Current sources are primary; WP:BEFORE search is complicated by the Marmara Park Avenue Hotel, but nothing that meets GNG comes up. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 01:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
An article about a business person that doesn't present WP:SIGCOV. The sources rather based on the company which doesn't still meet WP:ORGCRIT. Lacks minimum sourcing, and here isn't the case of clean up, it is not MILL either but haven't attain notability. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 00:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:GNG and also, being a registrar doesn't inherently make one notable. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 00:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)