![]() |
The result was redirect to S/V Merlin. Editors are welcome to selectively merge content from the history of the article to the target. signed, Rosguill talk 17:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. I had declined this at AfC and still don't see references showing notability despite being moved to mainspace by another editor. CNMall41 ( talk) 00:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
*Keep subject meets notability requirements for an athlete and has been covered in a variety of sailing publications and websites. I feel it is worth noting that off the bat CNMall41 immediately accused me without evidence of having a personal connection to the subject and seems to bear some personal grudge against this article, previously having said they would step away from being involved in the editorial process.
Sailbanshee (
talk)
01:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
*Keep Article is well cited and establishes notability as a prominent athlete in the world of yacht racing with a verified track record and unique, well documented story covered in a variety of independent, verifiable sources.
Captbloodrock (
talk)
04:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Multiple articles covering subject in yachting and boating websites, coverage in major newspapers, documentation of subject competing and placing in major yachting events…
Captbloodrock (
talk)
04:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
::::: The Tampa Bay Times article, the Museler article(s), the article about his obtaining a new ship for an established boat racing team, the multiple articles about his participation and placing in races… I thought the original article author was being paranoid but I’m beginning to side with them there’s some bias on your part against this article’s subject. I believe this article meets notability requirements which is why I moved it. I’ve stated my case for such and won’t engage in any more nit-picking. You put the article up for a vote, let the vote decide.
Captbloodrock (
talk)
05:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to confirmation that socks dominated the previous keep !votes. Will strike through the sock comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
20:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Tonga national rugby union players. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Citations are profiles. Does not meet requirements of WP:NSPORT. Not other news can be found about them. Shinadamina ( talk) 19:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Georgia national rugby union players. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
All available citations are profiles. Does not meet WP:NSPORT. Shinadamina ( talk) 19:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Georgia national rugby union players as an AtD. Daniel ( talk) 03:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
All available citations are profiles. Does not meet WP:NSPORT. Shinadamina ( talk) 19:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 02:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Note that this same article existed at the title
Godswill Obinna Ejianya, which was moved back to draftspace by the creator within minutes of my initiating
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godswill Obinna Ejianya and then blanked, but was created at this new title almost simultaneously with all of that. So it isn't eligible for immediate speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted content, but the actual issues here haven't changed at all: it's still a semi-advertorialized
WP:BLP of a businessperson, still not
properly sourced as passing notability criteria for businesspeople.
As always, businesspeople are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass
WP:GNG on their sourcing -- but of the six footnotes here, two of them (actually one, reduplicated as two distinct footnotes for no obvious reason) are just "covering" him in the context of turning 50, which is not a notability claim in and of itself, and the other four are all covering him in the context of receiving a local "man of the year" award that isn't highly prominent enough to be a notability-making award. And even more interestingly, those four sources are all virtually identical in wording despite seemingly coming from four different media outlets, meaning that it's really either a wire service article or a self-published press release from the subject. But four media outlets reprinting the same article adds up to one GNG point, not four — we're counting the number of distinct articles, not the number of newspapers that reprint the same article — which means he hasn't actually been shown to pass GNG.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more sourcing than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
13:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
BLP of an Islamic scholar who does not appear to be notable either as an author or for anything else really. Mccapra ( talk) 23:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG, no usable citations included in the article; an internet search turned up database entries for "THE GRACIES AND THE BIRTH OF VALE TUDO", but no coverage that could serve towards writing an article about that film or Bota. Page also apparently has a history of WP:UPE. signed, Rosguill talk 17:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Deleted at AfD in 2022, but recreated recently. However, the sources are no better – they are all primary interviews with the author or PR websites (or both) and don't pass RS. The only claim of notability is a supposed endorsement from a Fox News reporter, but I can't find any direct proof of this, only reports of it by Zarah herself or in other non-RS sources. Richard3120 ( talk) 17:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD before, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:47, 20 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 00:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
No sources beyond the ones here, which are not independent. Unfortunately, this means she fails WP:GNG and a lack of google scholar cites means she doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC either. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 18:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Shivaji University as an AtD. Given limited participation after one relist, this is in effect a 'soft' redirect. Daniel ( talk) 03:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability. College affiliated with a university. I'm normally pretty lenient regarding GNG sourcing for schools but this one has zero independent sources much less GNG sources. And I couldn't find any. North8000 ( talk) 18:50, 13 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, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 03:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
All available citations are profiles. Does not meet WP:NSPORT. Shinadamina ( talk) 19:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit 23:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I found technical papers using the term "cooperative web" in a few different ways (e.g. as an extension to the semantic web), but this article refers to one or more attempts to create a collaborative real-time editor, particularly IBM's Blue Spruce project and its obscure successor OpenCoWeb. It might be possible to create an article about Blue Spruce, but this article's title and content are not appropriate for such an article. There's also the older, wiki-inspired collaborative service CoWeb, which stands for "Collaborative website", but this service is unrelated to IBM's project. Helpful Raccoon ( talk) 20:15, 6 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, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Any editor who wishes a draft version may contact me or another administrator. — CactusWriter (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Newly created article, PROD declined. Sourcing does not establish WP:GNG being met. WP:BEFORE brings up only a couple of brief reviews of their EP. – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:11, 20 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! 07:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to List of battles in Belgium (deleted recently). NLeeuw ( talk) 22:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Where are all of our AFD regulars? We need more AFD discussion participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was moot. While we normally suggest avoid making such changes during an AfD, the pages have been merged and redirected and there is clearly no inclination here to do anything else. I am closing this discussion because it is moot due to editorial actions in the interim, anyone should feel free to start another discussion of any type. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 ( t • c) 07:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Sources in article are primary, nothing found that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth from an independent source that meets WP:GNG. I am also nominating the following related pages:
// Timothy :: talk 22:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more participants here besides the content creator and the nominator. It looks like the nominator didn't set up any deletion sorting, can a helpful editor like
Wcquidditch take care of that for this discussion? Many thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. This is a tricky one, but given the convincing challenges to every option that isn't "delete", I see a weak consensus for that. There is no substantive challenge either to the applicability of the MOS sectioned below, or for the sourcing issues. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 17:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to List of battles in Belgium (deleted recently). NLeeuw ( talk) 22:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see no consensus here yet. I'll just mention that similar articles nominated at AFD involving different countries have closed as "Delete".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Owen× ☎ 21:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Article is completely unsourced and subject does not seem to be notable. Quick Google News skim shows only two vague news articles about this Foundation [5] [6]. GoldRomean ( talk) 22:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please assess recent changes to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep based on new sources found during AFD. — CactusWriter (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Footballer that does not appear to have played a full professional game. Sources are mostly local papers and match reports. Black Kite (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Gurung played centre-back for the first time in senior football... local lad Gurung has been a fixture in Elokobi’s side this season.... it’s turning into a breakthrough campaign for the former Maidstone Grammar School pupil") , [15], ("Gurung is a product of the club’s youth set-up where he was spotted and offered a scholarship by Crystal Palace in 2017. He has since headed back to Maidstone via spells playing in Scandinavia and nailed down a regular spot despite the club’s arduous end to last season in the National League. His fitting finish set social media alight but while he has enjoyed being the centre of attention, Gurung is quick to share the plaudits.") among many more sources. Young player witn ongoing career and clearly siginficnt figure in Nepali football. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 21:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Every source is a press release of crummy business award except for one - an interview with the founder published in Entrepreneur India. Given WP:NEWSORGINDIA and the general surface level, uncritical tone of the article I'm skeptical this is quality coverage. BrigadierG ( talk) 21:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete per WP:TOOSOON and Draftify to Draft:Arya Igami Tarhani — CactusWriter (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
This footballer does not appear to have played a professional senior game, only junior ones. Black Kite (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Rafael van der Vaart#Personal life. Any editor who wishes to have a restored version placed in Draft space may contact me or another administrator. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
This 17-year-old footballer doesn't appear to have even played a full professional game for any club. It seems that most of the news stories about him are due to him being the son of Rafael van der Vaart. Black Kite (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was Delete. I'm going to include the draft in the deletion. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable voice actor. No sufficient coverage from reliable sources to warrant a standalone article. Fails WP:NACTOR. CycloneYoris talk! 20:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to take up that much space, and this guy is pretty notable. Why can't he have a small Wikipedia page considering his fanbase and following? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veryfunkypants ( talk • contribs) 20:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
91 subscribers on youtube. Why is it so much trouble just to keep this one small page?
There is an article for an Estonian politician with literally one sentence on it /info/en/?search=Avo_%C3%9Cprus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veryfunkypants ( talk • contribs) 20:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
*Note: an attempt was made to speedily dele with this discussion open. —
Railroadr20 (
talk) 21:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Struck sock.
Hatman31 (
talk)
20:24, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF and several others, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. Modest history peaking on the 6th tier. Geschichte ( talk) 20:47, 20 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! 23:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF and several others, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. Modest history peaking on the 6th tier. Geschichte ( talk) 20:45, 20 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! 23:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF and several others, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. Modest history peaking on the 6th tier. Geschichte ( talk) 20:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NOT as a how-to guide, cannot be made into an encyclopedic article in any meaningful way that shouldn't be at Confluence (software). Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 20:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
No significant coverage. Non-notable web software. SL93 ( talk) 19:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. After two relists, both the balance of arguments and the !vote count favor deletion, with keep !voters declining to address arguments analyzing the timing and depth of the published sources covering the subject. signed, Rosguill talk 17:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPOL as a former candidate who got exactly 0 votes. Since her 2021 run, she did absolutely nothing that is notable, so I'm renominating this article for deletion. All the sources fit squarely in WP:BLP1E territory. Mottezen ( talk) 04:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
even if the coverage relates to one event (where both the event & the role of the subject is significant); such articles are usually kept.and
Invoking WP:BLP1E here isn't right because she pretty clearly has a significant role in the selection. Remember, she got no votes and no country endorsements, so her role in the event was insignificant. Even the UN ambassador for her own country didn't reply to her request for a meeting to discuss her candidacy.
Comment: To those who argue her run for Secretary-general is "well-documented"... it's just not, especially in the crucial stages of her campaign. Let me illustrate: these are the dates the 9 secondary sources in the article were published:
Note that there is only one source published in June 2021, the month the vote took place, and thus the month that attention to the UNSG selection was most warranted. Sadly, the most crucial period of her campaign is barely documented. The June New Yorker source is also one of the lesser quality sources because it merely recounts a day the author spent with her; it's storytelling rather than journalistic work. Mottezen ( talk) 05:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There are widely diverging opinions/arguments in this discussion on whether or not this subject meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. Editors who are proposing a Merge/Redirect outcome must provide a link to the target article they are proposing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
19:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Per WP:TOOSOON. Any editor who wishes to restore this article in Draft space may contact me or another administrator. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails GNG, sources in article are passing mentions in routine sports news, nothing meeting WP:SIRS.
Source eval:
Comments | Source |
---|---|
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth | 1. "Ireland to host South Africa in Abu Dhabi". ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 13 May 2024. |
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth | 2. ^ "ICC confirm Ireland's fixture list for next four years". Belfast Telegraph. 18 August 2022. Retrieved 13 May 2024. |
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth | 3. ^ "Ireland to host South Africa in Abu Dhabi in September". CricTracker. Retrieved 13 May 2024. |
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth | 4. ^ "T20 World Cup in focus as Ireland outline busy summer schedule". International Cricket Council. Retrieved 13 May 2024. |
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth | 5. ^ "Fixtures released for 2024". Cricket Ireland. Retrieved 13 May 2024. |
Draft has been disputed. It is very unlikely this match will generate WP:SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 04:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
19:43, 20 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! 23:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable footballer who has been attached to clubs at a higher level, but has never appeared above the (part-time) Scottish fourth tier. No evidence of significant coverage - the two references are to an article about his brother, in which he gets a passing mention, and a match report of a Highland League game. I have been unable to find much else other than this BBC article [ [16]] about him joining Inverness Caledonian Thistle as loan back-up; he was a substitute for them in the SPL, but made no appearances. Jellyman ( talk) 19:33, 20 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! 23:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 ( talk) 19:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of high commissioners of Australia to Brunei. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Appears to fail WP:GNG as the references are mostly poor quality passing mentions, and collectively these references don't constitute significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Uhooep ( talk) 19:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Football tournament for children supported by a couple of primary sources. Utterly insignificant within the football world, fails WP:SIGCOV. Geschichte ( talk) 19:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:PRIMARY, WP:GNG, WP:UNDUE, WP:SELFPUB, WP:USERGENERATED, WP:FAIL etc. I think this article should be WP:TNTed; I tried salvaging it by throwing out all unreliable sources (a large group of WP:USERGENERATED/ WP:SELFPUB Polish-language websites with little to no editorial review or control over contents published by users or website owners), but there is almost nothing of historical value left. Even the sources that I think might be WP:RS enough seem to WP:FAIL consistently in confirming what the article claims, e.g. Bolesław making all of Kievan Rus' a tributary state of Poland and collecting taxes. Although some sort of Polish military action in Kievan Rus' seems to have taken place in 1077, there is no reason to believe king Bolesław II the Bold was personally participating in it, nor was there a siege of the city of Kiev (Kyiv). If anything, there was fighting over Chernigov. By far, most details appear to have been made up by Polish chronicler Jan Długosz writing 400 years later. (I've added some information in the lead section about that). It is plain that the entire article is not really about the dynastic succession crisis that happened in Kievan Rus' at the time; instead, there are all sorts of fanciful tales about excessive celebrations of victory and sexual immorality within the Polish army (immorality that is blamed on the Rus'/Ruthenians that they allegedly conquered) that are not historically credible as narrated. Pretty much all of this information appears directly or indirectly based on the unreliable chronicle of Długosz.
Moreover,
User:SebbeKg created this article on 19 February 2024, 3 days before he was blocked indefinitely for Adding poorly sourced content, false accusations of vandalism.
Judging by
User talk:SebbeKg, several other of his articles (beginning on 17 December 2023) have been PRODded or nomination for deletion for that reason, but so far, it appears none have actually been deleted (unlike several templates that have been). I think this one should go. It is full of original research and bad sources. The little factual value there may be, is probably not enough for a stand-alone article (
WP:NOPAGE), and can be better incorporated in related articles about the members of the dynasties involved. (It might be necessary to critically review SebbeKg's other articles as well, but that's for a follow-up discussion).
NLeeuw (
talk)
18:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Despite the wealth of sources about this subject, I could not find one that is independent (i.e. not published by an institution or company he's affiliated with). There are one or two interviews, but these also do not count towards notability. The WP:GNG is not met, and I do not think any criteria from WP:NPROF apply here. Toadspike [Talk] 18:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. There is a consensus that the page should link or otherwise incorporate the sublists rather than be deleted, although there isn't a consensus on the exact process for this, which editors may attempt to take care of through either WP:BOLD editing or initiating a talk page discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 16:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I have split the article into articles by state: List of libraries in Western Australia, List of libraries in Northern Territory, List of libraries in Australian Capital Territory, List of libraries in Tasmania, List of libraries in South Australia, List of libraries in Victoria, List of libraries in New South Wales, and List of libraries in Queensland. -- NotCharizard 🗨 18:24, 20 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! 23:29, 27 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. Not to be confused with the Namibian golfer of the same name. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:18, 20 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 23:31, 27 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. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:10, 20 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 23:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Was never elected into a political office that makes one inherently notable TheWikiholic ( talk) 18:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Was never elected into a political office that makes one inherently notable TheWikiholic ( talk) 18:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:31, 27 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. JTtheOG ( talk) 17:49, 20 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 23:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Promotional page for a company that fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Despite being a WP:REFBOMB, sources fail to support claim of notability. Analysis follows:
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPOL, subject is only a contesting in the imminent election and has not occupied any NPOL-able office. These sources are WP:ROUTINE and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL as they all say almost the same things, her father being a three-time MP and her mother being a two-time Congress MLA, and they also do not provide sufficient WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG, also, notability is not inherited. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 14:47, 20 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 23:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable comedian; fails notability under WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:ENTERTAINER. The vast majority of sources cited in this article are Q&A interview/podcast interviews and thus ineligible to count toward notability as primary sources. There are a handful of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in sources like this and two Chortle reviews for D'Souza's Fringe performances. We would need to see additional WP:SIGCOV for this to clear the bar, and a BEFORE search did not turn any up. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 15:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Complex/ Rational 17:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Cannot draftily without consensus because it is a disputed draftification. This is unreferenced, and there ought to be a better route than AfD for things like this. However here we are. Draftify if it is not properly referenced. If good references are provided please let me know and, if the rules allow me to withdraw the nomination, I will do so. (Obviously AfD is not cleanup, except that in this circumstance it is) 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't use the term CRUFT lightly, but this certainly feels like the definition of it. Nothing covers objects in Torchwood to a significant extent, and the bulk of the items covered here are minor and non-notable. I definitely feel this list should likely be deleted, or at the very least partially merged into the Doctor Who items list, though I'm not feeling confident on that list either. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 17:23, 20 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! 23:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBOOK there is one source linked, beyond that I couldn't find anything. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:14, 20 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 23:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage is limited to unreliable sources. While source #2 presents itself as an academic source, it appears to be self-published, and tellingly includes no bibliography. I was unable to find coverage on Google Scholar, Google Books, or the internet searching in English, Spanish and Filipino. signed, Rosguill talk 17:00, 20 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 23:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG. The citation to The Inquirer is decent, although academic sources should be preferred for religion topics. Otherwise, I can find no coverage of this subject outside the publications of the Philippine Independent Church itself, which are not independent of the subject, having searched in English, Spanish and Filipino on Google Scholar, Books, and the internet, having also searched for plausible colloquialisations of the name, such as "Mahal na Birhen ng Noveleta", "Nanay Paz de Noveleta", etc. signed, Rosguill talk 16:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
BLP of questionable notability. I encountered this page during New Page Review and after discussion with the author provided some time for additional sourcing. However, after a couple weeks the sources provided do not meet the standard for WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. A quick review:
In my analysis, that leaves only Source 10 to count as significant coverage, and we'd need to see more for this to pass notability thresholds. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 16:51, 20 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 23:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
This article is written based on highly promotional, press releases and self published sources. Most of the sites are unreliable, some of them are recirculation of press releases, contain bank account information for collecting donations, some contain external links to the site of the organisation. I think the purpose of creation of this article is to promote the organisation. Topic of This article can be well explained in the article of the owner. Although I am not sure whether the owner's article warrants his own article or not. - AlbeitPK ( talk) 16:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to ASTV (Thailand). Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG. The sole cited source does not appear to actually mention News1 (นิวส์วัน) or its former name 11News1. Web search results for the Thai name did not turn up any usable references, although my ability to search in Thai is admittedly limited. signed, Rosguill talk 16:41, 20 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 23:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
All of the sources in the article appear to be from the company and I couldn't find anything meaningful about the company in either Google or Google News. It's a near orphan, with the only meaningful link being an unsourced mention in the article for Auburn, New York, site of its headquarters. Alansohn ( talk) 16:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Absence of meaningful deletion rationale. Nominated by inexperienced user. Verified, recognized settlements are never deleted. ( non-admin closure) Geschichte ( talk) 16:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete A page for every municipality in every country might not merit a place on Wikipedia. Wikilover3509 ( talk) 15:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Complex/ Rational 16:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
A pure GNIS stub about, well, the only things I could find suggested that "lap corner" is a surveying term, but I couldn't verify that. Anyway, there's nothing there and it seems there never was. Mangoe ( talk) 14:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Complex/ Rational 16:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOMPANY, references are either non-independent or trivial. I did search for the company but found nothing in Google Scholar, Google Books, and Google News that'd lead me to believe it qualifies for GNG. Multiple references were added after a PROD but after reviewing all but three (one was an improper citation and the other was a broken url) I am still of the opinion it fails notability. Traumnovelle ( talk) 14:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Going through all the references I do not believe WP:GNG has been met with the changes.
Extended content
|
---|
Response: The product was developed in the mid-1980s by Jim Peden and Barbara Lynn Peden, who wrote a book, Dogs and Cats Go Vegetarian (1988).
31-32 Don't mention Vegepet anywhere.
|
The article " Vegepet" merits inclusion in Wikipedia due to several reasons:
Given these reasons, the article "Vegepet" should be retained on Wikipedia to continue serving as a valuable resource for individuals interested in vegetarian and vegan pet food options. MaynardClark ( talk) 01:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Quite a few 'delete' votes are about...whether or not the innovative Vegepet product of the 1980s is optimal by today's veterinary nutritional standardssince there's only the nominator and me, and neither of us have mentioned veterinary nutritional standards. Schazjmd (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus reached, and deletion rationale was only two words. ( non-admin closure) Geschichte ( talk) 08:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Not notable Akeosnhaoe ( talk) 13:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
* Delete: As per my checking, I found no reliable secondary sources with in-depth coverage that can establish notability. The sources are just passing mentions, and the subject fails to meet the
WP:GNG criteria. The majority of the article is also unsourced.
GrabUp -
Talk
15:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTNEWS. The majority of news sources are primary. There is a failure of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE with coverage ending three weeks ago and WP:SUSTAINED. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 13:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
This appears to be a non-notable organization with no significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. A Google News search for "Pahle India Foundation" yields only a few passing mentions and routine coverage, but nothing that satisfies the criteria of WP:ORGDEPTH. GSS 💬 12:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Baker, as can be seen in the quotation, does not say that there was an elevator here, and I see no sign of it. At any rate, there's precious little sign of anything else here. Survey says this was just a freight station. Mangoe ( talk) 11:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 11:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I can't find any in-depth coverage for this Slovak men's football player to meet WP:GNG. The only news website I found regarding him is an injury, but something tells me that it's more of a trivial mention. Using the keyword "Lukáš Janošík" on Google, even with "site:.sk", my search results only came up with database, club websites, passing mentions, and *facepalm* random namesakes. Clara A. Djalim ( talk) 09:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 12:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 09:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 11:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing the RS that show why this person would be considered notable against the inclusion criteria. He apparently has an painting in the National Gallery and entries in the directories of the peerage. But WP:NOTGENEOLOGY JMWt ( talk) 09:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found), I think the GNG is a better metric for notability. I can at least find some debates where the 2nd Viscount was involved, but none for the first. I wouldn't vote delete or redirect on an active pre-reform Lord, but here we're very clearly lacking coverage. Pilaz ( talk) 13:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR. Badly sourced, possible sockpuppetry and/or UPE. Fails WP:BIO. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
creative content writer with a versatile writing backgroundand is a promotional fluff piece with claims like her
talent transcends borders,
artistic prowess extends beyond actingand
multifaceted career serves as an inspiration to aspiring artists. Creative writing indeed. The others are mentions and the ones used in the article are WP:UGC. S0091 ( talk) 16:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC) S0091 ( talk) 16:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Absence of meaningful deletion rationale. ( non-admin closure) Geschichte ( talk) 16:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete It is a species of fish. Even Fishbase has no photos. Doesn’t merit a page Wikilover3509 ( talk) 09:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Young footballer played a few minutes in a cup game. Does not yet meet GNG, only gets passing mentions and routine coverage. The article in a club magazine isn't independent. Could also be draftified as an ATD. MarchOfThe Greyhounds 08:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was procedural close as the AfD was started by a now-blocked sock. Number 5 7 22:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:SPORTBASIC because there aren't any reliable secondary sources and fails WP:NTEAM because they only play in the minor-leagues. Plus, I searched for them online and there are no reliable secondary sources that feature the team in any kind of significant depth, unless you count the Barnsley Chronicle which I don't. Dafydd y Corach ( talk) 07:43, 20 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 00:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails GNG as well WP:NEVENT - not WP:LASTING — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 15:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:39, 20 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 11:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a writer, not
properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for writers. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass
WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work in third-party media -- but this is referenced entirely to sources directly affiliated with the claims, such as the promotional pages of the subject's books on the self-published websites of their own publishers, with not even one hit of proper GNG-building media coverage shown at all.
There is a literary award in the mix here which would be a valid notability claim if the article were properly sourced, but as a specialty award it still isn't "inherently" notable enough to confer an instant inclusion freebie in the absence of any GNG-worthy sourcing.
Bearcat (
talk)
12:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. SK2/4 (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 ( t • c) 15:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to be a notable company. I searched for sources using all alternatives: "CERT," "CERTIN," and "CERT India," but couldn't find anything that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. Dafydd y Corach ( talk) 07:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. The arguments to delete are a lot stronger than those to keep, with the one exception of Culllen's suggestion that this be pruned to a list of notable publications; and even there, other editors point out that such a list may duplicate existing articles. The usefulness of this list as a resource for editors is not a persuasive argument at AfD, though I would gladly provide a userspace copy for anyone who wishes to turn this into a project-space resource. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 17:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
This is a list covering every publication ever published by Jehovah's Witnesses. I do not think it merits inclusion per WP:NLIST. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
08:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
07:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I would also be shocked if there weren't plenty of sources which discuss Watch Tower Society publications as a group, see Vyselink's comment above. Feel free to try and prove me wrong, but I'm fairly certain about this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 15:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Seems like a reasonably successful consulting company, but that doesn't seem to have translated into any coverage of the company in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Announcements of things they did are good and all, but they're not really the type of content that would meet our criteria for inclusion. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 15:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas(of the subject of the article) is, by definition in policy, WP:PRIMARY. Any source that has a relationship other than the "actually writing the article" part of things (including, but not limited to
vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees) is generally not going to be considered independent by the applicable guidelines. Those independent, secondary sources are required to go into substantial depth in their analysis, which excludes routine announcements of ordinary business activities. ("routine announcements" being the ones that would accompany such activities most of the time) None of the sources available meet all four of the requirements, and believe me, I had looked quite extensively. (though I do not claim it exhaustive) Alpha3031 ( t • c) 13:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep !votes outnumber delete views so far, but what exactly is Whiteshield notable for?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
06:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ✗ plicit 05:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Italian rugby player who fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I found this interview and a couple of transactional announcements ( 1, 2, 3), but nothing substantial. JTtheOG ( talk) 02:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
04:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ✗ plicit 05:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
lack of notability. little to no 3rd party articles detailing artist Minmarion ( talk) 02:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
04:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. I see a consensus that sufficient sources exist to merit keeping the article and that OR and SYNTH issues, while present in the current article, are not insurmountable. Complex/ Rational 16:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
PRODded with the following statement:
Not notable. Only a single reference, a book by this name. Science is the study of things that do no match common sense: "weirdness" is not thing in physics. We have plenty of articles on QM.
— User:Johnjbarton 17:52, 16 March 2024
Then it was deprodded by a user who added a large volume of references that are about quantum mechanics and also have this cliché in the title:
deprod; notability of a topic is not defined by the number of references in the article but by the coverage in multiple independent reliable sources
— User:Lambiam 12:30, 18 March 2024
The actual problem is that the article is just a WP:DICDEF — nothing here shows that there is a distinct concept from QM itself. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 10:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
04:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to West Yorkshire derbies#Leeds Rhinos and Wakefield Trinity. There is general agreement that this can serve as a redirect, although there is no consensus as to how much information would be WP:DUE to include there. signed, Rosguill talk 15:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
No evidence that this is a particularly notable rivalry, if it can even be considered one at all. J Mo 101 ( talk) 14:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
I have moved the content relating to the Boxing Day friendlies to Festive Challenge. Thanks to @ EdwardUK:'s work, I think this is well sourced enough to be kept, so I'm withdrawing my nomination for that part of the article. Now it's just whether the remaining content should be merged or deleted. I personally don't think it's a strong enough rivalry to be included even on the West Yorkshire page. J Mo 101 ( talk) 14:09, 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!
04:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft. While it has been asserted by the minority of keep !voters that there are sources that establish GNG, sources that go beyond mere-mentions have not been identified in this discussion, and it seems likely that some coverage of Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft may have been mistaken for coverage of this title, the expanded Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft that is the focus of this discussion. It has been noted that this title is a redirect on de.wiki to the relevant Donaudampf... root article. Between delete, merge and redirect, the discussion focused on whether there has been any mention of this specific variation in RS; such mention has been identified, but there does not appear to be agreement that there is sufficient coverage beyond such a mention to justify merging (of course, editors who find coverage supporting the inclusion of WP:DUE material at the target are welcome to add such material there as a bold edit). signed, Rosguill talk 15:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Only appears to be mentioned in the context of long German words; I can't find a source which gives significant coverage of this "nonexistent sub-organization of the DDSG" beyond its name being long and funny. As Wikipedia is WP:NOTADICTIONARY, this might be best saved for Wikitionary or maybe a brief mention on an article about German compound nouns. Generalissima ( talk) (it/she) 21:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
03:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The name of the company is well known in German-speaking countries as a starter to humorously construct even longer compound words.Even if this specific word was made-up for the Guinness Book of World Records (which seems plausible), I would support a redirect if there is other sourcing for that statement. It is hard to tell from an English-language Google search whether there is anything other than "people quoting Wikipedia" there. Walsh90210 ( talk) 20:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Das Wort ist ein beliebtes Beispiel für komplexe Mehrfachkomposita und deren Probleme im Bereich der Linguistik und Computerlinguistik in Thesauren, Übersetzungsprogrammen und Suchabfragen. In Österreich, wo die Gesellschaft beheimatet war, ist es wahrscheinlich das Paradebeispiel. Es wird gerne als Ausgangspunkt für Wortspielereien wie die Ableitung noch längerer künstlich zusammengesetzter – aber grammatikalisch korrekter – Hauptwörter wieMr.choppers | ✎ 17:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänsanwärterposten
Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänskajütenschlüsselloch
Donaudampfschifffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft
Oberdonaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänsmützenkokarde
und ähnlichem genutzt.
The result was keep. given sources added. Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Subject should have at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of it, excluding database sources. Lacks references. Shinadamina ( talk) 18:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26 (
spin me /
revolutions)
03:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Ninoy Aquino International Airport#Ground transport. Liz Read! Talk! 03:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GEOROAD. The guideline states: "Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject." The only two sources used here do not support the article: from DPWH ( non-independent) and from the Philippine Star (does not mention NAIA or MIA Road even once, only references the proposed rehabilitation of the airport that gave the road its name). JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 02:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Looking for news sources on Google is of no help too:
The rest of the sources, includes some foreign sources about unrelated matter (from Malta et cetera), strangely. _ JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 03:07, 20 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 03:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Does not appear to pass WP:GEOROAD guideline which states: "Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject."
The four existing sources here do not support the article: both the DPWH sources are non-independent since the DPWH is the government agency that maintains and manages the national roads like Zobel Roxas Street (see WP:INDEPENDENT). The third source is from a real estate company, but the current "About us" page does not state the origins of the road (failed verification). The fourth citation is a vintage US-published map, and it is uncertain if it can be used as a reliable source for the history of the road.
A brief search on news content on Google does not give fruitful results. The only reliable source is an old news about a fire that hit a commercial building along the street; the rest of the news search results are mostly hotel sites, travel sites, social media advertisements of establishments found along the road, and other obviously unreliable and unencyclopedic sources. All in all, "Zobel Roxas Street" is not notable per GEOROAD. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 02:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Not notable - no significant coverage of the subject and possibly promotional Pprsmv ( talk) 19:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
01:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
01:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Comments | Source |
---|---|
Appears to be part of a database of actors, questionable SIGCOV | https://exclaim.ca/comedy/article/max_silvestri-jfl42_the_garrison_toronto_on_september_26 |
Promo, "people to watch" type article | https://dbknews.com/0999/12/31/arc-lvfrh6zdvvdzjmqjjc3mgs7o3a/ |
Promo, "people to watch" type article | https://www.vulture.com/2014/12/11-best-stand-up-specials-of-2014.html |
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd be interested in seeing another review of the sources in the article and this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Little indication of notability. The Jordan Times reference reads more like an ad and comes from a source of questionable reliability, and the second source only mentions it in passing. I could find an article by the UN environment programme [47], but I don't think that comes anywhere close to establishing notability. OzzyOlly ( talk) 01:54, 20 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 01:31, 27 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. JTtheOG ( talk) 01:13, 20 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 01:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG; questionable sourcing; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 01:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of South Africa national rugby sevens players. Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 27 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. JTtheOG ( talk) 00:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to KT Corporation. — CactusWriter (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
As with many regional B2B companies, this one does not appear to meet the WP:NCORP standards of notability. While there are a lot of sources, they are almost exclusively to WP:TRADES that do not help establish notability. Moreover, virtually all of the coverage is of the WP:ORGTRIV variety (hirings, market expansions, product offerings, acquisitions, etc.), or they are Q&A interviews and thus primary sources. A WP:BEFORE search found that the author has put just about every available source into this story and even then it doesn't come close to NCORP. As a result, I propose to merge any encyclopedic content into KT Corporation, Epsilon's parent. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 00:58, 20 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 00:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
This is not actually Axtell High School, as near as I can tell, but Axtell Community School. There is an actual school that is a combination of junior high and high school in Axtell. It's at a different address. See here. In any event, the article is a nothing, consisting of one sentence that says it's a school. If the community decide for some reason to retain the article, the name needs to be corrected, and I'm not sure about the data in the infobox. Bbb23 ( talk) 00:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was redirect to S/V Merlin. Editors are welcome to selectively merge content from the history of the article to the target. signed, Rosguill talk 17:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. I had declined this at AfC and still don't see references showing notability despite being moved to mainspace by another editor. CNMall41 ( talk) 00:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
*Keep subject meets notability requirements for an athlete and has been covered in a variety of sailing publications and websites. I feel it is worth noting that off the bat CNMall41 immediately accused me without evidence of having a personal connection to the subject and seems to bear some personal grudge against this article, previously having said they would step away from being involved in the editorial process.
Sailbanshee (
talk)
01:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
*Keep Article is well cited and establishes notability as a prominent athlete in the world of yacht racing with a verified track record and unique, well documented story covered in a variety of independent, verifiable sources.
Captbloodrock (
talk)
04:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Multiple articles covering subject in yachting and boating websites, coverage in major newspapers, documentation of subject competing and placing in major yachting events…
Captbloodrock (
talk)
04:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
::::: The Tampa Bay Times article, the Museler article(s), the article about his obtaining a new ship for an established boat racing team, the multiple articles about his participation and placing in races… I thought the original article author was being paranoid but I’m beginning to side with them there’s some bias on your part against this article’s subject. I believe this article meets notability requirements which is why I moved it. I’ve stated my case for such and won’t engage in any more nit-picking. You put the article up for a vote, let the vote decide.
Captbloodrock (
talk)
05:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to confirmation that socks dominated the previous keep !votes. Will strike through the sock comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
20:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Tonga national rugby union players. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Citations are profiles. Does not meet requirements of WP:NSPORT. Not other news can be found about them. Shinadamina ( talk) 19:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Georgia national rugby union players. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
All available citations are profiles. Does not meet WP:NSPORT. Shinadamina ( talk) 19:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Georgia national rugby union players as an AtD. Daniel ( talk) 03:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
All available citations are profiles. Does not meet WP:NSPORT. Shinadamina ( talk) 19:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 02:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Note that this same article existed at the title
Godswill Obinna Ejianya, which was moved back to draftspace by the creator within minutes of my initiating
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godswill Obinna Ejianya and then blanked, but was created at this new title almost simultaneously with all of that. So it isn't eligible for immediate speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted content, but the actual issues here haven't changed at all: it's still a semi-advertorialized
WP:BLP of a businessperson, still not
properly sourced as passing notability criteria for businesspeople.
As always, businesspeople are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass
WP:GNG on their sourcing -- but of the six footnotes here, two of them (actually one, reduplicated as two distinct footnotes for no obvious reason) are just "covering" him in the context of turning 50, which is not a notability claim in and of itself, and the other four are all covering him in the context of receiving a local "man of the year" award that isn't highly prominent enough to be a notability-making award. And even more interestingly, those four sources are all virtually identical in wording despite seemingly coming from four different media outlets, meaning that it's really either a wire service article or a self-published press release from the subject. But four media outlets reprinting the same article adds up to one GNG point, not four — we're counting the number of distinct articles, not the number of newspapers that reprint the same article — which means he hasn't actually been shown to pass GNG.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more sourcing than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
13:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
BLP of an Islamic scholar who does not appear to be notable either as an author or for anything else really. Mccapra ( talk) 23:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG, no usable citations included in the article; an internet search turned up database entries for "THE GRACIES AND THE BIRTH OF VALE TUDO", but no coverage that could serve towards writing an article about that film or Bota. Page also apparently has a history of WP:UPE. signed, Rosguill talk 17:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Deleted at AfD in 2022, but recreated recently. However, the sources are no better – they are all primary interviews with the author or PR websites (or both) and don't pass RS. The only claim of notability is a supposed endorsement from a Fox News reporter, but I can't find any direct proof of this, only reports of it by Zarah herself or in other non-RS sources. Richard3120 ( talk) 17:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD before, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:47, 20 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 00:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
No sources beyond the ones here, which are not independent. Unfortunately, this means she fails WP:GNG and a lack of google scholar cites means she doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC either. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 18:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Shivaji University as an AtD. Given limited participation after one relist, this is in effect a 'soft' redirect. Daniel ( talk) 03:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability. College affiliated with a university. I'm normally pretty lenient regarding GNG sourcing for schools but this one has zero independent sources much less GNG sources. And I couldn't find any. North8000 ( talk) 18:50, 13 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, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 03:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
All available citations are profiles. Does not meet WP:NSPORT. Shinadamina ( talk) 19:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit 23:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I found technical papers using the term "cooperative web" in a few different ways (e.g. as an extension to the semantic web), but this article refers to one or more attempts to create a collaborative real-time editor, particularly IBM's Blue Spruce project and its obscure successor OpenCoWeb. It might be possible to create an article about Blue Spruce, but this article's title and content are not appropriate for such an article. There's also the older, wiki-inspired collaborative service CoWeb, which stands for "Collaborative website", but this service is unrelated to IBM's project. Helpful Raccoon ( talk) 20:15, 6 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, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Any editor who wishes a draft version may contact me or another administrator. — CactusWriter (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Newly created article, PROD declined. Sourcing does not establish WP:GNG being met. WP:BEFORE brings up only a couple of brief reviews of their EP. – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:11, 20 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! 07:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to List of battles in Belgium (deleted recently). NLeeuw ( talk) 22:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Where are all of our AFD regulars? We need more AFD discussion participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was moot. While we normally suggest avoid making such changes during an AfD, the pages have been merged and redirected and there is clearly no inclination here to do anything else. I am closing this discussion because it is moot due to editorial actions in the interim, anyone should feel free to start another discussion of any type. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 ( t • c) 07:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Sources in article are primary, nothing found that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth from an independent source that meets WP:GNG. I am also nominating the following related pages:
// Timothy :: talk 22:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more participants here besides the content creator and the nominator. It looks like the nominator didn't set up any deletion sorting, can a helpful editor like
Wcquidditch take care of that for this discussion? Many thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. This is a tricky one, but given the convincing challenges to every option that isn't "delete", I see a weak consensus for that. There is no substantive challenge either to the applicability of the MOS sectioned below, or for the sourcing issues. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 17:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to List of battles in Belgium (deleted recently). NLeeuw ( talk) 22:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see no consensus here yet. I'll just mention that similar articles nominated at AFD involving different countries have closed as "Delete".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Owen× ☎ 21:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Article is completely unsourced and subject does not seem to be notable. Quick Google News skim shows only two vague news articles about this Foundation [5] [6]. GoldRomean ( talk) 22:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please assess recent changes to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep based on new sources found during AFD. — CactusWriter (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Footballer that does not appear to have played a full professional game. Sources are mostly local papers and match reports. Black Kite (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Gurung played centre-back for the first time in senior football... local lad Gurung has been a fixture in Elokobi’s side this season.... it’s turning into a breakthrough campaign for the former Maidstone Grammar School pupil") , [15], ("Gurung is a product of the club’s youth set-up where he was spotted and offered a scholarship by Crystal Palace in 2017. He has since headed back to Maidstone via spells playing in Scandinavia and nailed down a regular spot despite the club’s arduous end to last season in the National League. His fitting finish set social media alight but while he has enjoyed being the centre of attention, Gurung is quick to share the plaudits.") among many more sources. Young player witn ongoing career and clearly siginficnt figure in Nepali football. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 21:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Every source is a press release of crummy business award except for one - an interview with the founder published in Entrepreneur India. Given WP:NEWSORGINDIA and the general surface level, uncritical tone of the article I'm skeptical this is quality coverage. BrigadierG ( talk) 21:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete per WP:TOOSOON and Draftify to Draft:Arya Igami Tarhani — CactusWriter (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
This footballer does not appear to have played a professional senior game, only junior ones. Black Kite (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Rafael van der Vaart#Personal life. Any editor who wishes to have a restored version placed in Draft space may contact me or another administrator. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
This 17-year-old footballer doesn't appear to have even played a full professional game for any club. It seems that most of the news stories about him are due to him being the son of Rafael van der Vaart. Black Kite (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was Delete. I'm going to include the draft in the deletion. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable voice actor. No sufficient coverage from reliable sources to warrant a standalone article. Fails WP:NACTOR. CycloneYoris talk! 20:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to take up that much space, and this guy is pretty notable. Why can't he have a small Wikipedia page considering his fanbase and following? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veryfunkypants ( talk • contribs) 20:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
91 subscribers on youtube. Why is it so much trouble just to keep this one small page?
There is an article for an Estonian politician with literally one sentence on it /info/en/?search=Avo_%C3%9Cprus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veryfunkypants ( talk • contribs) 20:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
*Note: an attempt was made to speedily dele with this discussion open. —
Railroadr20 (
talk) 21:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Struck sock.
Hatman31 (
talk)
20:24, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF and several others, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. Modest history peaking on the 6th tier. Geschichte ( talk) 20:47, 20 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! 23:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF and several others, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. Modest history peaking on the 6th tier. Geschichte ( talk) 20:45, 20 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! 23:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF and several others, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. Modest history peaking on the 6th tier. Geschichte ( talk) 20:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NOT as a how-to guide, cannot be made into an encyclopedic article in any meaningful way that shouldn't be at Confluence (software). Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 20:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
No significant coverage. Non-notable web software. SL93 ( talk) 19:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. After two relists, both the balance of arguments and the !vote count favor deletion, with keep !voters declining to address arguments analyzing the timing and depth of the published sources covering the subject. signed, Rosguill talk 17:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPOL as a former candidate who got exactly 0 votes. Since her 2021 run, she did absolutely nothing that is notable, so I'm renominating this article for deletion. All the sources fit squarely in WP:BLP1E territory. Mottezen ( talk) 04:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
even if the coverage relates to one event (where both the event & the role of the subject is significant); such articles are usually kept.and
Invoking WP:BLP1E here isn't right because she pretty clearly has a significant role in the selection. Remember, she got no votes and no country endorsements, so her role in the event was insignificant. Even the UN ambassador for her own country didn't reply to her request for a meeting to discuss her candidacy.
Comment: To those who argue her run for Secretary-general is "well-documented"... it's just not, especially in the crucial stages of her campaign. Let me illustrate: these are the dates the 9 secondary sources in the article were published:
Note that there is only one source published in June 2021, the month the vote took place, and thus the month that attention to the UNSG selection was most warranted. Sadly, the most crucial period of her campaign is barely documented. The June New Yorker source is also one of the lesser quality sources because it merely recounts a day the author spent with her; it's storytelling rather than journalistic work. Mottezen ( talk) 05:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There are widely diverging opinions/arguments in this discussion on whether or not this subject meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. Editors who are proposing a Merge/Redirect outcome must provide a link to the target article they are proposing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
19:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Per WP:TOOSOON. Any editor who wishes to restore this article in Draft space may contact me or another administrator. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails GNG, sources in article are passing mentions in routine sports news, nothing meeting WP:SIRS.
Source eval:
Comments | Source |
---|---|
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth | 1. "Ireland to host South Africa in Abu Dhabi". ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 13 May 2024. |
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth | 2. ^ "ICC confirm Ireland's fixture list for next four years". Belfast Telegraph. 18 August 2022. Retrieved 13 May 2024. |
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth | 3. ^ "Ireland to host South Africa in Abu Dhabi in September". CricTracker. Retrieved 13 May 2024. |
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth | 4. ^ "T20 World Cup in focus as Ireland outline busy summer schedule". International Cricket Council. Retrieved 13 May 2024. |
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth | 5. ^ "Fixtures released for 2024". Cricket Ireland. Retrieved 13 May 2024. |
Draft has been disputed. It is very unlikely this match will generate WP:SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 04:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
19:43, 20 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! 23:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable footballer who has been attached to clubs at a higher level, but has never appeared above the (part-time) Scottish fourth tier. No evidence of significant coverage - the two references are to an article about his brother, in which he gets a passing mention, and a match report of a Highland League game. I have been unable to find much else other than this BBC article [ [16]] about him joining Inverness Caledonian Thistle as loan back-up; he was a substitute for them in the SPL, but made no appearances. Jellyman ( talk) 19:33, 20 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! 23:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 ( talk) 19:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of high commissioners of Australia to Brunei. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Appears to fail WP:GNG as the references are mostly poor quality passing mentions, and collectively these references don't constitute significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Uhooep ( talk) 19:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Football tournament for children supported by a couple of primary sources. Utterly insignificant within the football world, fails WP:SIGCOV. Geschichte ( talk) 19:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:PRIMARY, WP:GNG, WP:UNDUE, WP:SELFPUB, WP:USERGENERATED, WP:FAIL etc. I think this article should be WP:TNTed; I tried salvaging it by throwing out all unreliable sources (a large group of WP:USERGENERATED/ WP:SELFPUB Polish-language websites with little to no editorial review or control over contents published by users or website owners), but there is almost nothing of historical value left. Even the sources that I think might be WP:RS enough seem to WP:FAIL consistently in confirming what the article claims, e.g. Bolesław making all of Kievan Rus' a tributary state of Poland and collecting taxes. Although some sort of Polish military action in Kievan Rus' seems to have taken place in 1077, there is no reason to believe king Bolesław II the Bold was personally participating in it, nor was there a siege of the city of Kiev (Kyiv). If anything, there was fighting over Chernigov. By far, most details appear to have been made up by Polish chronicler Jan Długosz writing 400 years later. (I've added some information in the lead section about that). It is plain that the entire article is not really about the dynastic succession crisis that happened in Kievan Rus' at the time; instead, there are all sorts of fanciful tales about excessive celebrations of victory and sexual immorality within the Polish army (immorality that is blamed on the Rus'/Ruthenians that they allegedly conquered) that are not historically credible as narrated. Pretty much all of this information appears directly or indirectly based on the unreliable chronicle of Długosz.
Moreover,
User:SebbeKg created this article on 19 February 2024, 3 days before he was blocked indefinitely for Adding poorly sourced content, false accusations of vandalism.
Judging by
User talk:SebbeKg, several other of his articles (beginning on 17 December 2023) have been PRODded or nomination for deletion for that reason, but so far, it appears none have actually been deleted (unlike several templates that have been). I think this one should go. It is full of original research and bad sources. The little factual value there may be, is probably not enough for a stand-alone article (
WP:NOPAGE), and can be better incorporated in related articles about the members of the dynasties involved. (It might be necessary to critically review SebbeKg's other articles as well, but that's for a follow-up discussion).
NLeeuw (
talk)
18:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Despite the wealth of sources about this subject, I could not find one that is independent (i.e. not published by an institution or company he's affiliated with). There are one or two interviews, but these also do not count towards notability. The WP:GNG is not met, and I do not think any criteria from WP:NPROF apply here. Toadspike [Talk] 18:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. There is a consensus that the page should link or otherwise incorporate the sublists rather than be deleted, although there isn't a consensus on the exact process for this, which editors may attempt to take care of through either WP:BOLD editing or initiating a talk page discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 16:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I have split the article into articles by state: List of libraries in Western Australia, List of libraries in Northern Territory, List of libraries in Australian Capital Territory, List of libraries in Tasmania, List of libraries in South Australia, List of libraries in Victoria, List of libraries in New South Wales, and List of libraries in Queensland. -- NotCharizard 🗨 18:24, 20 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! 23:29, 27 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. Not to be confused with the Namibian golfer of the same name. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:18, 20 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 23:31, 27 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. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:10, 20 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 23:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Was never elected into a political office that makes one inherently notable TheWikiholic ( talk) 18:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Was never elected into a political office that makes one inherently notable TheWikiholic ( talk) 18:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:31, 27 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. JTtheOG ( talk) 17:49, 20 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 23:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Promotional page for a company that fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Despite being a WP:REFBOMB, sources fail to support claim of notability. Analysis follows:
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPOL, subject is only a contesting in the imminent election and has not occupied any NPOL-able office. These sources are WP:ROUTINE and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL as they all say almost the same things, her father being a three-time MP and her mother being a two-time Congress MLA, and they also do not provide sufficient WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG, also, notability is not inherited. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 14:47, 20 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 23:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable comedian; fails notability under WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:ENTERTAINER. The vast majority of sources cited in this article are Q&A interview/podcast interviews and thus ineligible to count toward notability as primary sources. There are a handful of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in sources like this and two Chortle reviews for D'Souza's Fringe performances. We would need to see additional WP:SIGCOV for this to clear the bar, and a BEFORE search did not turn any up. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 15:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Complex/ Rational 17:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Cannot draftily without consensus because it is a disputed draftification. This is unreferenced, and there ought to be a better route than AfD for things like this. However here we are. Draftify if it is not properly referenced. If good references are provided please let me know and, if the rules allow me to withdraw the nomination, I will do so. (Obviously AfD is not cleanup, except that in this circumstance it is) 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't use the term CRUFT lightly, but this certainly feels like the definition of it. Nothing covers objects in Torchwood to a significant extent, and the bulk of the items covered here are minor and non-notable. I definitely feel this list should likely be deleted, or at the very least partially merged into the Doctor Who items list, though I'm not feeling confident on that list either. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 17:23, 20 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! 23:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBOOK there is one source linked, beyond that I couldn't find anything. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:14, 20 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 23:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage is limited to unreliable sources. While source #2 presents itself as an academic source, it appears to be self-published, and tellingly includes no bibliography. I was unable to find coverage on Google Scholar, Google Books, or the internet searching in English, Spanish and Filipino. signed, Rosguill talk 17:00, 20 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 23:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG. The citation to The Inquirer is decent, although academic sources should be preferred for religion topics. Otherwise, I can find no coverage of this subject outside the publications of the Philippine Independent Church itself, which are not independent of the subject, having searched in English, Spanish and Filipino on Google Scholar, Books, and the internet, having also searched for plausible colloquialisations of the name, such as "Mahal na Birhen ng Noveleta", "Nanay Paz de Noveleta", etc. signed, Rosguill talk 16:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
BLP of questionable notability. I encountered this page during New Page Review and after discussion with the author provided some time for additional sourcing. However, after a couple weeks the sources provided do not meet the standard for WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. A quick review:
In my analysis, that leaves only Source 10 to count as significant coverage, and we'd need to see more for this to pass notability thresholds. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 16:51, 20 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 23:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
This article is written based on highly promotional, press releases and self published sources. Most of the sites are unreliable, some of them are recirculation of press releases, contain bank account information for collecting donations, some contain external links to the site of the organisation. I think the purpose of creation of this article is to promote the organisation. Topic of This article can be well explained in the article of the owner. Although I am not sure whether the owner's article warrants his own article or not. - AlbeitPK ( talk) 16:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to ASTV (Thailand). Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG. The sole cited source does not appear to actually mention News1 (นิวส์วัน) or its former name 11News1. Web search results for the Thai name did not turn up any usable references, although my ability to search in Thai is admittedly limited. signed, Rosguill talk 16:41, 20 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 23:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
All of the sources in the article appear to be from the company and I couldn't find anything meaningful about the company in either Google or Google News. It's a near orphan, with the only meaningful link being an unsourced mention in the article for Auburn, New York, site of its headquarters. Alansohn ( talk) 16:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Absence of meaningful deletion rationale. Nominated by inexperienced user. Verified, recognized settlements are never deleted. ( non-admin closure) Geschichte ( talk) 16:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete A page for every municipality in every country might not merit a place on Wikipedia. Wikilover3509 ( talk) 15:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Complex/ Rational 16:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
A pure GNIS stub about, well, the only things I could find suggested that "lap corner" is a surveying term, but I couldn't verify that. Anyway, there's nothing there and it seems there never was. Mangoe ( talk) 14:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Complex/ Rational 16:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOMPANY, references are either non-independent or trivial. I did search for the company but found nothing in Google Scholar, Google Books, and Google News that'd lead me to believe it qualifies for GNG. Multiple references were added after a PROD but after reviewing all but three (one was an improper citation and the other was a broken url) I am still of the opinion it fails notability. Traumnovelle ( talk) 14:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Going through all the references I do not believe WP:GNG has been met with the changes.
Extended content
|
---|
Response: The product was developed in the mid-1980s by Jim Peden and Barbara Lynn Peden, who wrote a book, Dogs and Cats Go Vegetarian (1988).
31-32 Don't mention Vegepet anywhere.
|
The article " Vegepet" merits inclusion in Wikipedia due to several reasons:
Given these reasons, the article "Vegepet" should be retained on Wikipedia to continue serving as a valuable resource for individuals interested in vegetarian and vegan pet food options. MaynardClark ( talk) 01:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Quite a few 'delete' votes are about...whether or not the innovative Vegepet product of the 1980s is optimal by today's veterinary nutritional standardssince there's only the nominator and me, and neither of us have mentioned veterinary nutritional standards. Schazjmd (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus reached, and deletion rationale was only two words. ( non-admin closure) Geschichte ( talk) 08:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Not notable Akeosnhaoe ( talk) 13:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
* Delete: As per my checking, I found no reliable secondary sources with in-depth coverage that can establish notability. The sources are just passing mentions, and the subject fails to meet the
WP:GNG criteria. The majority of the article is also unsourced.
GrabUp -
Talk
15:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTNEWS. The majority of news sources are primary. There is a failure of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE with coverage ending three weeks ago and WP:SUSTAINED. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 13:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
This appears to be a non-notable organization with no significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. A Google News search for "Pahle India Foundation" yields only a few passing mentions and routine coverage, but nothing that satisfies the criteria of WP:ORGDEPTH. GSS 💬 12:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Baker, as can be seen in the quotation, does not say that there was an elevator here, and I see no sign of it. At any rate, there's precious little sign of anything else here. Survey says this was just a freight station. Mangoe ( talk) 11:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 11:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I can't find any in-depth coverage for this Slovak men's football player to meet WP:GNG. The only news website I found regarding him is an injury, but something tells me that it's more of a trivial mention. Using the keyword "Lukáš Janošík" on Google, even with "site:.sk", my search results only came up with database, club websites, passing mentions, and *facepalm* random namesakes. Clara A. Djalim ( talk) 09:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 12:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 09:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 11:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing the RS that show why this person would be considered notable against the inclusion criteria. He apparently has an painting in the National Gallery and entries in the directories of the peerage. But WP:NOTGENEOLOGY JMWt ( talk) 09:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found), I think the GNG is a better metric for notability. I can at least find some debates where the 2nd Viscount was involved, but none for the first. I wouldn't vote delete or redirect on an active pre-reform Lord, but here we're very clearly lacking coverage. Pilaz ( talk) 13:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR. Badly sourced, possible sockpuppetry and/or UPE. Fails WP:BIO. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
creative content writer with a versatile writing backgroundand is a promotional fluff piece with claims like her
talent transcends borders,
artistic prowess extends beyond actingand
multifaceted career serves as an inspiration to aspiring artists. Creative writing indeed. The others are mentions and the ones used in the article are WP:UGC. S0091 ( talk) 16:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC) S0091 ( talk) 16:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Absence of meaningful deletion rationale. ( non-admin closure) Geschichte ( talk) 16:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete It is a species of fish. Even Fishbase has no photos. Doesn’t merit a page Wikilover3509 ( talk) 09:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Young footballer played a few minutes in a cup game. Does not yet meet GNG, only gets passing mentions and routine coverage. The article in a club magazine isn't independent. Could also be draftified as an ATD. MarchOfThe Greyhounds 08:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was procedural close as the AfD was started by a now-blocked sock. Number 5 7 22:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:SPORTBASIC because there aren't any reliable secondary sources and fails WP:NTEAM because they only play in the minor-leagues. Plus, I searched for them online and there are no reliable secondary sources that feature the team in any kind of significant depth, unless you count the Barnsley Chronicle which I don't. Dafydd y Corach ( talk) 07:43, 20 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 00:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails GNG as well WP:NEVENT - not WP:LASTING — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 15:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:39, 20 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 11:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a writer, not
properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for writers. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass
WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work in third-party media -- but this is referenced entirely to sources directly affiliated with the claims, such as the promotional pages of the subject's books on the self-published websites of their own publishers, with not even one hit of proper GNG-building media coverage shown at all.
There is a literary award in the mix here which would be a valid notability claim if the article were properly sourced, but as a specialty award it still isn't "inherently" notable enough to confer an instant inclusion freebie in the absence of any GNG-worthy sourcing.
Bearcat (
talk)
12:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. SK2/4 (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 ( t • c) 15:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to be a notable company. I searched for sources using all alternatives: "CERT," "CERTIN," and "CERT India," but couldn't find anything that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. Dafydd y Corach ( talk) 07:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. The arguments to delete are a lot stronger than those to keep, with the one exception of Culllen's suggestion that this be pruned to a list of notable publications; and even there, other editors point out that such a list may duplicate existing articles. The usefulness of this list as a resource for editors is not a persuasive argument at AfD, though I would gladly provide a userspace copy for anyone who wishes to turn this into a project-space resource. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 17:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
This is a list covering every publication ever published by Jehovah's Witnesses. I do not think it merits inclusion per WP:NLIST. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
08:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
07:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I would also be shocked if there weren't plenty of sources which discuss Watch Tower Society publications as a group, see Vyselink's comment above. Feel free to try and prove me wrong, but I'm fairly certain about this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 15:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Seems like a reasonably successful consulting company, but that doesn't seem to have translated into any coverage of the company in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Announcements of things they did are good and all, but they're not really the type of content that would meet our criteria for inclusion. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 15:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas(of the subject of the article) is, by definition in policy, WP:PRIMARY. Any source that has a relationship other than the "actually writing the article" part of things (including, but not limited to
vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees) is generally not going to be considered independent by the applicable guidelines. Those independent, secondary sources are required to go into substantial depth in their analysis, which excludes routine announcements of ordinary business activities. ("routine announcements" being the ones that would accompany such activities most of the time) None of the sources available meet all four of the requirements, and believe me, I had looked quite extensively. (though I do not claim it exhaustive) Alpha3031 ( t • c) 13:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep !votes outnumber delete views so far, but what exactly is Whiteshield notable for?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
06:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ✗ plicit 05:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Italian rugby player who fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I found this interview and a couple of transactional announcements ( 1, 2, 3), but nothing substantial. JTtheOG ( talk) 02:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
04:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ✗ plicit 05:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
lack of notability. little to no 3rd party articles detailing artist Minmarion ( talk) 02:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
04:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. I see a consensus that sufficient sources exist to merit keeping the article and that OR and SYNTH issues, while present in the current article, are not insurmountable. Complex/ Rational 16:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
PRODded with the following statement:
Not notable. Only a single reference, a book by this name. Science is the study of things that do no match common sense: "weirdness" is not thing in physics. We have plenty of articles on QM.
— User:Johnjbarton 17:52, 16 March 2024
Then it was deprodded by a user who added a large volume of references that are about quantum mechanics and also have this cliché in the title:
deprod; notability of a topic is not defined by the number of references in the article but by the coverage in multiple independent reliable sources
— User:Lambiam 12:30, 18 March 2024
The actual problem is that the article is just a WP:DICDEF — nothing here shows that there is a distinct concept from QM itself. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 10:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
04:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to West Yorkshire derbies#Leeds Rhinos and Wakefield Trinity. There is general agreement that this can serve as a redirect, although there is no consensus as to how much information would be WP:DUE to include there. signed, Rosguill talk 15:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
No evidence that this is a particularly notable rivalry, if it can even be considered one at all. J Mo 101 ( talk) 14:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
I have moved the content relating to the Boxing Day friendlies to Festive Challenge. Thanks to @ EdwardUK:'s work, I think this is well sourced enough to be kept, so I'm withdrawing my nomination for that part of the article. Now it's just whether the remaining content should be merged or deleted. I personally don't think it's a strong enough rivalry to be included even on the West Yorkshire page. J Mo 101 ( talk) 14:09, 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!
04:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft. While it has been asserted by the minority of keep !voters that there are sources that establish GNG, sources that go beyond mere-mentions have not been identified in this discussion, and it seems likely that some coverage of Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft may have been mistaken for coverage of this title, the expanded Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft that is the focus of this discussion. It has been noted that this title is a redirect on de.wiki to the relevant Donaudampf... root article. Between delete, merge and redirect, the discussion focused on whether there has been any mention of this specific variation in RS; such mention has been identified, but there does not appear to be agreement that there is sufficient coverage beyond such a mention to justify merging (of course, editors who find coverage supporting the inclusion of WP:DUE material at the target are welcome to add such material there as a bold edit). signed, Rosguill talk 15:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Only appears to be mentioned in the context of long German words; I can't find a source which gives significant coverage of this "nonexistent sub-organization of the DDSG" beyond its name being long and funny. As Wikipedia is WP:NOTADICTIONARY, this might be best saved for Wikitionary or maybe a brief mention on an article about German compound nouns. Generalissima ( talk) (it/she) 21:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
03:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The name of the company is well known in German-speaking countries as a starter to humorously construct even longer compound words.Even if this specific word was made-up for the Guinness Book of World Records (which seems plausible), I would support a redirect if there is other sourcing for that statement. It is hard to tell from an English-language Google search whether there is anything other than "people quoting Wikipedia" there. Walsh90210 ( talk) 20:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Das Wort ist ein beliebtes Beispiel für komplexe Mehrfachkomposita und deren Probleme im Bereich der Linguistik und Computerlinguistik in Thesauren, Übersetzungsprogrammen und Suchabfragen. In Österreich, wo die Gesellschaft beheimatet war, ist es wahrscheinlich das Paradebeispiel. Es wird gerne als Ausgangspunkt für Wortspielereien wie die Ableitung noch längerer künstlich zusammengesetzter – aber grammatikalisch korrekter – Hauptwörter wieMr.choppers | ✎ 17:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänsanwärterposten
Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänskajütenschlüsselloch
Donaudampfschifffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft
Oberdonaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänsmützenkokarde
und ähnlichem genutzt.
The result was keep. given sources added. Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Subject should have at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of it, excluding database sources. Lacks references. Shinadamina ( talk) 18:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26 (
spin me /
revolutions)
03:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Ninoy Aquino International Airport#Ground transport. Liz Read! Talk! 03:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GEOROAD. The guideline states: "Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject." The only two sources used here do not support the article: from DPWH ( non-independent) and from the Philippine Star (does not mention NAIA or MIA Road even once, only references the proposed rehabilitation of the airport that gave the road its name). JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 02:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Looking for news sources on Google is of no help too:
The rest of the sources, includes some foreign sources about unrelated matter (from Malta et cetera), strangely. _ JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 03:07, 20 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 03:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Does not appear to pass WP:GEOROAD guideline which states: "Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject."
The four existing sources here do not support the article: both the DPWH sources are non-independent since the DPWH is the government agency that maintains and manages the national roads like Zobel Roxas Street (see WP:INDEPENDENT). The third source is from a real estate company, but the current "About us" page does not state the origins of the road (failed verification). The fourth citation is a vintage US-published map, and it is uncertain if it can be used as a reliable source for the history of the road.
A brief search on news content on Google does not give fruitful results. The only reliable source is an old news about a fire that hit a commercial building along the street; the rest of the news search results are mostly hotel sites, travel sites, social media advertisements of establishments found along the road, and other obviously unreliable and unencyclopedic sources. All in all, "Zobel Roxas Street" is not notable per GEOROAD. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 02:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Not notable - no significant coverage of the subject and possibly promotional Pprsmv ( talk) 19:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
01:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
01:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Comments | Source |
---|---|
Appears to be part of a database of actors, questionable SIGCOV | https://exclaim.ca/comedy/article/max_silvestri-jfl42_the_garrison_toronto_on_september_26 |
Promo, "people to watch" type article | https://dbknews.com/0999/12/31/arc-lvfrh6zdvvdzjmqjjc3mgs7o3a/ |
Promo, "people to watch" type article | https://www.vulture.com/2014/12/11-best-stand-up-specials-of-2014.html |
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd be interested in seeing another review of the sources in the article and this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Little indication of notability. The Jordan Times reference reads more like an ad and comes from a source of questionable reliability, and the second source only mentions it in passing. I could find an article by the UN environment programme [47], but I don't think that comes anywhere close to establishing notability. OzzyOlly ( talk) 01:54, 20 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 01:31, 27 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. JTtheOG ( talk) 01:13, 20 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 01:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG; questionable sourcing; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 01:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of South Africa national rugby sevens players. Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 27 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. JTtheOG ( talk) 00:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to KT Corporation. — CactusWriter (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
As with many regional B2B companies, this one does not appear to meet the WP:NCORP standards of notability. While there are a lot of sources, they are almost exclusively to WP:TRADES that do not help establish notability. Moreover, virtually all of the coverage is of the WP:ORGTRIV variety (hirings, market expansions, product offerings, acquisitions, etc.), or they are Q&A interviews and thus primary sources. A WP:BEFORE search found that the author has put just about every available source into this story and even then it doesn't come close to NCORP. As a result, I propose to merge any encyclopedic content into KT Corporation, Epsilon's parent. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 00:58, 20 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 00:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
This is not actually Axtell High School, as near as I can tell, but Axtell Community School. There is an actual school that is a combination of junior high and high school in Axtell. It's at a different address. See here. In any event, the article is a nothing, consisting of one sentence that says it's a school. If the community decide for some reason to retain the article, the name needs to be corrected, and I'm not sure about the data in the infobox. Bbb23 ( talk) 00:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)