![]() |
The result was delete and draftify to Draft:Fahim Rahim per consensus agreement between participants and nominator. — CactusWriter (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Advertisement (and possible self-written resume) of an unnotable kidney doctor and small scale philanthropist. Article itself was written by one User:Khocon, a sockpuppeteer. We also have an article for Fahim's brother which might also be worthy of deletion. - Samoht27 ( talk) 16:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Shah Jahan#Early military campaigns. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Another WP:OR because there's no mention of "Siege of Baglana" or "Mughal conquest of Baglana" in the sources. Also it lacks notability as only found a line around this event, that "Aurangzeb easily overran the kingdom". Based Kashmiri ( talk) 18:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:MUSIC. All of her songs are self-published and appear to have received very little attention from reliable sources. Search results for her stage name are almost exclusively the songs themselves or her social media, and results for her legal name largely pertain to her career as a makeup artist. Majora4 ( talk) 23:33, 23 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! 22:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 15:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KVHC-LD is now closed and this one can run.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
18:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Swati tribe. Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
No significant coverage of this group. This page previously redirected to Swati tribe; any reliably sourced and encyclopedic content should once again be merged to that page. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 18:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
18:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Italian rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was routine transfer news ( 1, 2, 3). JTtheOG ( talk) 20:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Full of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR mess, fails notability as we don't find "Maratha invasion of Awadh" in the sources (clearly made up by the starter of article), instead there are several other events like "Invasion of Bhadawar", "raid on Delhi" and "Battle of Jalesar". Clearly the author has mixed up several battles and conflicts to get this resulted article. Based Kashmiri ( talk) 18:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
permission to merge it. And stop removing the AFD template. Based Kashmiri ( talk) 17:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete - The article "Maratha invasion of Awadh" is not supported by any reliable sources rather the user who created the page just pushed his POV by adding different battles together in a single article. Moreover The New Cambridge History of India Vol 2 Part 4 pg 125 clearly states that Bajirao 1737 expedition (including Delhi) was indecisive not a Mughal victory, also this is a reliable source. Here is the exact quotation from the book; The campaign of 1737 was indecisive, though Bajirao attacked Delhi, even briefly holding the Emperor to ransom.
So even results are not appropriate in the different individual battles which are mixed up and displayed here.
Mohammad Umar Ali (
talk)
I better say that delete this as this totally consisted on WP:SYNTH or merge this in Battle of Bhopal as this was the prelude of the campaign. The whole of Bajirao campaign in Delhi was resulted in Bhopal and annexation of Malwa according to Jaswant Lal Mehta and other WP:RS. पापा जी ( talk) 04:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Owen×
☎
22:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Subject does not appear to meet WP:NCRIC. He has played in domestic-level cricket.. but does not appear to meet the notability requirement maintained by the cricket wikiproject. Jip Orlando ( talk) 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Owen×
☎
22:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is the subject fails WP:NACTOR and it is also noted there is insufficient significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. — CactusWriter (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
On the fact of it, she appeared in multiple TV shows but she fails to have 'significant role' in them therefore do no meet WP:ACTOR . BTW, this was deleted back in 2020. The creator BeauSuzanne ( talk · contribs) wasn't only able to recreate it but they also did their best to conceal the previous deletion discussion, which speaks volumes about their dubious editing nature. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 20:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Speedy deletion is not appropriate and you haven't even specified an appropriate criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Yakkha people. The article on the Rai people does not currently mention Dewan. If the mention is added, and/or there are other meaning of Dewan people, this redirect can be made into a disambiguation page. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 09:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
The source provided seems to be the only source about these people that provides any depth and even that is only tangential. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 20:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
This actor-cum-model does not meets WP:ACTOR as I am unable verify their "major roles" in TV shows as require by WP:ACTOR - nor does their coverage satisfy the basic WP:GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 20:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:30, 23 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 00:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
All this article does is confirm it exists with no third party coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar ( talk) 23:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Sources are user-generated, primary sources or trivial coverage (the phone book??). BEFORE search turns up no other evidence of notability as an artist or generally. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 00:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does the article clean up and new sources added since its nomination change anyone's opinion about notability here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. After discarding !votes with no basis in policy (which occurred on both sides of the discussion), there is a narrow balance of both !votes and arguments in favor of deletion, taking into consideration that most of the valid keep !votes were phrased as "weak" keeps and acknowledged the paucity of available sourcing. signed, Rosguill talk 17:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
as much as i love yuno, the only reliable source that talks about him is this, which makes him not notable Authenyo ( talk) 00:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
https://www.sportskeeda.com/us/music/news-who-yuno-miles-fans-react-youtuber-releases-hilarious-drake-diss-response-metro-boomin-s-challenge | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
https://www.rapreviews.com/2023/11/yuno-miles-yuno-i-cant-rap/ | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✔ Yes |
https://www.sescoops.com/wwe/rapper-yuno-miles-releases-wwe-diss-track-im-beefing-with-the-wwe | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✔ Yes |
https://pitchfork.com/features/article/the-age-of-shitpost-modernism/ | ![]() |
![]() |
~ One example with only one mention | ~ Partial |
https://gizmodo.com/saga-bbl-drizzy-drake-kendrick-lamar-metro-boomin-1851470820 | ![]() |
![]() |
~ Only one mention as "The Meme Diss Track"; in the article's slides. | ~ Partial |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
... per Wikipedia policy regarding self-published sources, these reviews should never be used as third-party sources about living people.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this discussion needs more time so I'm relisting it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I can't believe I have to say this but Wikipedia doesn't care that you personally think this article subject is notable. Our subjective judgments are irrelevant to AFD decisions. The question is, are there sufficient reliable sources to establish notability? Are the sources located by
User:pythoncoder and any other editors adequate to demonstrate GNG? That's the important question here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
"He is notable in my opinion; while I am not a fan of his music he does have almost 1 million followers on spotify and has been drawn even further into the public eye by his Drake diss."Notability is not ones opinion. If that, then, my father is notable in my mind. The second was
I don't think that this page should be entirely erased. It has a good structure, some notability, and there's other pages that should probably be deleted. I vote no for this page deletion. Also why did that OJSimpsonLover fella get blocked??? It says for vandalism but he was just giving his opinion.Here, we don't believe in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. If the editor thinks the other articles like that merits deletion, so be it, nominate it or leave it. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 03:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep Yuno Miles' music is unique. Also his song was trending on YouTube and hit music charts. Also he will hit 1m subs soon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedun ( talk • contribs)
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
http://www.onestowatch.com/en/blog/meet-yuno-miles-the-internets-favorite-rapper | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
https://www.theneedledrop.com/interviews/2023/11/a-conversation-with-yuno-miles | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrJWNQSIoNE | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
The result was redirect to Characters of Red Dead Redemption 2. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
The character lacks significant coverage and is not independently notable from John Marston or the video games. The article consists entirely of original research, with only a handful of references taken from a different article (all of which only mention Jack in passing, or not at all). Based on my research of the topic, I don't believe any significant coverage exists, and any further passing mentions can be covered on this list. – Rhain ☔ ( he/him) 22:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Very new/small start-up business that fails WP:NORG and WP:SIGCOV. The coverage of this small company (of perhaps 12 employees?) is the type of "startup receives seed funding" business reporting that is common for any similar business. What limited coverage does exist relates to the company's previous brand name - to the extent that the only source (connecting the title of the article with the entity discussed in the article) is the org's own LinkedIn page. If we do not have sufficient reliable/independent sources to even establish that a company of this name exists (and is the same company covered in the other few sources), then SIGCOV is not met. Clearly WP:TOOSOON. (Would have PRODed, but the creator of the article moved it to the main article namespace [over DRAFT]. And re-added [at best] quasi-promotional text about the org being "award-winning". Therefore not "uncontroversial".) Guliolopez ( talk) 20:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
A passing reference by Baker to a "community" at this intersection (and the GNIS coords are inaccurate: the location is ESE of the label which they used as the location) is not enough. There's nothing much there, and I wasn't able to find anything myself. Mangoe ( talk) 20:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ordinarily, I'd close as a Redirect to Studio Yotta but that article has also been brought to AFD for consideration. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:CREATIVE and the sources appear to be mostly self-published, not reliable, or passing mentions Jayjg (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
KEP95 ( talk) 04:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was nomination withdrawn thanks to FanDePopLatino's work. Mach61 17:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
These articles lack any relevant citations, as I raised on their creator's talk page two months ago, so they are in violation of the verifiability policy. Mach61 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk)
19:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY and announcments, some being nothing more than a guide; none of these helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 18:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 47 references have been added and the list has been significantly improved. Deserves further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk)
19:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted: WP:BDP, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SUSTAINED, WP:TOSOON, et cetera, etc. El_C 01:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
No evidence of Wp:SUSTAINED coverage currently (also see WP:NOTNEWS) and can be recreated in the future if this turns out to have significant impacts. Clearly fulls under the purview of WP:BDP ("Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime") and thus we should presume in favor of privacy. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:44, 23 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! 23:37, 30 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) 17:09, 23 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 23:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP: N. I found some mentions in some Linux-related books, but nothing that covers the software in-depth. The review in Linux Magazine is broken, but as it stands I can't find evidence that this meets notability standards, since multiple sources are required to establish notability. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 17:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Complex/ Rational 17:48, 30 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. All I found was a few sentences here. JTtheOG ( talk) 17:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Sudan–United Kingdom relations#Diplomatic missions. Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
No useful secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Only sources are a government list of diplomatic missions and a source purportedly about a protest at the embassy more than a decade ago but which appears unrelated. Previously subject of contested PROD and contested merge/redirect. AusLondonder ( talk) 16:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Hey man im josh ( talk) 17:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
The article does not meet Wikipedia:Notability, and likely violates NPOV.
The result was keep. Hey man im josh ( talk) 19:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
This is an alleged former town in North Carolina, which was allegedly the first town in its county. I couldn't find anything reliable supporting the existence of this community, Henry McCulloh appears to be his own can of worms, but I don't think there's much on him either. It's also worth noting that this article hasn't been edited since 2014, and the one reference (which is not cited inline) is now a dead link. - Samoht27 ( talk) 16:33, 23 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 23:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
None of the references pass the WP:SIRS test, so fails WP:GNG. This should not have been moved out of draftspace. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:24, 23 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 23:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Article is full of puffery and reads like a résumé/ autobiography. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Sgubaldo ( talk) 16:21, 23 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 23:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, contains a concerning amount of copyvioed material and close paraphrasing, created in draftspace and accepted by a sock. mwwv converse∫ edits 15:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Delete per WP:A7, tagged by nominator. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
No evidence that he meets GNG. The sources used are primary (and negligible) and I was unable to find any references that would establish his notability. JSFarman ( talk) 15:29, 23 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 15:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
British actor who does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. BEFORE search turns up no additional references whatsoever in reliable sources. Birth and death information come from IMDb, which is WP:USERGENERATED and thus unreliable. Setting aside IMDb, all we know is that he existed and had minor roles in six films. (The BFI database includes references to his name and roles, but no significant coverage.) Dclemens1971 ( talk) 14:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. CSD G7. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, contact me or make a request at WP:REFUND. Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Company that fails WP:NCORP. On this page, sources 1, 5, and 7 are WP:ORGTRIV coverage of capital raises. Source 2 is coverage of a Faye founder and does not reference the subject. Sources 3 and 10 are commercial, commission-driven review sites paired with Faye's advertising (editorially not under the Wall Street Journal newsroom, caveat lector!). Source 6 is a WP:INTERVIEW. Source 8 provides passing mention of the subject, not significant coverage, and Source 9 appears to be sponsor content/paid placement since there is a clear VentureBeat editorial disclaimer at the bottom. Additional sources found in WP:BEFORE search are sponsor content, trivial coverage, or other reviews on commission-driven websites. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 14:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Complex/ Rational 14:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBIO. The majority of sources are primary or don't provide significant coverage. There is only one source that contributes to notability. — GMH Melbourne ( talk) 14:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
• *Delete. A lot of primary sources; many are self-published - fails WP:BIO. Includes partisan commentary – fails WP:NPOV. Consider adding mention to 1998 Australian waterfront dispute depending on sources. Spinifex&Sand ( talk) 23:18, 23 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 15:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Never elected to any political office that makes one inherently notable, not enough source to establish GNG too. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 21:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
13:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Mojo Hand ( talk) 14:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
The references are pretty much all churnalism about his election campaign. One is about an ethics complaint, so is about him. Two are geofenced from me. After hw won, the remainder are P pieces about the win. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, failed WP:BIO. He was a WP:ROTM attorney, doing his job, now a DA doing his job. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 15:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP ANYBIO, GNG BoraVoro ( talk) 12:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. No prejudice against merging, if anyone wants to pursue that avenue. Mojo Hand ( talk) 13:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
As we now know almost everything is being electrified rather than going to methanol it is not worth spending time to fix the problems with this article - for example /info/en/?search=Talk:Methanol_economy#The_article_is_supposed_to_be_about_methanol_economy,_not_advocacy Chidgk1 ( talk) 11:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 12:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails SIGCOV. This is about one lady(?) who pooped near people's houses. News outlets reported on it in 2017, but this doesn't meet the standard for sustained, significant coverage. Zanahary ( talk) 09:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Additioning sourcing has been found, as the nominator acknowledges, even though the article as written still needs serious rewriting for improvement. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 12:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
In the eight years since the last deletion discussion not a single reliable source has been added to substantiate that this is a term in use in the field of theology. Moreover the page contains what looks like original research.
The two sentences in the lede that say "An agnostic theist believes in the existence of one or more gods, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the god or gods that they believe in." are really just a basic definition of belief in its religious usage.
There are exactly three references on this page;
This reference Benn, Piers (December 1999). Hall, Ronald L. (ed.). "Some Uncertainties about Agnosticism". International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 46 (3). Berlin and New York: Springer Verlag: 171–188. doi:10.1023/A:1003792325966 does not even mention the term agnostic theism.
This reference Seidner, Stanley S. (June 10, 2009) "A Trojan Horse: Logotherapeutic Transcendence and its Secular Implications for Theology doesn't seem to exist. It claims to be archived at the wayback machine but it returns a not found error. Regardless it is being used to cite a suppositional statement about epistemology generally and says nothing about the purported existence of agnostic theism as a concept.
This reference Weatherhead, Leslie (1972). The Christian Agnostic. Abingdon Press. ISBN 978-0-687-06977-4 is being used to cite a statement about the specific characteristics of Christian agnosticism, which has it's own page.
Every other thing I could turn up in a web search is just sourced from this article verbatim. Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
No sources, and Google gives me "No results found for "atomic notebook" "luhmannis"." [16] Fram ( talk) 07:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 12:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
This beetle species is absent from any up-to-date database I can access, and does not show up in any literature searches. The GBIF entry appears to have been removed for unknown reasons some time after the article was created. Barring clear and recent presence in the records, I think this is not a currently accepted taxon. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 07:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Actually, this may be a genus-level issue. Of the first ten species listed at Mordella, one has been reassigned within the genus, two to a different genus, and four have been deleted from GBIF and are otherwise undetectable. Ouch. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 07:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Ray, 1936, is the author of only a few valid names, all of them in the genus Mordellistena. I can't find any confirmation of the existence of this particular name even as a synonym, but it isn't impossible that it was published and has since vanished from online sources. That said, until and unless it can be confirmed, I would support deletion. Dyanega ( talk) 15:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
No evidence of any notability, could not find independent sources with significant attention for the sport. Fram ( talk) 07:29, 23 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! 05:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG ( talk) 06:46, 23 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 00:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
No evidence that this local church passes WP:GNG or WP:NORG. All sources cited are affiliated with the church or diocese and thus not independent. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional sources to support notability. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 15:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:41, 23 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 00:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
No evidence that this local church passes WP:GNG or WP:NORG. All sources cited are affiliated with the church or diocese and thus not independent. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional sources to support notability. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 14:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
The scope of this list is the same as the scope of two sections of Yeomanry. PercyPigUK ( talk) 11:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Coverage only concerns his suicide. See WP:BLP1E. TolWol ( talk) 04:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
BLP that has already been moved into and back out of draftspace so bringing here for consensus. The subject is a successful business leader but that is not the basis for a Wikipedia article. Mccapra ( talk) 04:51, 23 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! 05:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Clearly and blatantly promotional. Reads like a resume. Kingsmasher678 ( talk) 04:07, 23 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 04:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and all coverage seems to be in passing. Kingsmasher678 ( talk) 04:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to History of Alabama Crimson Tide football. Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Alabama did not field a team in 1918, I don't see why an article is necessary when there is no such article for the 1898 season in which Alabama also did not field a team. Gazingo ( talk) 03:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd (at the same time it was sent to AFD) so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors divided between those arguing to Keep versus those advocating a Merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Contested PROD for individual who fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. WP:BEFORE search does not turn up significant coverage. Existing article is a WP:REFBOMB of sources that fail to demonstrate notability. Sources 1/23, 6, 7/9/11, 15 and 25 are non-independent press releases or official bios, 2, 3 and 19 are trivial mentions in long lists; 4, 10, 14, 21 and 28 32 are passing mentions in coverage of other topics, 5 and 8, 27, 33 and 34 are WP:INTERVIEWS and thus primary sources; 13, 16, 17, 20, 22, 26, 29, 30 and 31 are self-authored material by the subject. 24 does not mention the subject. Only 12 might qualify as SIGCOV, but we need multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 01:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. BusterD ( talk) 20:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. PROD was contested with sources from IMDB and of relatives being added, which do not establish notability. GMH Melbourne ( talk) 00:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Not exactly sure how to close a previously PROD'd article with a discussion with no participation at all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Completely unsourced, and tagged as such since 2012 without ever having any sources added, article about a minor local public access television program. As always, television shows are not automatically notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability, so nothing here is "inherently" notable without sourcing for it. Bearcat ( talk) 02:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. There were weak arguments coming from both the Keep and Delete perspectives, hence the No consensus closure. But I'm persuaded by comments by Reywas92. It's important not to consider this list article in isolation and compare it to regular articles but to consider whether this articlee is just as valid and well-constructed as similar list articles on other subjects. Liz Read! Talk! 05:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
This article fails WP:NLIST and WP:SELCRIT. I can't find reliable sources that track the list's topic (the longest marriages of all time) nor can I find sources that set 80 years as an appropriate lower bound. It also likely fails WP:LISTPEOPLE's two criteria.
This article, then under the title "List of people with the longest marriages", was previously successfully nominated for deletion along similar lines. Despite an attempt to shift the scope and an ultimate restoration of the article remarkably soon after a DRV, I don't think it has succeeded. It's still essentially a list of longest marriages. Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 04:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
The article subject is a non-notable entrepreneur and PhD student. I could not find any reliable sources containing significant coverage of the subject. None of the sources currently cited in the article establish notability: [23] and [24] are interviews in trade publications that read like puff pieces. [25] does not have any clear editorial standards, is based on an interview, and also reads like a puff piece. [26] is a bio and abstract for a talk he gave at a seminar. [27] is an interview with the organizers of the same seminar. [28] is the subject's company's website. [29] is an advertising website. [30] is a slideshow about a project that the subject worked on. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 03:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of largest stars. ✗ plicit 00:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NASTRO and therefore not WP:GNG; hardly any coverage in reliable sources. Article likely only exists on the basis of it being a very large star. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 09:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
00:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can't redirect to
List of largest known stars as that page is a redirect. At least when I edit Wikipedia, redirects show up as a different color font (green links) rather than articles (blue links).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG; questionable sourcing. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 03:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Looks like a copy/paste from Camden,_New_Jersey#Culture Gjs238 ( talk) 16:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Given sources provided. It would have helped if the nominator and other participants had taken the time to evaluate them after they were provided and the discussion relisted. Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
No SIGCOV. Northern Moonlight 23:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
The article notes: "《七天》报创刊于2006年7月7日。刊头为中英法三语《Sept七天 Days》, 以体现《七天》生活在加拿大多元文化的氛围之中,又由于《七天》是在官方语言为法语的加拿大魁北克省注册,因此法语优先。《七天》报为周报,一周七天,其含义是关注和涵盖生活的每一天。"
From Google Translate: ""Sept Days" newspaper was founded on 7 July 2006. The masthead is "Sept Days" in Chinese, English and French to reflect that "Sept Days" lives in a multicultural atmosphere in Canada. And because "Sept Days" is registered in the Canadian province of Quebec, where the official language is French, French is given priority. "Sept Days" is a weekly newspaper, seven days a week, which means to pay attention to and cover every day of life."
The article notes: "2007年,七天派记者奔赴阿富汗战场,对有加拿大军队参加的这场战争的性质和意义进行了零距离的观察和报道,七天记者胡宪成为海外华文媒体战地记者第一人;"
From Google Translate: "In 2007, Sept Days sent reporters to the battlefield in Afghanistan to conduct close-up observations and reports on the nature and significance of the war involving Canadian troops. Sept Days reporter Hu Xian became the first overseas Chinese-language media war correspondent;"
The article notes: "这是一家活跃在加拿大法语城市蒙特利尔的华文媒体,创办16年,累计出版了上千期的中法文报纸杂志和8部书籍。它是第一个向阿富汗派出战地记者的海外华文媒体,也是两次受邀随加拿大总理访华的当地华文媒体。它创办读者俱乐部,举办了几十场各类文化、体育、商务活动,成了当地华人的联系纽带和精神家园。"
From Google Translate: "This is a Chinese-language media active in Montreal, a French-speaking city in Canada. It was founded 16 years ago and has published thousands of issues of Chinese and French newspapers and magazines and 8 books. It is the first overseas Chinese-language media to send war correspondents to Afghanistan, and it is also the local Chinese-language media twice invited to visit China with the Canadian Prime Minister. It established readers’ clubs and held dozens of cultural, sports, and business activities of various types, becoming a link and spiritual home for local Chinese."
The article notes: "2006年,尹灵再次辞职,创办华文报纸《七天》。那年,她40岁。"
From Google Translate: "In 2006, Yin Ling resigned again and founded the Chinese newspaper "Sept Days". That year, she was 40 years old."
The article notes: "《七天》从一开始就摒弃了很多海外中文报纸翻译本地新闻、复制粘贴的做法,坚持自己采访、自己撰稿,一下子吸引了大批读者。"
From Google Translate: "From the beginning, "Sept Days" abandoned many overseas Chinese newspapers' practices of translating local news and copying and pasting. It insisted on doing its own interviews and writing its own articles, and it suddenly attracted a large number of readers."
The article notes: "蒙特利尔华文媒体《七天》传媒10月28日晚在当地举行晚宴,庆祝该报创立10周年。该报新创办的法文报纸《La Connexion》也正式发布。加拿大总理多为《七天》10周年庆祝活动发来贺信。特鲁多说,值此《七天》传媒10周年之际,"
From Google Translate: "Montreal Chinese-language media "Sept Days" held a dinner locally on the evening of October 28 to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the newspaper's founding. The newspaper's new French-language newspaper "La Connexion" was also officially launched. The Prime Minister of Canada has sent congratulatory messages to celebrate the 10th anniversary of "Sept Days". Trudeau said that on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of "Sept Days" media,"
The article notes: "《七天》是世界各国领导人访问加拿大时的必邀华文媒体。中国国务院总理李克强在2016年9月23日访问加拿大时,亦特邀《七天》参与了华文媒体座谈会。"
From Google Translate: ""Sept Days" is the Chinese-language media that must be invited when world leaders visit Canada. When Chinese Premier Li Keqiang visited Canada on September 23, 2016, he specially invited "Seven Days" to participate in a Chinese media symposium."
The article notes: "Sept Days competes with five other Chinese newspapers in a market of no more than 100,000 potential readers. Its three full-time journalists and five freelancers focus on a mix of local, international and entertainment news. Ten thousand copies are printed of each issue and, according to Yin, 50,000 people read the paper each week. The paper is free of charge, and advertising and investments from the paper's board of directors keep it afloat, but Yin admits that it has yet to break even. Sending Hu to Afghanistan was an unusual step for an ethnic newspaper, but it has earned Sept Days a certain notoriety in the Chinese community. Last month, the paper sponsored a lecture by Hu on her experience in Kabul, and this month, it will send another reporter overseas to cover the presidential election in Taiwan."
The article notes: "Conservative Sen. Victor Oh was in Montreal earlier this month to drum up enthusiasm for Saturday’s rally on the Hill. His visit was covered by Sept Days, a Montreal Chinese-language publisher with links to the Chinese Community Party. Sept Days was among a handful of Canadian organizations that attended the Chinese government’s United Front Work Department media forum training in 2019, according to a recent report by Alliance Canada Hong Kong."
The article notes: "由加拿大七天传媒出版社出版的《加拿大华人精英录》一书于当地时间6月22日晚在蒙特利尔首发,正式与读者见面。"
From Google Translate: "The book "Canadian Chinese Elites" published by Canada's Seven Days Media Publishing House was first launched in Montreal on the evening of June 22, local time, and officially met with readers."
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow time to assess identified sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz Read! Talk! 05:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 02:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:PARTIAL only. fgnievinski ( talk) 02:19, 23 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! 05:11, 30 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. All I found was this transactional announcement. JTtheOG ( talk) 02:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK #1 no valid rationale and other recent noms. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex ( talk) 02:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
too many problems Ryan barnes 1963 ( talk) 01:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of South Africa national rugby sevens players. Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The most I found were a few sentences here. Possible redirect targets include List of South Africa national rugby sevens players and List of South Africa national under-20 rugby union team players. JTtheOG ( talk) 01:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Keep. WP:SK #1 - no valid reason for deletion provided. ( non-admin closure) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
sorry charlie but your article is being deleted due to legal problems Ryan barnes 1963 ( talk) 01:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Mount Elizabeth Hospital. Liz Read! Talk! 05:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Marked for notability concerns since 2022. The coverage I found were like incidents involving nurses but nothing indepth to meet WP:ORG. LibStar ( talk) 01:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Weigel Broadcasting#Television stations. Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 01:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I found no significant coverage. SL93 ( talk) 00:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Weird partisan award that reviews movies "from a christian perspective" with no coverage aside from that which it generates itself. BrigadierG ( talk) 00:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was delete and draftify to Draft:Fahim Rahim per consensus agreement between participants and nominator. — CactusWriter (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Advertisement (and possible self-written resume) of an unnotable kidney doctor and small scale philanthropist. Article itself was written by one User:Khocon, a sockpuppeteer. We also have an article for Fahim's brother which might also be worthy of deletion. - Samoht27 ( talk) 16:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Shah Jahan#Early military campaigns. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Another WP:OR because there's no mention of "Siege of Baglana" or "Mughal conquest of Baglana" in the sources. Also it lacks notability as only found a line around this event, that "Aurangzeb easily overran the kingdom". Based Kashmiri ( talk) 18:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:MUSIC. All of her songs are self-published and appear to have received very little attention from reliable sources. Search results for her stage name are almost exclusively the songs themselves or her social media, and results for her legal name largely pertain to her career as a makeup artist. Majora4 ( talk) 23:33, 23 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! 22:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 15:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KVHC-LD is now closed and this one can run.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
18:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Swati tribe. Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
No significant coverage of this group. This page previously redirected to Swati tribe; any reliably sourced and encyclopedic content should once again be merged to that page. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 18:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
18:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Italian rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was routine transfer news ( 1, 2, 3). JTtheOG ( talk) 20:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Full of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR mess, fails notability as we don't find "Maratha invasion of Awadh" in the sources (clearly made up by the starter of article), instead there are several other events like "Invasion of Bhadawar", "raid on Delhi" and "Battle of Jalesar". Clearly the author has mixed up several battles and conflicts to get this resulted article. Based Kashmiri ( talk) 18:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
permission to merge it. And stop removing the AFD template. Based Kashmiri ( talk) 17:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete - The article "Maratha invasion of Awadh" is not supported by any reliable sources rather the user who created the page just pushed his POV by adding different battles together in a single article. Moreover The New Cambridge History of India Vol 2 Part 4 pg 125 clearly states that Bajirao 1737 expedition (including Delhi) was indecisive not a Mughal victory, also this is a reliable source. Here is the exact quotation from the book; The campaign of 1737 was indecisive, though Bajirao attacked Delhi, even briefly holding the Emperor to ransom.
So even results are not appropriate in the different individual battles which are mixed up and displayed here.
Mohammad Umar Ali (
talk)
I better say that delete this as this totally consisted on WP:SYNTH or merge this in Battle of Bhopal as this was the prelude of the campaign. The whole of Bajirao campaign in Delhi was resulted in Bhopal and annexation of Malwa according to Jaswant Lal Mehta and other WP:RS. पापा जी ( talk) 04:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Owen×
☎
22:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Subject does not appear to meet WP:NCRIC. He has played in domestic-level cricket.. but does not appear to meet the notability requirement maintained by the cricket wikiproject. Jip Orlando ( talk) 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Owen×
☎
22:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is the subject fails WP:NACTOR and it is also noted there is insufficient significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. — CactusWriter (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
On the fact of it, she appeared in multiple TV shows but she fails to have 'significant role' in them therefore do no meet WP:ACTOR . BTW, this was deleted back in 2020. The creator BeauSuzanne ( talk · contribs) wasn't only able to recreate it but they also did their best to conceal the previous deletion discussion, which speaks volumes about their dubious editing nature. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 20:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Speedy deletion is not appropriate and you haven't even specified an appropriate criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Yakkha people. The article on the Rai people does not currently mention Dewan. If the mention is added, and/or there are other meaning of Dewan people, this redirect can be made into a disambiguation page. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 09:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
The source provided seems to be the only source about these people that provides any depth and even that is only tangential. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 20:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
This actor-cum-model does not meets WP:ACTOR as I am unable verify their "major roles" in TV shows as require by WP:ACTOR - nor does their coverage satisfy the basic WP:GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 20:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:30, 23 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 00:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
All this article does is confirm it exists with no third party coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar ( talk) 23:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Sources are user-generated, primary sources or trivial coverage (the phone book??). BEFORE search turns up no other evidence of notability as an artist or generally. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 00:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does the article clean up and new sources added since its nomination change anyone's opinion about notability here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. After discarding !votes with no basis in policy (which occurred on both sides of the discussion), there is a narrow balance of both !votes and arguments in favor of deletion, taking into consideration that most of the valid keep !votes were phrased as "weak" keeps and acknowledged the paucity of available sourcing. signed, Rosguill talk 17:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
as much as i love yuno, the only reliable source that talks about him is this, which makes him not notable Authenyo ( talk) 00:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
https://www.sportskeeda.com/us/music/news-who-yuno-miles-fans-react-youtuber-releases-hilarious-drake-diss-response-metro-boomin-s-challenge | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
https://www.rapreviews.com/2023/11/yuno-miles-yuno-i-cant-rap/ | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✔ Yes |
https://www.sescoops.com/wwe/rapper-yuno-miles-releases-wwe-diss-track-im-beefing-with-the-wwe | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✔ Yes |
https://pitchfork.com/features/article/the-age-of-shitpost-modernism/ | ![]() |
![]() |
~ One example with only one mention | ~ Partial |
https://gizmodo.com/saga-bbl-drizzy-drake-kendrick-lamar-metro-boomin-1851470820 | ![]() |
![]() |
~ Only one mention as "The Meme Diss Track"; in the article's slides. | ~ Partial |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
... per Wikipedia policy regarding self-published sources, these reviews should never be used as third-party sources about living people.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this discussion needs more time so I'm relisting it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I can't believe I have to say this but Wikipedia doesn't care that you personally think this article subject is notable. Our subjective judgments are irrelevant to AFD decisions. The question is, are there sufficient reliable sources to establish notability? Are the sources located by
User:pythoncoder and any other editors adequate to demonstrate GNG? That's the important question here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
"He is notable in my opinion; while I am not a fan of his music he does have almost 1 million followers on spotify and has been drawn even further into the public eye by his Drake diss."Notability is not ones opinion. If that, then, my father is notable in my mind. The second was
I don't think that this page should be entirely erased. It has a good structure, some notability, and there's other pages that should probably be deleted. I vote no for this page deletion. Also why did that OJSimpsonLover fella get blocked??? It says for vandalism but he was just giving his opinion.Here, we don't believe in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. If the editor thinks the other articles like that merits deletion, so be it, nominate it or leave it. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 03:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep Yuno Miles' music is unique. Also his song was trending on YouTube and hit music charts. Also he will hit 1m subs soon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedun ( talk • contribs)
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
http://www.onestowatch.com/en/blog/meet-yuno-miles-the-internets-favorite-rapper | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
https://www.theneedledrop.com/interviews/2023/11/a-conversation-with-yuno-miles | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrJWNQSIoNE | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
The result was redirect to Characters of Red Dead Redemption 2. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
The character lacks significant coverage and is not independently notable from John Marston or the video games. The article consists entirely of original research, with only a handful of references taken from a different article (all of which only mention Jack in passing, or not at all). Based on my research of the topic, I don't believe any significant coverage exists, and any further passing mentions can be covered on this list. – Rhain ☔ ( he/him) 22:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Very new/small start-up business that fails WP:NORG and WP:SIGCOV. The coverage of this small company (of perhaps 12 employees?) is the type of "startup receives seed funding" business reporting that is common for any similar business. What limited coverage does exist relates to the company's previous brand name - to the extent that the only source (connecting the title of the article with the entity discussed in the article) is the org's own LinkedIn page. If we do not have sufficient reliable/independent sources to even establish that a company of this name exists (and is the same company covered in the other few sources), then SIGCOV is not met. Clearly WP:TOOSOON. (Would have PRODed, but the creator of the article moved it to the main article namespace [over DRAFT]. And re-added [at best] quasi-promotional text about the org being "award-winning". Therefore not "uncontroversial".) Guliolopez ( talk) 20:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
A passing reference by Baker to a "community" at this intersection (and the GNIS coords are inaccurate: the location is ESE of the label which they used as the location) is not enough. There's nothing much there, and I wasn't able to find anything myself. Mangoe ( talk) 20:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ordinarily, I'd close as a Redirect to Studio Yotta but that article has also been brought to AFD for consideration. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:CREATIVE and the sources appear to be mostly self-published, not reliable, or passing mentions Jayjg (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
KEP95 ( talk) 04:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was nomination withdrawn thanks to FanDePopLatino's work. Mach61 17:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
These articles lack any relevant citations, as I raised on their creator's talk page two months ago, so they are in violation of the verifiability policy. Mach61 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk)
19:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY and announcments, some being nothing more than a guide; none of these helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 18:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 47 references have been added and the list has been significantly improved. Deserves further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk)
19:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted: WP:BDP, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SUSTAINED, WP:TOSOON, et cetera, etc. El_C 01:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
No evidence of Wp:SUSTAINED coverage currently (also see WP:NOTNEWS) and can be recreated in the future if this turns out to have significant impacts. Clearly fulls under the purview of WP:BDP ("Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime") and thus we should presume in favor of privacy. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:44, 23 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! 23:37, 30 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) 17:09, 23 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 23:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP: N. I found some mentions in some Linux-related books, but nothing that covers the software in-depth. The review in Linux Magazine is broken, but as it stands I can't find evidence that this meets notability standards, since multiple sources are required to establish notability. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 17:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Complex/ Rational 17:48, 30 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. All I found was a few sentences here. JTtheOG ( talk) 17:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Sudan–United Kingdom relations#Diplomatic missions. Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
No useful secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Only sources are a government list of diplomatic missions and a source purportedly about a protest at the embassy more than a decade ago but which appears unrelated. Previously subject of contested PROD and contested merge/redirect. AusLondonder ( talk) 16:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Hey man im josh ( talk) 17:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
The article does not meet Wikipedia:Notability, and likely violates NPOV.
The result was keep. Hey man im josh ( talk) 19:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
This is an alleged former town in North Carolina, which was allegedly the first town in its county. I couldn't find anything reliable supporting the existence of this community, Henry McCulloh appears to be his own can of worms, but I don't think there's much on him either. It's also worth noting that this article hasn't been edited since 2014, and the one reference (which is not cited inline) is now a dead link. - Samoht27 ( talk) 16:33, 23 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 23:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
None of the references pass the WP:SIRS test, so fails WP:GNG. This should not have been moved out of draftspace. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:24, 23 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 23:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Article is full of puffery and reads like a résumé/ autobiography. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Sgubaldo ( talk) 16:21, 23 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 23:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, contains a concerning amount of copyvioed material and close paraphrasing, created in draftspace and accepted by a sock. mwwv converse∫ edits 15:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Delete per WP:A7, tagged by nominator. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
No evidence that he meets GNG. The sources used are primary (and negligible) and I was unable to find any references that would establish his notability. JSFarman ( talk) 15:29, 23 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 15:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
British actor who does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. BEFORE search turns up no additional references whatsoever in reliable sources. Birth and death information come from IMDb, which is WP:USERGENERATED and thus unreliable. Setting aside IMDb, all we know is that he existed and had minor roles in six films. (The BFI database includes references to his name and roles, but no significant coverage.) Dclemens1971 ( talk) 14:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. CSD G7. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, contact me or make a request at WP:REFUND. Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Company that fails WP:NCORP. On this page, sources 1, 5, and 7 are WP:ORGTRIV coverage of capital raises. Source 2 is coverage of a Faye founder and does not reference the subject. Sources 3 and 10 are commercial, commission-driven review sites paired with Faye's advertising (editorially not under the Wall Street Journal newsroom, caveat lector!). Source 6 is a WP:INTERVIEW. Source 8 provides passing mention of the subject, not significant coverage, and Source 9 appears to be sponsor content/paid placement since there is a clear VentureBeat editorial disclaimer at the bottom. Additional sources found in WP:BEFORE search are sponsor content, trivial coverage, or other reviews on commission-driven websites. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 14:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Complex/ Rational 14:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBIO. The majority of sources are primary or don't provide significant coverage. There is only one source that contributes to notability. — GMH Melbourne ( talk) 14:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
• *Delete. A lot of primary sources; many are self-published - fails WP:BIO. Includes partisan commentary – fails WP:NPOV. Consider adding mention to 1998 Australian waterfront dispute depending on sources. Spinifex&Sand ( talk) 23:18, 23 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 15:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Never elected to any political office that makes one inherently notable, not enough source to establish GNG too. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 21:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
13:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Mojo Hand ( talk) 14:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
The references are pretty much all churnalism about his election campaign. One is about an ethics complaint, so is about him. Two are geofenced from me. After hw won, the remainder are P pieces about the win. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, failed WP:BIO. He was a WP:ROTM attorney, doing his job, now a DA doing his job. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 15:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP ANYBIO, GNG BoraVoro ( talk) 12:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. No prejudice against merging, if anyone wants to pursue that avenue. Mojo Hand ( talk) 13:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
As we now know almost everything is being electrified rather than going to methanol it is not worth spending time to fix the problems with this article - for example /info/en/?search=Talk:Methanol_economy#The_article_is_supposed_to_be_about_methanol_economy,_not_advocacy Chidgk1 ( talk) 11:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 12:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails SIGCOV. This is about one lady(?) who pooped near people's houses. News outlets reported on it in 2017, but this doesn't meet the standard for sustained, significant coverage. Zanahary ( talk) 09:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Additioning sourcing has been found, as the nominator acknowledges, even though the article as written still needs serious rewriting for improvement. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 12:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
In the eight years since the last deletion discussion not a single reliable source has been added to substantiate that this is a term in use in the field of theology. Moreover the page contains what looks like original research.
The two sentences in the lede that say "An agnostic theist believes in the existence of one or more gods, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the god or gods that they believe in." are really just a basic definition of belief in its religious usage.
There are exactly three references on this page;
This reference Benn, Piers (December 1999). Hall, Ronald L. (ed.). "Some Uncertainties about Agnosticism". International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 46 (3). Berlin and New York: Springer Verlag: 171–188. doi:10.1023/A:1003792325966 does not even mention the term agnostic theism.
This reference Seidner, Stanley S. (June 10, 2009) "A Trojan Horse: Logotherapeutic Transcendence and its Secular Implications for Theology doesn't seem to exist. It claims to be archived at the wayback machine but it returns a not found error. Regardless it is being used to cite a suppositional statement about epistemology generally and says nothing about the purported existence of agnostic theism as a concept.
This reference Weatherhead, Leslie (1972). The Christian Agnostic. Abingdon Press. ISBN 978-0-687-06977-4 is being used to cite a statement about the specific characteristics of Christian agnosticism, which has it's own page.
Every other thing I could turn up in a web search is just sourced from this article verbatim. Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
No sources, and Google gives me "No results found for "atomic notebook" "luhmannis"." [16] Fram ( talk) 07:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 12:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
This beetle species is absent from any up-to-date database I can access, and does not show up in any literature searches. The GBIF entry appears to have been removed for unknown reasons some time after the article was created. Barring clear and recent presence in the records, I think this is not a currently accepted taxon. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 07:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Actually, this may be a genus-level issue. Of the first ten species listed at Mordella, one has been reassigned within the genus, two to a different genus, and four have been deleted from GBIF and are otherwise undetectable. Ouch. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 07:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Ray, 1936, is the author of only a few valid names, all of them in the genus Mordellistena. I can't find any confirmation of the existence of this particular name even as a synonym, but it isn't impossible that it was published and has since vanished from online sources. That said, until and unless it can be confirmed, I would support deletion. Dyanega ( talk) 15:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
No evidence of any notability, could not find independent sources with significant attention for the sport. Fram ( talk) 07:29, 23 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! 05:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG ( talk) 06:46, 23 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 00:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
No evidence that this local church passes WP:GNG or WP:NORG. All sources cited are affiliated with the church or diocese and thus not independent. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional sources to support notability. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 15:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:41, 23 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 00:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
No evidence that this local church passes WP:GNG or WP:NORG. All sources cited are affiliated with the church or diocese and thus not independent. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional sources to support notability. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 14:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
The scope of this list is the same as the scope of two sections of Yeomanry. PercyPigUK ( talk) 11:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Coverage only concerns his suicide. See WP:BLP1E. TolWol ( talk) 04:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
BLP that has already been moved into and back out of draftspace so bringing here for consensus. The subject is a successful business leader but that is not the basis for a Wikipedia article. Mccapra ( talk) 04:51, 23 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! 05:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Clearly and blatantly promotional. Reads like a resume. Kingsmasher678 ( talk) 04:07, 23 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 04:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and all coverage seems to be in passing. Kingsmasher678 ( talk) 04:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to History of Alabama Crimson Tide football. Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Alabama did not field a team in 1918, I don't see why an article is necessary when there is no such article for the 1898 season in which Alabama also did not field a team. Gazingo ( talk) 03:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd (at the same time it was sent to AFD) so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors divided between those arguing to Keep versus those advocating a Merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Contested PROD for individual who fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. WP:BEFORE search does not turn up significant coverage. Existing article is a WP:REFBOMB of sources that fail to demonstrate notability. Sources 1/23, 6, 7/9/11, 15 and 25 are non-independent press releases or official bios, 2, 3 and 19 are trivial mentions in long lists; 4, 10, 14, 21 and 28 32 are passing mentions in coverage of other topics, 5 and 8, 27, 33 and 34 are WP:INTERVIEWS and thus primary sources; 13, 16, 17, 20, 22, 26, 29, 30 and 31 are self-authored material by the subject. 24 does not mention the subject. Only 12 might qualify as SIGCOV, but we need multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 01:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. BusterD ( talk) 20:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. PROD was contested with sources from IMDB and of relatives being added, which do not establish notability. GMH Melbourne ( talk) 00:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Not exactly sure how to close a previously PROD'd article with a discussion with no participation at all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Completely unsourced, and tagged as such since 2012 without ever having any sources added, article about a minor local public access television program. As always, television shows are not automatically notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability, so nothing here is "inherently" notable without sourcing for it. Bearcat ( talk) 02:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. There were weak arguments coming from both the Keep and Delete perspectives, hence the No consensus closure. But I'm persuaded by comments by Reywas92. It's important not to consider this list article in isolation and compare it to regular articles but to consider whether this articlee is just as valid and well-constructed as similar list articles on other subjects. Liz Read! Talk! 05:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
This article fails WP:NLIST and WP:SELCRIT. I can't find reliable sources that track the list's topic (the longest marriages of all time) nor can I find sources that set 80 years as an appropriate lower bound. It also likely fails WP:LISTPEOPLE's two criteria.
This article, then under the title "List of people with the longest marriages", was previously successfully nominated for deletion along similar lines. Despite an attempt to shift the scope and an ultimate restoration of the article remarkably soon after a DRV, I don't think it has succeeded. It's still essentially a list of longest marriages. Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 04:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
The article subject is a non-notable entrepreneur and PhD student. I could not find any reliable sources containing significant coverage of the subject. None of the sources currently cited in the article establish notability: [23] and [24] are interviews in trade publications that read like puff pieces. [25] does not have any clear editorial standards, is based on an interview, and also reads like a puff piece. [26] is a bio and abstract for a talk he gave at a seminar. [27] is an interview with the organizers of the same seminar. [28] is the subject's company's website. [29] is an advertising website. [30] is a slideshow about a project that the subject worked on. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 03:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of largest stars. ✗ plicit 00:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NASTRO and therefore not WP:GNG; hardly any coverage in reliable sources. Article likely only exists on the basis of it being a very large star. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 09:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
00:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can't redirect to
List of largest known stars as that page is a redirect. At least when I edit Wikipedia, redirects show up as a different color font (green links) rather than articles (blue links).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG; questionable sourcing. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 03:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Looks like a copy/paste from Camden,_New_Jersey#Culture Gjs238 ( talk) 16:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Given sources provided. It would have helped if the nominator and other participants had taken the time to evaluate them after they were provided and the discussion relisted. Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
No SIGCOV. Northern Moonlight 23:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
The article notes: "《七天》报创刊于2006年7月7日。刊头为中英法三语《Sept七天 Days》, 以体现《七天》生活在加拿大多元文化的氛围之中,又由于《七天》是在官方语言为法语的加拿大魁北克省注册,因此法语优先。《七天》报为周报,一周七天,其含义是关注和涵盖生活的每一天。"
From Google Translate: ""Sept Days" newspaper was founded on 7 July 2006. The masthead is "Sept Days" in Chinese, English and French to reflect that "Sept Days" lives in a multicultural atmosphere in Canada. And because "Sept Days" is registered in the Canadian province of Quebec, where the official language is French, French is given priority. "Sept Days" is a weekly newspaper, seven days a week, which means to pay attention to and cover every day of life."
The article notes: "2007年,七天派记者奔赴阿富汗战场,对有加拿大军队参加的这场战争的性质和意义进行了零距离的观察和报道,七天记者胡宪成为海外华文媒体战地记者第一人;"
From Google Translate: "In 2007, Sept Days sent reporters to the battlefield in Afghanistan to conduct close-up observations and reports on the nature and significance of the war involving Canadian troops. Sept Days reporter Hu Xian became the first overseas Chinese-language media war correspondent;"
The article notes: "这是一家活跃在加拿大法语城市蒙特利尔的华文媒体,创办16年,累计出版了上千期的中法文报纸杂志和8部书籍。它是第一个向阿富汗派出战地记者的海外华文媒体,也是两次受邀随加拿大总理访华的当地华文媒体。它创办读者俱乐部,举办了几十场各类文化、体育、商务活动,成了当地华人的联系纽带和精神家园。"
From Google Translate: "This is a Chinese-language media active in Montreal, a French-speaking city in Canada. It was founded 16 years ago and has published thousands of issues of Chinese and French newspapers and magazines and 8 books. It is the first overseas Chinese-language media to send war correspondents to Afghanistan, and it is also the local Chinese-language media twice invited to visit China with the Canadian Prime Minister. It established readers’ clubs and held dozens of cultural, sports, and business activities of various types, becoming a link and spiritual home for local Chinese."
The article notes: "2006年,尹灵再次辞职,创办华文报纸《七天》。那年,她40岁。"
From Google Translate: "In 2006, Yin Ling resigned again and founded the Chinese newspaper "Sept Days". That year, she was 40 years old."
The article notes: "《七天》从一开始就摒弃了很多海外中文报纸翻译本地新闻、复制粘贴的做法,坚持自己采访、自己撰稿,一下子吸引了大批读者。"
From Google Translate: "From the beginning, "Sept Days" abandoned many overseas Chinese newspapers' practices of translating local news and copying and pasting. It insisted on doing its own interviews and writing its own articles, and it suddenly attracted a large number of readers."
The article notes: "蒙特利尔华文媒体《七天》传媒10月28日晚在当地举行晚宴,庆祝该报创立10周年。该报新创办的法文报纸《La Connexion》也正式发布。加拿大总理多为《七天》10周年庆祝活动发来贺信。特鲁多说,值此《七天》传媒10周年之际,"
From Google Translate: "Montreal Chinese-language media "Sept Days" held a dinner locally on the evening of October 28 to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the newspaper's founding. The newspaper's new French-language newspaper "La Connexion" was also officially launched. The Prime Minister of Canada has sent congratulatory messages to celebrate the 10th anniversary of "Sept Days". Trudeau said that on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of "Sept Days" media,"
The article notes: "《七天》是世界各国领导人访问加拿大时的必邀华文媒体。中国国务院总理李克强在2016年9月23日访问加拿大时,亦特邀《七天》参与了华文媒体座谈会。"
From Google Translate: ""Sept Days" is the Chinese-language media that must be invited when world leaders visit Canada. When Chinese Premier Li Keqiang visited Canada on September 23, 2016, he specially invited "Seven Days" to participate in a Chinese media symposium."
The article notes: "Sept Days competes with five other Chinese newspapers in a market of no more than 100,000 potential readers. Its three full-time journalists and five freelancers focus on a mix of local, international and entertainment news. Ten thousand copies are printed of each issue and, according to Yin, 50,000 people read the paper each week. The paper is free of charge, and advertising and investments from the paper's board of directors keep it afloat, but Yin admits that it has yet to break even. Sending Hu to Afghanistan was an unusual step for an ethnic newspaper, but it has earned Sept Days a certain notoriety in the Chinese community. Last month, the paper sponsored a lecture by Hu on her experience in Kabul, and this month, it will send another reporter overseas to cover the presidential election in Taiwan."
The article notes: "Conservative Sen. Victor Oh was in Montreal earlier this month to drum up enthusiasm for Saturday’s rally on the Hill. His visit was covered by Sept Days, a Montreal Chinese-language publisher with links to the Chinese Community Party. Sept Days was among a handful of Canadian organizations that attended the Chinese government’s United Front Work Department media forum training in 2019, according to a recent report by Alliance Canada Hong Kong."
The article notes: "由加拿大七天传媒出版社出版的《加拿大华人精英录》一书于当地时间6月22日晚在蒙特利尔首发,正式与读者见面。"
From Google Translate: "The book "Canadian Chinese Elites" published by Canada's Seven Days Media Publishing House was first launched in Montreal on the evening of June 22, local time, and officially met with readers."
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow time to assess identified sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz Read! Talk! 05:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 02:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:PARTIAL only. fgnievinski ( talk) 02:19, 23 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! 05:11, 30 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. All I found was this transactional announcement. JTtheOG ( talk) 02:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK #1 no valid rationale and other recent noms. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex ( talk) 02:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
too many problems Ryan barnes 1963 ( talk) 01:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of South Africa national rugby sevens players. Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The most I found were a few sentences here. Possible redirect targets include List of South Africa national rugby sevens players and List of South Africa national under-20 rugby union team players. JTtheOG ( talk) 01:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Keep. WP:SK #1 - no valid reason for deletion provided. ( non-admin closure) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
sorry charlie but your article is being deleted due to legal problems Ryan barnes 1963 ( talk) 01:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Mount Elizabeth Hospital. Liz Read! Talk! 05:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Marked for notability concerns since 2022. The coverage I found were like incidents involving nurses but nothing indepth to meet WP:ORG. LibStar ( talk) 01:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Weigel Broadcasting#Television stations. Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 01:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I found no significant coverage. SL93 ( talk) 00:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Weird partisan award that reviews movies "from a christian perspective" with no coverage aside from that which it generates itself. BrigadierG ( talk) 00:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)