The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Fails GNG. I researched a lot about the subject, and found no evidence that this subject is notable enough, the appearing websites, pages, and articles, in browser's search results, are not about the subject. The sources listed in this article are also unreliable and there are few references. — Príncess Faye ( talk) 23:59, 4 April 2022 (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! 23:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
like an advertisement denied by AFD; without single improvement the Creator moved it to the mainspace. @@@ XyX talk 23:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep with a side of nomination withdrawn. Star Mississippi 02:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Subject is a mma fighter, boxer and kickboxer. Subject fails all WP:NMMA, WP:NBOX and WP:NKICK notability requirements as well as fails GNG. Cassiopeia talk 23:34, 4 April 2022 (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! 23:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/malayalam/seetha-kalyanam-fame-jithu-venugopal-joins-kudumbavilakku/articleshow/89985741.cms CT55555 ( talk) 13:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping to get more participation in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
This doesn't seem to be an accepted term for any medical condition. PepperBeast (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Diseases that have been officially diagnosed in one or more humans, animals, or plants are notable.
The result was keep. per improvements made and sources IDed during this discussion Star Mississippi 02:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Biography unsourced for over 15 years. BD2412 T 22:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please judge based on improvements that have occurred since this nomination was posted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is this isn't a notable topic and the material isn't suitable for a merge. Star Mississippi 02:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
This list fails both WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There is zero evidence the subjects of this list have ever been discussed as a group by even a single reliable source. Much of this is sourced to photos which are user generated content and not reliable, or to railfan sites which have the same issue. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retired MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet for a similar article which was deleted. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 21:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Arts integration. Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:DICDEF. Sources in the article throw the term around but do not actually define it. This just seems to be a mishmash of random ideas with no through-line. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
*Keep - in that it is defined in Elliot W. Eisner, The Arts and the Creation of Mind, page 39
here. I would delete it for being a bunch of half plagiarized academic paper doublespeak but that can be cleaned up. There is a DICDEF problem in that it seems more than one discipline calls itself "Integrated Arts", re: the stuff that comes after "It may also refer to" - Wikipedia doesn't do different things with the same name, gotta pick one.
Fountains of Bryn Mawr (
talk) 19:46, 5 April 2022 (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! 22:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Subject doesn't seem to pass WP:NTRACK nor WP:GNG. nearlyevil 665 18:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 19:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 20:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Detailed answer in close to either List of shipwrecks in 1855#Unknown date and/or List of shipwrecks of Australia#New South Wales. Valid ATD and which target can be decided editorially if it can't be to both. Star Mississippi 02:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Wooden boat that existed for 5 years. Can't find anything substantial to support notability, certainly not enough for GNG. AviationFreak 💬 15:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Online Databases
- Australian National Shipwreck Database [9]
- Australian Shipping - Arrivals and Departures 1788-1968 including shipwrecks [10]
- Encyclopedia of Australian Shipwrecks - New South Wales Shipwrecks [11]
Books
- Wrecks on the New South Wales Coast. By Loney, J. K. (Jack Kenneth), 1925–1995 Oceans Enterprises. 1993 ISBN 978-0-646-11081-3.
- Australian Shipwrecks - vol1 1622-1850, Charles Bateson, AH and AW Reed, Sydney, 1972, ISBN 0-589-07112-2 910.4530994 BAT
- Australian shipwrecks Vol. 2 1851–1871 By Loney, J. K. (Jack Kenneth), 1925–1995. Sydney. Reed, 1980 910.4530994 LON
- Australian shipwrecks Vol. 3 1871–1900 By Loney, J. K. (Jack Kenneth), 1925–1995. Geelong Vic: List Publishing, 1982 910.4530994 LON
- Australian shipwrecks Vol. 4 1901–1986 By Loney, J. K. (Jack Kenneth), 1925–1995. Portarlington Vic. Marine History Publications, 1987 910.4530994 LON
- Australian shipwrecks Vol. 5 Update 1986 By Loney, J. K. (Jack Kenneth), 1925–1995. Portarlington Vic. Marine History Publications, 1991 910.4530994 LON
The website has a link at the bottom to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en, which means it is licensed under CC BY 3.0 AU, which means it is free content.
The page notes:
View Shipwreck - Adventure
Shipwreck Id number: 32Vessel name: Adventure
Type of vessel:
Sailing rig type: Schooner
Gross tonnage (imperial tons): 101.0
Year wrecked: 1855
Jurisdiction: New South Wales
Region: NSW - Northern Rivers
General History: The Adventure was a 25-metre long timber schooner with a gross tonnage of 101. Built in Hong Kong in 1850, the vessel was wrecked in the Richmond River.
...
Voyage
Captain: James Cook
...
Dimensions
Register tonnage (imperial tons): 101.0. Metric: 102.62
Vessel length (feet): 82.28. Metres: 25.08
Vessel width (feet): 17.0. Metres: 5.18.
Vessel depth (feet): Metres:
Vessel draft (feet): 7.0. Metres: 2.13
Construction
Year built: 1850.
Builder name:
Country in which built: Hong Kong
State in which built:
Construction locality: Hong Kong
Construction materials: Wood
Vessel Registration
Country of registry:
Port of registry: Sydney
Official number:
Port number: 135/1853
Management
Protection: New South Wales Heritage Act 1977
Responsibility: Australian State
History
History of discovery:
References: Register of British Shipping
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 20:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Lack of notability Creuzbourg ( talk) 20:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. concerns remain about sourcing, but no one is strongly advocating for deletion, and those arguing for keep have provided policy based input. Star Mississippi 17:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet notability requirement, as it lacks significant detailed coverage in reliable sources. Searching for "The Unity and Salvation Authority of SSC" yields exactly five results, including the Wikipedia entry. "SSC movement" + "Somalia" has two results on Scholar. And although some results do show up on Google Books for "SSC movement" + "Somalia" [12] there is no significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail per SIGCOV. Additionally, the article is pushing original research with little to no backing within reliable sources, e.g. the map included in the infobox.
Lastly, and this may be out-with the scope of the AFD, the inclusion of the OR map follows a pattern observed repeatedly in behaviour of long-term vandal Middayexpress where an OR map is uploaded or edited on Commons using a throwaway account [13], and then later inserted into a Wikipedia article using a different account to evade scrutiny [14], this was discussed at length here: User:TomStar81/Horn_of_Africa_disruption. -- Kzl55 ( talk) 16:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Modussiccandi (
talk) 10:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 20:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. There is consensus that this does not meet notability requirements. I am not draftifying it unless someone wants to actively work on it. Moldering in draft space for six months is not a practical solution. Star Mississippi 13:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Not notable GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 13:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC) Article about a Hungarian football club with unreliable sources (a database and the homepage of the club). Although there are some honours listed, there are no sources cited. During a search I mainly found the usual databases, listings, videos and the like. This club doesn't seem notable, but if anyone presents reliable sources I cannot access, I change my mind. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 13:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk) 14:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk) 20:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Advanced search for: "Municipal theatre" | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
The article stub Municipal theatre begins with a dictionary description ( WP:NOT#DICT). All additional description of the article subject is about what the subject is not, by comparison to other theatre forms, but the implied differences do not exist.
Article by Christian Rakow about theatre funding in Germany on the website of the Goethe Institut (in english) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrestesLebt ( talk • contribs) 2022-03-28T07:57:55 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 20:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was nomination withdrawn. Canley ( talk) 12:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Government agency doesn't seem to meet
WP:NORG- in-depth coverage in independent sources is limited to
WP:ROUTINE announcements about its formation.
MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Withdrawn. After almost 2 weeks there is no consensus for deletion, so let's put this out of its misery. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Keep. Government agencies are generally notable. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
With all of these references (total effort so far about 10 minutes) there is enough to improve the page. I should also note that the previous version of the agency is redirected here so we already have a single page for 2 departments. I would update the page myself but I am working on some other pages at the moment. Gusfriend ( talk) 07:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Arguments like "Government agencies are generally notable" are unsupported by inclusion guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 20:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Edgar Allan Poe (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 04:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
A case of the tail wagging the dog. There are many Edgar Allan Poe entries (transferred by me to Edgar Allan Poe (disambiguation)) and only two Edgar Poes. Edgar Poe already redirects to Edgar Allan Poe, and I've adjusted the hatnote to point to the minor character rather than this page. Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 19:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus is that significant coverage exists. (non-admin closure) Enos733 ( talk) 05:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The coverage I can see is in passing - she was a prominent victim of the Bucha massacre (a local politician, village head), but that's not the same as notable. Also relevant WP:ONEVENT, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I recommend a redirect to Bucha massacre, where she is already mentioned as a victim (and the current article has next to no extra information anyway). PS. No Ukrainian interwiki is a red flag too, uk:Ольга Сухенко is not even a redirect? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph [...] If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject [...] should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic. A merge and/or redirect would not erase her from Wikipedia, and our guidelines state, " A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic." Beccaynr ( talk) 03:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works.Beccaynr ( talk) 16:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
usually at more than a locally-significant level.I have not found sources to otherwise show she was high-profile per the explanatory supplement, e.g.
one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publicationor voluntary participation in
self-publicity activities, such as press conferencesor that she was a
speaker for a publicly advertised event at which admission was collected and/or which garnered significant independent, non-local coverage.The explanatory supplement also states,
Typically notable or would-be notable for roles of various levels of importance in more than a single major event, or for a major role in one major event.My !vote is also based on the WP:PAGEDECIDE guideline, due to the context available in the suggested merge target, with a caveat that while sourcing currently appears insufficient to support a standalone article, it may develop in the future to support recreation of the article. Beccaynr ( talk) 17:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
substantialand
well-documentedrole. My !vote would be stronger if there was more time since the event to assert significance based on persistence of coverage per WP:BLP1E. Beccaynr ( talk) 01:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC) - comment updated to strike WP:METRO. Beccaynr ( talk) 04:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. All the references are pre win coverage before elections. Been on the cat:nn category with a notability tag since June 2010 and never been updated. scope_creep Talk 17:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the Camp is notable, and the article is basically unsourced; the only reference on the page doesn't even mention the camp. Having searched on google for references to the camp all I can find are passing mentions in 'lists of camps' type pages, and their own website. JeffUK ( talk) 17:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) scope_creep Talk 09:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Socialist/Marxist magazine article with no source. Never had sources. Been on the cat:nn for more than 10 years. Potentially notable by currently fails WP:SIGCOV. Found one ref but its an WP:SPS. Seems to be ultra obscure. scope_creep Talk 15:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Loughborough University. Probably selectively... Sandstein 06:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Non notable Darrelljon ( talk) 11:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment:
WP:VAGUEWAVE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 12:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ks0stm (
T•
C•
G•
E) 15:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 14:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 14:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗ plicit 14:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 13:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 14:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I tagged the article as an WP:A7, but another administrator redirected the article. The author of the article then reverted the redirect. The subject has no apparent notability except through her husband. Bbb23 ( talk) 13:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Modussiccandi ( talk) 10:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON article about a band not yet reliably sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The only significant notability claim being made here is the existence of one album, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself as NMUSIC requires two albums, not just one, if you're aiming for "the music exists" as the notability target — but the sourcing is not strong enough to get them over WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass any of NMUSIC's achievement-based criteria either: four of the seven footnotes are unreliable sources that aren't support for notability at all (an event calendar listing, a Q&A interview in which they're answering questions about themselves in the first person on a blog, two more very short blurbs on other blogs) and a fifth comes from a single-market local commercial radio station -- there are just two footnotes here (Kerrang and Exclaim) that actually count as valid GNG-worthy support for notability, which isn't enough. Obviously no prejudice against recreation if and when they have a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it than this, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat ( talk) 01:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 02:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 13:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 13:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I can't find enough sources to pass WP:NCORP (significant coverage, independent and reliable sources). MarioGom ( talk) 13:19, 4 April 2022 (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. Technically ineligible as there was a prior PROD, but unlikely to have further input coming and no one is contesting the nomination. Star Mississippi 02:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:ORG. No independent sources provided, what gives is a promo smell. The Banner talk 11:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 12:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 12:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to 2013 NFL season. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
In all of the NFL season articles since 2006 (I didn't look back further than 2006, as I felt this is far enough back to make my point), there is a section that is created for records or milestones. The 2013 season's section, Records and milestones, lists several points and links to a more comprehensive list instead of including it in the article itself. The content was originally split on April 29th, 2014.
The 2013 season saw a level of detail in this section that had not been seen in prior years, which caused the section to grow to a point where I understand why the split occurred. However, in the years since, none of the other NFL season articles have followed the same format. They have instead opted to include these lists in the main article space.
As of now it's the only outlier compared to the other NFL season articles. The content should be added to the 2013 NFL season and the split out list's article should be deleted. Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable. Fails WP:NBIO, and WP:GNG. Lacks sources, and was likely written in return for undisclosed payments. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 10:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MBisanz
talk 01:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz
Humbug! 12:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Those !voting to keep have not managed to present policy-based arguments supported by linked sources. Modussiccandi ( talk) 08:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Subject is a mixed martial fighter. Subject fails NMMA for not having at least 3 top tier promotion fights and subject also fail GNG for info of the fight is merely routine reports Cassiopeia talk 09:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
contribs) 08:56, March 26, 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 18:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third time is a charm. The keep votes are not policy based so if we are keeping we need gng levl sourcing showing please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz
Humbug! 12:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
The one source cited ( https://books.google.com.au/books?id=m6Lh0hu-2xUC&pg=PA246&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) only briefly mentions the movie, and I can't find any other sources Ficaia ( talk) 10:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 12:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. albeit weakly. We have two PRODs, two refunds and three relists. However there appears to be a rough consensus that an article should exist about Haque. Star Mississippi 02:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
This biography was somehow deleted via PROD in 2015, brought back via WP:RFUD in 2019, and then deleted via PROD again in 2021. I just restored it at RFUD the second time specifically so that I could initiate this AfD to settle notability via discussion. The page deleted in 2015 is superior to the current version but I agree it fails to establish WP:GNG. – Muboshgu ( talk) 18:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
References
SailingInABathTub ( talk) 13:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz
Humbug! 12:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Venkat TL ( talk) 18:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Fails
WP:NPOL and
WP:GNG due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable media. Member of Legislative Council are not elected from public election, they are party nominees. Need to pass GNG or
WP:ANYBIO
Venkat TL (
talk) 11:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC) Withdraw
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 21:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPOL. A politician, no election victory, no major public post. Venkat TL ( talk) 11:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
References
References
The result was keep. Consensus is that the article should remain. (non-admin closure) Enos733 ( talk) 15:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of any notability, only been written about in far-left minor publications (note: the Weekly Worker link [31] does not address this group directly), but not in reliable, independent sources. A fringe group with no political results or importance so far, and which has failed to get real attention since the split. Fram ( talk) 10:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Keep There has been coverage in local newspapers which I found after a simple search and have added to the article. Vahvistus ( talk) 20:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Keep Clearly notable, mentioned in several local newspaper articles which are reputable secondary sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yevgeni Preobrazhensky ( talk • contribs) 11:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Keep To make clear I believe this article should not be deleted, the reasons I previously posted stand, but it has now been substantially improved, with a significant number of independent secondary sources, referring to Socialist Alternative's work across the country. If it is still believed there are issues these should be dealt with via normal editing or cleanup tags rather than deletion WP:CONRED. I'd also suggest C2 should have been considered prior to the AfD process being started. Sirrontail ( talk) 14:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Unable to find reliable sources to verify almost anything in the article. CigarettesPedia is user-generated content, and the other two sites appear to be operated by random people, with minimal review. Several other wikis have articles on Max, but I couldn't find any usable sources there either. The most I've found is a handful of passing mentions, stating that Lorillard owns the Max brand. Sunmist ( talk) 10:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:47, 11 April 2022 (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}} . |
End-to-end WP:PROMO. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR. Lacks WP:RS/ WP:RSP. Possible WP:COI/ WP:UPE. Creator of this page has also created a page Detective Boomrah, a project directed by this entity which itself lack notability. - Hatchens ( talk) 07:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Culture of Abkhazia. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Does every region of a country warrant a standalone list? Doesn't seem to be sufficiently notable to be a standalone article either way, also there is already /info/en/?search=List_of_museums_in_Georgia_(country) where it can be integrated instead nearlyevil 665 21:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 07:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:45, 11 April 2022 (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}} . |
Fails WP:GNG, Lacks WP:SIGCOV. End-to-end WP:PROMO. Possible WP:COI/ WP:UPE. The creator has been involved in creating similar promotional pages; Shashie Verma, Sambhav Jain, Aakanksha Sareen. - Hatchens ( talk) 07:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
IndaneLove ( talk) 08:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR, Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Most of the coverage is WP:ROUTINE and WP:ADMASQ. Similar to Shashie Verma and Sambhav Jain; pages created by the same editor. Possible WP:COI/ WP:UPE. - Hatchens ( talk) 07:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:44, 11 April 2022 (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}} . |
Fails WP:NACTOR, Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Most of the coverage is WP:ROUTINE and WP:ADMASQ. Similar to Shashie Verma page created by the same editor. Possible WP:COI/ WP:UPE. - Hatchens ( talk) 07:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GEOLAND/ WP:GNG. Only sources located on a search are trivial mentions in name databases/gazetteers/etc or Wikipedia mirrors. No indication that this is a notable natural feature. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2022 (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! 05:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable film which fails to meet WP:NFILM requirements. Apparently released in Dec 2019 but I found no reliable reviews in WP:BEFORE, both in Hindi and English Ab207 ( talk) 05:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
This unreleased film article created in 2015 has no coverage on production to meet WP:NFF requirements. Does not confirm the filming which is the bare minimum requirement for a future film. Sources listed are database sites and non-RS. Nothing significant was found in WP:BEFORE Ab207 ( talk) 05:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
The article subject does not appear to be independently notable of Cambridge University Press which seems to be the organization that swallowed Cambridge Assessment to create this entity. Seeing as we do not need to have multiple articles that cover what is functionally the same business entity, I propose that this be blanked and redirected to Cambridge University Press, where it can be adequately covered. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 04:42, 4 April 2022 (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! 03:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Could not find significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. The claim "still in the top ten of talent agents" is unverified. LibStar ( talk) 03:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO for lack of coverage. Notability is not inherited from his brother. LibStar ( talk) 03:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. The article was created in violation of a block and has no substantial edits by other editors. Mz7 ( talk) 19:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
No claim or evidence of being notable. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 03:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 10:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Only database sources are provided, and there isn't sufficient coverage to meet GNG, only routine sporting reports. ♡RAFAEL♡( talk) 02:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
I think the subject just about meets WP:GNG. NemesisAT ( talk) 23:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 02:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 03:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Mannington Township, New Jersey#Roads and highways. per the only input and as a valid ATD Star Mississippi 02:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Named intersection, not a notable community: Ref 6 only says "The second commercial district primarily encompasses land owned by Salem Hospital and around the Pointers intersection." and Ref 4 says "King's Highway rejoins the route at the Pointers, 26.6 m. The latter name comes from the junction of three old roads pointing here toward Salem." Ref 3 says "The juncture of highways north of Salem where the road divides to Woodstown, Sharptown and Penn's Neck." Ref 5 is a map which labels this similar to other places that aren't necessarily communities, like beaches, forts, corners, mills, and Pine Island. Can't find any newpapers.com sources establishing notability and none of these are significant coverage beyond stating that it's an intersection with a typical WP:GNIS error. Reywas92 Talk 22:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
...between the junction of the roads from Woodstown, Sharpstown, and Sculltown to Salem (commonly called the Pointers)..., which refers to the junction as a specific spot. (Blevins, Don (2002), Peculiar, Uncertain, and Two Egg, Cumberland House Publishing, ISBN 9781581820942 appears not to be easily accessible online.) Also, there is really anything unusual for building to use a street address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem ( talk • contribs) 2022-03-21T16:02:17 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 01:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 02:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable show. While a show that's been on the air since 2013 would normally be considered notable, this is merely a countdown of seemingly arbitrary videos, with no sourcing in sight about the show itself nor any significance to its rankings. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?) 02:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:GEOLAND fail. No sources. Clarityfiend ( talk) 02:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was withdrawn based on improvements made.
BD2412
T 16:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Fourteen years without a proper source giving any indication of the actual notability of this article subject. No information on their publications or influence in the field as an academic. BD2412 T 01:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 03:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPOL Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 01:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, no rationale for deletion has been provided. Please discuss on the article talk page instead. (non-admin closure) ansh. 666 17:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Procedural nomination. This article was determined for merging into 2022 anti-war protests in Russia in a tense and exciting game of two halves recently (9 !votes for keep, 8 for merge, 4 for delete, and 2 for draftify). After merging, it was unmerged and considerably expanded. Discussion on the article's talk page would suggest a snowball keep, and in my own opinion, it should now be kept. For procedural reasons I am bringing it here for full discussion and potential ratification or rejection of the earlier nomination's outcome. Grutness... wha? 00:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Fails GNG. I researched a lot about the subject, and found no evidence that this subject is notable enough, the appearing websites, pages, and articles, in browser's search results, are not about the subject. The sources listed in this article are also unreliable and there are few references. — Príncess Faye ( talk) 23:59, 4 April 2022 (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! 23:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
like an advertisement denied by AFD; without single improvement the Creator moved it to the mainspace. @@@ XyX talk 23:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep with a side of nomination withdrawn. Star Mississippi 02:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Subject is a mma fighter, boxer and kickboxer. Subject fails all WP:NMMA, WP:NBOX and WP:NKICK notability requirements as well as fails GNG. Cassiopeia talk 23:34, 4 April 2022 (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! 23:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/malayalam/seetha-kalyanam-fame-jithu-venugopal-joins-kudumbavilakku/articleshow/89985741.cms CT55555 ( talk) 13:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping to get more participation in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
This doesn't seem to be an accepted term for any medical condition. PepperBeast (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Diseases that have been officially diagnosed in one or more humans, animals, or plants are notable.
The result was keep. per improvements made and sources IDed during this discussion Star Mississippi 02:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Biography unsourced for over 15 years. BD2412 T 22:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please judge based on improvements that have occurred since this nomination was posted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is this isn't a notable topic and the material isn't suitable for a merge. Star Mississippi 02:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
This list fails both WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There is zero evidence the subjects of this list have ever been discussed as a group by even a single reliable source. Much of this is sourced to photos which are user generated content and not reliable, or to railfan sites which have the same issue. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retired MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet for a similar article which was deleted. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 21:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Arts integration. Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:DICDEF. Sources in the article throw the term around but do not actually define it. This just seems to be a mishmash of random ideas with no through-line. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
*Keep - in that it is defined in Elliot W. Eisner, The Arts and the Creation of Mind, page 39
here. I would delete it for being a bunch of half plagiarized academic paper doublespeak but that can be cleaned up. There is a DICDEF problem in that it seems more than one discipline calls itself "Integrated Arts", re: the stuff that comes after "It may also refer to" - Wikipedia doesn't do different things with the same name, gotta pick one.
Fountains of Bryn Mawr (
talk) 19:46, 5 April 2022 (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! 22:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Subject doesn't seem to pass WP:NTRACK nor WP:GNG. nearlyevil 665 18:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 19:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 20:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Detailed answer in close to either List of shipwrecks in 1855#Unknown date and/or List of shipwrecks of Australia#New South Wales. Valid ATD and which target can be decided editorially if it can't be to both. Star Mississippi 02:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Wooden boat that existed for 5 years. Can't find anything substantial to support notability, certainly not enough for GNG. AviationFreak 💬 15:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Online Databases
- Australian National Shipwreck Database [9]
- Australian Shipping - Arrivals and Departures 1788-1968 including shipwrecks [10]
- Encyclopedia of Australian Shipwrecks - New South Wales Shipwrecks [11]
Books
- Wrecks on the New South Wales Coast. By Loney, J. K. (Jack Kenneth), 1925–1995 Oceans Enterprises. 1993 ISBN 978-0-646-11081-3.
- Australian Shipwrecks - vol1 1622-1850, Charles Bateson, AH and AW Reed, Sydney, 1972, ISBN 0-589-07112-2 910.4530994 BAT
- Australian shipwrecks Vol. 2 1851–1871 By Loney, J. K. (Jack Kenneth), 1925–1995. Sydney. Reed, 1980 910.4530994 LON
- Australian shipwrecks Vol. 3 1871–1900 By Loney, J. K. (Jack Kenneth), 1925–1995. Geelong Vic: List Publishing, 1982 910.4530994 LON
- Australian shipwrecks Vol. 4 1901–1986 By Loney, J. K. (Jack Kenneth), 1925–1995. Portarlington Vic. Marine History Publications, 1987 910.4530994 LON
- Australian shipwrecks Vol. 5 Update 1986 By Loney, J. K. (Jack Kenneth), 1925–1995. Portarlington Vic. Marine History Publications, 1991 910.4530994 LON
The website has a link at the bottom to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en, which means it is licensed under CC BY 3.0 AU, which means it is free content.
The page notes:
View Shipwreck - Adventure
Shipwreck Id number: 32Vessel name: Adventure
Type of vessel:
Sailing rig type: Schooner
Gross tonnage (imperial tons): 101.0
Year wrecked: 1855
Jurisdiction: New South Wales
Region: NSW - Northern Rivers
General History: The Adventure was a 25-metre long timber schooner with a gross tonnage of 101. Built in Hong Kong in 1850, the vessel was wrecked in the Richmond River.
...
Voyage
Captain: James Cook
...
Dimensions
Register tonnage (imperial tons): 101.0. Metric: 102.62
Vessel length (feet): 82.28. Metres: 25.08
Vessel width (feet): 17.0. Metres: 5.18.
Vessel depth (feet): Metres:
Vessel draft (feet): 7.0. Metres: 2.13
Construction
Year built: 1850.
Builder name:
Country in which built: Hong Kong
State in which built:
Construction locality: Hong Kong
Construction materials: Wood
Vessel Registration
Country of registry:
Port of registry: Sydney
Official number:
Port number: 135/1853
Management
Protection: New South Wales Heritage Act 1977
Responsibility: Australian State
History
History of discovery:
References: Register of British Shipping
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 20:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Lack of notability Creuzbourg ( talk) 20:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. concerns remain about sourcing, but no one is strongly advocating for deletion, and those arguing for keep have provided policy based input. Star Mississippi 17:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet notability requirement, as it lacks significant detailed coverage in reliable sources. Searching for "The Unity and Salvation Authority of SSC" yields exactly five results, including the Wikipedia entry. "SSC movement" + "Somalia" has two results on Scholar. And although some results do show up on Google Books for "SSC movement" + "Somalia" [12] there is no significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail per SIGCOV. Additionally, the article is pushing original research with little to no backing within reliable sources, e.g. the map included in the infobox.
Lastly, and this may be out-with the scope of the AFD, the inclusion of the OR map follows a pattern observed repeatedly in behaviour of long-term vandal Middayexpress where an OR map is uploaded or edited on Commons using a throwaway account [13], and then later inserted into a Wikipedia article using a different account to evade scrutiny [14], this was discussed at length here: User:TomStar81/Horn_of_Africa_disruption. -- Kzl55 ( talk) 16:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Modussiccandi (
talk) 10:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 20:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. There is consensus that this does not meet notability requirements. I am not draftifying it unless someone wants to actively work on it. Moldering in draft space for six months is not a practical solution. Star Mississippi 13:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Not notable GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 13:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC) Article about a Hungarian football club with unreliable sources (a database and the homepage of the club). Although there are some honours listed, there are no sources cited. During a search I mainly found the usual databases, listings, videos and the like. This club doesn't seem notable, but if anyone presents reliable sources I cannot access, I change my mind. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 13:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk) 14:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk) 20:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Advanced search for: "Municipal theatre" | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
The article stub Municipal theatre begins with a dictionary description ( WP:NOT#DICT). All additional description of the article subject is about what the subject is not, by comparison to other theatre forms, but the implied differences do not exist.
Article by Christian Rakow about theatre funding in Germany on the website of the Goethe Institut (in english) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrestesLebt ( talk • contribs) 2022-03-28T07:57:55 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 20:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was nomination withdrawn. Canley ( talk) 12:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Government agency doesn't seem to meet
WP:NORG- in-depth coverage in independent sources is limited to
WP:ROUTINE announcements about its formation.
MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Withdrawn. After almost 2 weeks there is no consensus for deletion, so let's put this out of its misery. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Keep. Government agencies are generally notable. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
With all of these references (total effort so far about 10 minutes) there is enough to improve the page. I should also note that the previous version of the agency is redirected here so we already have a single page for 2 departments. I would update the page myself but I am working on some other pages at the moment. Gusfriend ( talk) 07:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Arguments like "Government agencies are generally notable" are unsupported by inclusion guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 20:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Edgar Allan Poe (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 04:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
A case of the tail wagging the dog. There are many Edgar Allan Poe entries (transferred by me to Edgar Allan Poe (disambiguation)) and only two Edgar Poes. Edgar Poe already redirects to Edgar Allan Poe, and I've adjusted the hatnote to point to the minor character rather than this page. Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 19:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus is that significant coverage exists. (non-admin closure) Enos733 ( talk) 05:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The coverage I can see is in passing - she was a prominent victim of the Bucha massacre (a local politician, village head), but that's not the same as notable. Also relevant WP:ONEVENT, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I recommend a redirect to Bucha massacre, where she is already mentioned as a victim (and the current article has next to no extra information anyway). PS. No Ukrainian interwiki is a red flag too, uk:Ольга Сухенко is not even a redirect? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph [...] If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject [...] should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic. A merge and/or redirect would not erase her from Wikipedia, and our guidelines state, " A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic." Beccaynr ( talk) 03:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works.Beccaynr ( talk) 16:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
usually at more than a locally-significant level.I have not found sources to otherwise show she was high-profile per the explanatory supplement, e.g.
one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publicationor voluntary participation in
self-publicity activities, such as press conferencesor that she was a
speaker for a publicly advertised event at which admission was collected and/or which garnered significant independent, non-local coverage.The explanatory supplement also states,
Typically notable or would-be notable for roles of various levels of importance in more than a single major event, or for a major role in one major event.My !vote is also based on the WP:PAGEDECIDE guideline, due to the context available in the suggested merge target, with a caveat that while sourcing currently appears insufficient to support a standalone article, it may develop in the future to support recreation of the article. Beccaynr ( talk) 17:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
substantialand
well-documentedrole. My !vote would be stronger if there was more time since the event to assert significance based on persistence of coverage per WP:BLP1E. Beccaynr ( talk) 01:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC) - comment updated to strike WP:METRO. Beccaynr ( talk) 04:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. All the references are pre win coverage before elections. Been on the cat:nn category with a notability tag since June 2010 and never been updated. scope_creep Talk 17:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the Camp is notable, and the article is basically unsourced; the only reference on the page doesn't even mention the camp. Having searched on google for references to the camp all I can find are passing mentions in 'lists of camps' type pages, and their own website. JeffUK ( talk) 17:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) scope_creep Talk 09:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Socialist/Marxist magazine article with no source. Never had sources. Been on the cat:nn for more than 10 years. Potentially notable by currently fails WP:SIGCOV. Found one ref but its an WP:SPS. Seems to be ultra obscure. scope_creep Talk 15:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Loughborough University. Probably selectively... Sandstein 06:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Non notable Darrelljon ( talk) 11:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment:
WP:VAGUEWAVE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 12:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ks0stm (
T•
C•
G•
E) 15:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 14:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 14:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗ plicit 14:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 13:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 14:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I tagged the article as an WP:A7, but another administrator redirected the article. The author of the article then reverted the redirect. The subject has no apparent notability except through her husband. Bbb23 ( talk) 13:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Modussiccandi ( talk) 10:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON article about a band not yet reliably sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The only significant notability claim being made here is the existence of one album, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself as NMUSIC requires two albums, not just one, if you're aiming for "the music exists" as the notability target — but the sourcing is not strong enough to get them over WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass any of NMUSIC's achievement-based criteria either: four of the seven footnotes are unreliable sources that aren't support for notability at all (an event calendar listing, a Q&A interview in which they're answering questions about themselves in the first person on a blog, two more very short blurbs on other blogs) and a fifth comes from a single-market local commercial radio station -- there are just two footnotes here (Kerrang and Exclaim) that actually count as valid GNG-worthy support for notability, which isn't enough. Obviously no prejudice against recreation if and when they have a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it than this, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat ( talk) 01:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 02:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 13:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 13:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I can't find enough sources to pass WP:NCORP (significant coverage, independent and reliable sources). MarioGom ( talk) 13:19, 4 April 2022 (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. Technically ineligible as there was a prior PROD, but unlikely to have further input coming and no one is contesting the nomination. Star Mississippi 02:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:ORG. No independent sources provided, what gives is a promo smell. The Banner talk 11:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 12:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 12:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to 2013 NFL season. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
In all of the NFL season articles since 2006 (I didn't look back further than 2006, as I felt this is far enough back to make my point), there is a section that is created for records or milestones. The 2013 season's section, Records and milestones, lists several points and links to a more comprehensive list instead of including it in the article itself. The content was originally split on April 29th, 2014.
The 2013 season saw a level of detail in this section that had not been seen in prior years, which caused the section to grow to a point where I understand why the split occurred. However, in the years since, none of the other NFL season articles have followed the same format. They have instead opted to include these lists in the main article space.
As of now it's the only outlier compared to the other NFL season articles. The content should be added to the 2013 NFL season and the split out list's article should be deleted. Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable. Fails WP:NBIO, and WP:GNG. Lacks sources, and was likely written in return for undisclosed payments. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 10:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MBisanz
talk 01:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz
Humbug! 12:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Those !voting to keep have not managed to present policy-based arguments supported by linked sources. Modussiccandi ( talk) 08:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Subject is a mixed martial fighter. Subject fails NMMA for not having at least 3 top tier promotion fights and subject also fail GNG for info of the fight is merely routine reports Cassiopeia talk 09:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
contribs) 08:56, March 26, 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 18:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third time is a charm. The keep votes are not policy based so if we are keeping we need gng levl sourcing showing please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz
Humbug! 12:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
The one source cited ( https://books.google.com.au/books?id=m6Lh0hu-2xUC&pg=PA246&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) only briefly mentions the movie, and I can't find any other sources Ficaia ( talk) 10:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 12:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. albeit weakly. We have two PRODs, two refunds and three relists. However there appears to be a rough consensus that an article should exist about Haque. Star Mississippi 02:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
This biography was somehow deleted via PROD in 2015, brought back via WP:RFUD in 2019, and then deleted via PROD again in 2021. I just restored it at RFUD the second time specifically so that I could initiate this AfD to settle notability via discussion. The page deleted in 2015 is superior to the current version but I agree it fails to establish WP:GNG. – Muboshgu ( talk) 18:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
References
SailingInABathTub ( talk) 13:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz
Humbug! 12:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Venkat TL ( talk) 18:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Fails
WP:NPOL and
WP:GNG due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable media. Member of Legislative Council are not elected from public election, they are party nominees. Need to pass GNG or
WP:ANYBIO
Venkat TL (
talk) 11:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC) Withdraw
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 21:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPOL. A politician, no election victory, no major public post. Venkat TL ( talk) 11:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
References
References
The result was keep. Consensus is that the article should remain. (non-admin closure) Enos733 ( talk) 15:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of any notability, only been written about in far-left minor publications (note: the Weekly Worker link [31] does not address this group directly), but not in reliable, independent sources. A fringe group with no political results or importance so far, and which has failed to get real attention since the split. Fram ( talk) 10:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Keep There has been coverage in local newspapers which I found after a simple search and have added to the article. Vahvistus ( talk) 20:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Keep Clearly notable, mentioned in several local newspaper articles which are reputable secondary sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yevgeni Preobrazhensky ( talk • contribs) 11:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Keep To make clear I believe this article should not be deleted, the reasons I previously posted stand, but it has now been substantially improved, with a significant number of independent secondary sources, referring to Socialist Alternative's work across the country. If it is still believed there are issues these should be dealt with via normal editing or cleanup tags rather than deletion WP:CONRED. I'd also suggest C2 should have been considered prior to the AfD process being started. Sirrontail ( talk) 14:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Unable to find reliable sources to verify almost anything in the article. CigarettesPedia is user-generated content, and the other two sites appear to be operated by random people, with minimal review. Several other wikis have articles on Max, but I couldn't find any usable sources there either. The most I've found is a handful of passing mentions, stating that Lorillard owns the Max brand. Sunmist ( talk) 10:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:47, 11 April 2022 (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}} . |
End-to-end WP:PROMO. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR. Lacks WP:RS/ WP:RSP. Possible WP:COI/ WP:UPE. Creator of this page has also created a page Detective Boomrah, a project directed by this entity which itself lack notability. - Hatchens ( talk) 07:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Culture of Abkhazia. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Does every region of a country warrant a standalone list? Doesn't seem to be sufficiently notable to be a standalone article either way, also there is already /info/en/?search=List_of_museums_in_Georgia_(country) where it can be integrated instead nearlyevil 665 21:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 07:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:45, 11 April 2022 (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}} . |
Fails WP:GNG, Lacks WP:SIGCOV. End-to-end WP:PROMO. Possible WP:COI/ WP:UPE. The creator has been involved in creating similar promotional pages; Shashie Verma, Sambhav Jain, Aakanksha Sareen. - Hatchens ( talk) 07:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
IndaneLove ( talk) 08:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR, Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Most of the coverage is WP:ROUTINE and WP:ADMASQ. Similar to Shashie Verma and Sambhav Jain; pages created by the same editor. Possible WP:COI/ WP:UPE. - Hatchens ( talk) 07:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:44, 11 April 2022 (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}} . |
Fails WP:NACTOR, Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Most of the coverage is WP:ROUTINE and WP:ADMASQ. Similar to Shashie Verma page created by the same editor. Possible WP:COI/ WP:UPE. - Hatchens ( talk) 07:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GEOLAND/ WP:GNG. Only sources located on a search are trivial mentions in name databases/gazetteers/etc or Wikipedia mirrors. No indication that this is a notable natural feature. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2022 (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! 05:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable film which fails to meet WP:NFILM requirements. Apparently released in Dec 2019 but I found no reliable reviews in WP:BEFORE, both in Hindi and English Ab207 ( talk) 05:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
This unreleased film article created in 2015 has no coverage on production to meet WP:NFF requirements. Does not confirm the filming which is the bare minimum requirement for a future film. Sources listed are database sites and non-RS. Nothing significant was found in WP:BEFORE Ab207 ( talk) 05:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
The article subject does not appear to be independently notable of Cambridge University Press which seems to be the organization that swallowed Cambridge Assessment to create this entity. Seeing as we do not need to have multiple articles that cover what is functionally the same business entity, I propose that this be blanked and redirected to Cambridge University Press, where it can be adequately covered. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 04:42, 4 April 2022 (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! 03:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Could not find significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. The claim "still in the top ten of talent agents" is unverified. LibStar ( talk) 03:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO for lack of coverage. Notability is not inherited from his brother. LibStar ( talk) 03:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. The article was created in violation of a block and has no substantial edits by other editors. Mz7 ( talk) 19:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
No claim or evidence of being notable. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 03:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 10:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Only database sources are provided, and there isn't sufficient coverage to meet GNG, only routine sporting reports. ♡RAFAEL♡( talk) 02:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
I think the subject just about meets WP:GNG. NemesisAT ( talk) 23:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 02:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 03:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Mannington Township, New Jersey#Roads and highways. per the only input and as a valid ATD Star Mississippi 02:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Named intersection, not a notable community: Ref 6 only says "The second commercial district primarily encompasses land owned by Salem Hospital and around the Pointers intersection." and Ref 4 says "King's Highway rejoins the route at the Pointers, 26.6 m. The latter name comes from the junction of three old roads pointing here toward Salem." Ref 3 says "The juncture of highways north of Salem where the road divides to Woodstown, Sharptown and Penn's Neck." Ref 5 is a map which labels this similar to other places that aren't necessarily communities, like beaches, forts, corners, mills, and Pine Island. Can't find any newpapers.com sources establishing notability and none of these are significant coverage beyond stating that it's an intersection with a typical WP:GNIS error. Reywas92 Talk 22:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
...between the junction of the roads from Woodstown, Sharpstown, and Sculltown to Salem (commonly called the Pointers)..., which refers to the junction as a specific spot. (Blevins, Don (2002), Peculiar, Uncertain, and Two Egg, Cumberland House Publishing, ISBN 9781581820942 appears not to be easily accessible online.) Also, there is really anything unusual for building to use a street address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem ( talk • contribs) 2022-03-21T16:02:17 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 01:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 02:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable show. While a show that's been on the air since 2013 would normally be considered notable, this is merely a countdown of seemingly arbitrary videos, with no sourcing in sight about the show itself nor any significance to its rankings. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?) 02:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:GEOLAND fail. No sources. Clarityfiend ( talk) 02:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was withdrawn based on improvements made.
BD2412
T 16:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Fourteen years without a proper source giving any indication of the actual notability of this article subject. No information on their publications or influence in the field as an academic. BD2412 T 01:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 03:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPOL Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 01:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, no rationale for deletion has been provided. Please discuss on the article talk page instead. (non-admin closure) ansh. 666 17:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Procedural nomination. This article was determined for merging into 2022 anti-war protests in Russia in a tense and exciting game of two halves recently (9 !votes for keep, 8 for merge, 4 for delete, and 2 for draftify). After merging, it was unmerged and considerably expanded. Discussion on the article's talk page would suggest a snowball keep, and in my own opinion, it should now be kept. For procedural reasons I am bringing it here for full discussion and potential ratification or rejection of the earlier nomination's outcome. Grutness... wha? 00:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)