The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by anonymous IP without reason given. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty ( talk) 21:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Also nominating:
The result was no consensus. Wow, that was a lot to read for someone who isn't involved! It's time to close this as an AfD discussion, but let me be very clear that this discussion is not over. I recommend it continues on relevant article talk pages or project pages as the editors see fit.
The question I have to answer is purely about whether there is a consensus to delete the articles. The nominator has made this easy for me by effectively withdrawing the nomination during the discussion and instead arguing for a merge and redirect and/or various other remedies, none of which require the pages to be deleted as a prerequisite.
That leaves me with the technicality as to whether to close as "Keep" or "No consensus". As stated above, I don't believe the discussion around exactly what to do with these articles is fully over; there seems to be a rough consensus that outright deletion is not required, but other than that the options to fix, redirect, merge, etc. are still wide open and for that reason I am closing as "no consensus". Waggers TALK 13:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because they have the same issues.
This triple AfD is a follow-up to the previous AfDs on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Slavs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Orthodox Slavs (and Catholic Slavs), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Slavs, each of which resulted in deletion for a combination of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH with rampant generalisations to imply an inherent connection between people who just so happen to be speakers of Slavic languages or a branch of Slavic languages, and often some other arbitrary trait such as religion or geography. These three articles are slightly different from the previous ones (such as North Slavs, which was ultimately merged into North Slavic languages) in the sense that the West, East and South Slavic languages are all widely recognised branches of the Slavic language family according to the consensus amongst linguists. However, we still need to ask the question whether there is any added value in writing separate articles about West, East and South Slavs as ethnic groups – with all sorts of alleged cultural or even biological traits that go beyond the field of linguistics – or whether such information should be regarded as either unscholarly or irrelevant, as it tended to be in each of the AfD cases above. The South Slavs (or Yugoslavs) stand out a bit from the other two groups, because during the 20th century the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and later the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were political realities (although they importantly excluded Bulgaria), and in some sense South Slavs or Yugoslavs were more than just a linguistic grouping, e.g. there were "Yugoslav citizens" and you could register as an "ethnic Yugoslav". However, I think the article Yugoslavs can still serve that function to talk about the South Slavs in any other than a purely linguistic sense. (And even if we may argue that "Yugoslavs" were or are more than just a linguistic reality, Bulgarians are still usually excluded from this concept, while it is possible to include groups such as Albanian-speaking Kosovars, Hungarian-speaking Serbs or Slovenes or Italian-speaking Croats, who were at least "Yugoslav citizens" for decades).
In any case, it is still unacceptable to have articles with sections such as South Slavs#Cities, a fine example of WP:UNSOURCED, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, rampant generalisation and irrelevance in one. Why, for example, does it list Plovdiv with its 338,153 inhabitants (allegedly as of 1 October 2015) in an article about South Slavs? The reasoning seems to be: (A) Bulgarian is a South Slavic language, (B) Bulgarian is the majority-language (demographically) / national language (legally) of Bulgaria, (C) therefore we may regard the entire population of Bulgaria as "South Slavs", (D) therefore we can count every single inhabitant of Plovdiv as "South Slavs". Evidently, only A and B are correct, C is misleading/generalising/oversimplified, and D is factually incorrect. Presenting this information in this way is therefore unacceptable. (I already added those templates OR and unsourced templates there two months ago when the North Slavs AfD was in progress, but nobody has fixed it in the meantime. I'm now using it to illustrate the issues with all three of these West, East and South Slav articles). Another common feature in these articles is the mention of bits and pieces of history or culture of a specific country/state or ethnic/linguistic (sub)group, which aren't necessarily representative of the West, East or South linguistic branches. E.g. why does it state "For many centuries Poland has had close ties with its western neighbors, with the Polish ruler Bolesław I the Brave declared by Holy Roman Emperor Otto III as Frater et Cooperator Imperii ("Brother and Partner in the Empire")."? What does that have to do with "West Slavs", other than that in modern times (19th and early 20th century) the Polish language has been classified as a West Slavic language? (In the same way, Polish things were taken as representative of "North Slavic culture" generally in the former "North Slavs" article, and the AfD regarded this as OR/SYNTH). Or, why should we take the painting File:Slavic girl.jpg alias File:Ukrainian girl by Nikolay Rachkov (2nd half 19 c., Chernigov museum).jpg as representative of "East Slavs", just because Ukrainian was identified as an East Slavic language in modern times? If anything, it says something about Ukrainian culture specifically, not about some broader purported "East Slavic culture" generally, as it appears to have nothing to do with linguistics, but only with clothing. Employing linguistics to make such statements or present images in this manner is simply WP:SYNTH.
In short, when we remove all the OR, SYNTH, irrelevant and unsourced stuff,
None of these articles seems to have sufficient added value as separate articles on their own, just like all previous AfDs with a Slavic theme above have already demonstrated. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 22:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Ipse vero peracta autumnali venatione trans Rhenum ad hiemandum in loco, qui Franconofurd appellatur, profectus est. Ibique generali conventu congregato necessaria quaeque ad utilitatem orientalium partium regni sui pertinentia more solemni cum optimatibus, quos ad hoc evocare iusserat, tractare curavit. In quo conventu omnium orientalium Sclavorum, id est Abodritorum, Soraborum, Wilzorum, Beheimorum, Marvanorum, Praedenecentorum, et in Pannonia residentium Abarum legationes cum muneribus ad se directas audivit.
But he [Louis the Pious], having finished his autumn hunting, went across the Rhine to spend the winter in a place called Franconofurd [Frankfurt]. There, having assembled a general assembly, he took care to deal with the nobles, whom he had ordered to be summoned for this purpose, in a solemn manner, with the necessary matters pertaining to the welfare of the eastern parts of his kingdom. In which assembly of all the Slavs from the east, that is, the Abodrites [Obotrites?], the Sorabs [Sorbs?], the Wilzos [Veleti/Wends?], the Beheims [Bohemians?], the Marvans [Moravians?], the Praedenecenti, and the Abari [Avars?] residing in Pannonia, he heard embassies addressed to him with presents.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help); External link in |isbn=
(
help)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 22:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Also nominating:
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! 23:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 22:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. I'd be willing to restore this to Draft space as long as the page creator goes through the WP:AFC process. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
i really fail to see how this is a notable film (and it hasn't even been officially released yet), there's no real in depth coverage and it doesn't appear to have won any awards. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
NYT 1970 "PASADENA SCHOOLS TOLD TO INTEGRATE" | Relating to Prop 13, not subject | ✘ No | ||
Pasadena Now 2022 ""Award-Winning Documentary..." | ~ Geographically specific to area of premiere | ~ No author named | ~ Partial | |
theindiefest.com "Humanitarian Award.." | ? Cannot discern | Reputability of awards is questionable (See above) | ✘ 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 delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Google scholar shows a highest citation of 9. Part of a promotional walled garden. duffbeerforme ( talk) 22:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
The article has been unsourced since 2009 (the single book by Charles Leadbeater with no page number given is clearly not a reliable source for Wikipedia). The creator of this article Dchmelik has created a lot of unreliable articles which are all stubs or unsourced related to Theosophy and there is a discussion about this at WP:FTN regarding their edits [2]. Dchmelik has now redirected Anupadaka into Anupapadaka. If you look these terms up they do not mean "a philosophical term about reality such as the 'anupadaka plane' or gods or Dhyani-Buddhas that fit the definition" so this is very bad original research. I looked up the word "Anupapadaka", it is used in Theosophical literature to mean birth by metamorphosis or birth without parents, i.e. "parentless" and only that part of the article is correct. There is no mention of an "anupadaka plane", or anything else that Dchmelik has written so this is original research and against policy. I am not sure why we would need an entire article dedicated to this one word which was used by Helena Blavatsky and her followers. I believe it would be best to delete this article. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 21:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Waggers TALK 13:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NMMA. His highest ranking by Fight Matrix was 81st in the featherweight division, and he has never previously appeared in Sherdog's rankings. ♡RAFAEL♡( talk) 01:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Comr Melody Idoghor
(talk) 20:04, 15 August 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! 21:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. A Burmese Google search yielded nothing useful. Google News had nothing in Burmese. DDG just had the usual stats sites. The best that I could find was a squad list mention in an Indian football blog. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Lacks reliable sources under WP:MUSICBIO despite fulfilling WP:MUSICBIO#C2. There is limited coverage of the charting single itself and she is only a featured artist (edit: apologies, that is incorrect, she is fully credited). Significantly, the majority of sources are self-published or primary. Besides the chart listings, almost no other sources fulfill reliability guidelines, even after being cleaned up. Simply fails to have the necessary independent reliable sources anywhere else besides little more than a paragraph about Stay the Night. RedBaron12 ( talk) 17:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 19:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
either the general notability guideline... or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline, and this very clearly meets a subject-specific notability guideline, this article should not be deleted and any deletion based in WP:DEL-REASON#8 is erroneous. There exist enough independent sources to write a short article about this individual, as Dr vulpes has shown above, though I am in full agreement that the article needs to be cleaned up in order to reduce its reliance upon WP:SPS. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
A strange article history. This was a hijack of Wall of Wind, a similar facility at Florida International University. The researcher who created this article, User:Alymousaad (not coincidentally the author listed on all citations) moved from FIU to LSU in 2013 and changed the article in 2019. Unfortunately, the LSU installation does not appear to be generally notable or even known by the name "Open Jet". (The FIU one, on the other hand, picked up media coverage.) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Comr Melody Idoghor
(talk) 19:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 01:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Olympian who fails GNG. There is an academic of this name who is probably a different person. Avilich ( talk) 00:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
"Velkei Ferenc the famous Hungarian international referee...",
"Only of these Velkei Ferenc was an international referee at the age of 50...",
"Velkey Ferenc today the referee who is Bp Vörös...",
"According to Ferenc Velkei, deputy general secretary of Hungarian basketball...",
"Ferenc Velkei is a multiple Hungarian national team player...",
"...we inquired with Ferenc Velkei, the international commissioner of the MKOSZ...") – unfortunately the snippets are extremely brief (and Google translate does an awful job of translating them) and Arcanum is paywalled. There are even more hits by extending the date window up to the present. For me, it is unreasonable to think there is no significant coverage in these local language sources. wjemather please leave a message... 10:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Comr Melody Idoghor
(talk) 15:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Comr Melody Idoghor
(talk) 19:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. None of the keep arguments have provided any meaningful analysis of the sources they assert pass GNG and bare assertions do not carry weight. Non policy based and IAR arguments do not carry much weight against the professed will of the community on sports bios. The delete side includes analysis of the sourcing that shows it does not pass gng and no attempt has been made to refute this. Spartaz Humbug! 16:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. The source does not mention the name "Francisco". F Adesdae 378 21:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would like to see some discussion in response to dlthewave's source analysis. I would remind participants that
the community was clear that caps alone do not confer notability. You can not
LOCALCONSENSUS around this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Guerillero
Parlez Moi 09:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 19:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 16:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
This is not a valid disambiguation page: all entries are WP:Partial title matches not known solely as "Jamaat". An alternative to deletion might be a {{ Wiktionary redirect}} to wikt:jamaat. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 16:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 08:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 19:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
This is a company so WP:NCORP guidelines apple. I am unable to locate any references that meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability HighKing ++ 19:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. based on new sources found in this AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to have
WP:SIGCOV. On newspapers.com – which has a ton of US newspapers and should contain plenty of such information – I found nothing but passing mentions (i.e., cast lists) for the queries Charles Crockett Guilty Hands
, Charles Crockett Gingham Girl
, Charles Crockett Princess from Hoboken
.
Ovinus (
talk) 18:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
The book notes: "Charles B. Crockett was born in Baltimore, Maryland, on December 29, 1870, and he died on June 12, 1934, in Los Angeles, California, at age 64. I could find very little on his background except that he came to the screen from the stage. He may have appeared in comedy shorts as four of his twelve features were of that genre. He appeared in four Westerns two of which were considered epic. He also appeared in two historical and One Northwest film. Some of his films are: 1924: The Millionaire Cowboy with Lefty Flynn and Gloria Grey, (her father); Sundown with Besside Love and Roy Stewart (Joe Patton). ..."
The entry provides 74 words of coverage about the subject. The entry notes: "Charles Crockett was an actor who had a successful Hollywood career. Crockett began his career with a role in the Richard Dix historical feature "The Vanishing American" (1925)."
The article was published in 1926 so is in the public domain. The article notes: "Charles Crockett, well-known character actor, who was teamed with Claude Gillingwater a year ago in Frank Lloyd's "Winds of Chance" and who played the Indian agent in "Vanishing American," was selected by Svend Gade to play Senov, a street faker and carnival Punch and Judy operator in Corinne Griffith's Capitol Theater's photo-feature opening Sunday. In addition to being an actor of repute, Crockett is known in studioland as "Hollywood's Will Rogers," so famous have his many humorous after-dinner speeches become in every quarter of the studio city."
The article notes (bolding added for emphasis): "An amusing innovation was occasioned by a speech by "Karl Frankel" introduced as a famous engineer from Berlin, Germany, who lampooned the Academy, the Engineers, Hollywood and the motion picture industry so cleverly that all guests, except the few who were informed, were unaware of the deception until Mr. Niblo re-introduced "Herr Frankel" at the end of his speech as Charles Crockett, the well known character actor of Hollywood."
The article notes (bolding added for emphasis): "Claude Gillingwater, Charles Crockett, Marcel Corday and a number of other screen luminaries are listed among those playing important parts In Into Her Kingdom."
Regarding the 1927 silent film The Princess from Hoboken, the article notes: "One of the finest characterisations in this story of the screen is by Edmund Burns but there is also a fine bit of character acting, by Charles Crockett."
The article notes: "Hollywood has its full share of these love feasts and at one of these given for Mr. Lasky, Charles Crockett, the other gag man, got up and told, as an out-of-town exhibitor, that he was going to have to refuse to show any more of the filthy sexy immoral pictures being produced by that company, Famous-Lasky. Mr. Jesse Lasky turned white and did not seem to be enjoying his dinner, but the situation was lightened by the toastmaster pulling off the false whiskers and introducing Mr. Crockett, for what he was."
The article notes: "Other roles of importance in the cast have been assigned to Barry Gray, Charles Crockett, veteran character actor who is cast as the chief executive of the small town; Rosemary Cooper and Spec O'Donnell."
The article notes (bolding added for emphasis): "Completing the all-star line-up of supporting players are such prominent names as George Magill, Shannon Day, Charles Crockett, Bert Woodruff, Bernard Siegel, Guy Oliver, Charles Stevens, Joe Ryan.
The article notes: "Claude Gillingwater and Charles Crockett as Tom and Jerry, two old prospectors eternally quarrelling, yet deeply devoted to each other, are a hit. Gillingwater has ever since his memorable debut as the Earl in "Little Lord Fauntleroy" been ranked as one of our best character actors and teamed with Crockett, his work has never been more convincing, appealing or enjoyable."
The result was redirect to Dagon#In popular culture. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Dagon in popular culture violates our policies regarding stand-alone lists, indiscriminate collections of information, trivia and the general notability guideline. The vast majority of the examples relate to H. P. Lovecraft's Dagon, who is discussed in Deep One. Since barely any of the examples are sourced, there is nothing to merge into that article. ― Susmuffin Talk 17:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:NBIO. I could not find any good reliable sources that show that this person is notable. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 17:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Deleting as the article in Draft space is more developed than this one in main space. Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Recent recreation with no evidence that anything has even been announced yet. I believe this may be a too soon situation and probably should continue to be worked on at Draft:Miss Universe Philippines 2023 until there are enough sources discussing this. The two source I have found to even mention this are [12] and [13] which touches on how they will allow married women and mothers to compete. In short this does not yet meet WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 16:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of notability - seems like one of the thousands of local colleges in India which does not satisfy WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG. Doing WP:BEFORE I found some mentions of the college in books and catalogues (such as the 1964 New Educational Directory of the World) but no in-depth coverage. Muhandes ( talk) 16:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability
The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Where possible, also please make use of The Wikipedia Library, which offers free access to various subscription databases of additional resources. Not every resource available in that collection will always be relevant in every situation, so it is not necessary to exhaustively check every database, but there are many resources that may be useful for specialized or older topics that might not Google well.
If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted.
If you spend more time examining the sources and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an AfD nomination may still be appropriate.
If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice in Wikipedia:Citing sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern.
Here, the search on Google Scholar shows many research articles published by the faculties of this college. Please see:
In summary, this college satisfies the notability criteria. User:Soumitrahazra
The result was closed as the article had been hijacked from a different topic and has been reverted back to the prior subject. Bearcat ( talk) 15:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Insufficient evidence that subject of the article meets the WP:NOTABILITY threshold. — The Anome ( talk) 15:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Tedd Arnold. Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Currently unreferenced. Fails GNG and WP:NBOOKS - Google searches return mainly bookseller and library pages, plus miscellaneous uses of Huggly as an adjective, etc; I can't immediately see any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Draftification reverted by original creator without improvement of article. Paul W ( talk) 14:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 15:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Completely unsourced, no evidence of existence (i.e., being known as the South Dakota Panhandle) or significance in reliable sources. Fails WP:NGEO, possibly original research. Complex/ Rational 14:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Geometry Wars. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Unable to find adequate sources for uncited article. Article appears to be a minigame on Project Gotham Racing 4, and later apart of Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved 2. Both articles already include information regarding the Waves mini-game. Fails WP:GNG. If any adequate sources could be found, I suggest merging any additional information to the aforementioned articles and Geometry Wars. Skipple ☎ 14:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Closing discussion early per SNOW. With five well made arguments for keep and no votes for delete, outcome appears very clear and unlikely to change, so there is a net positive to closing the discussion early. If any editor disagrees with my close, please ping me on my talk page and I will undo and allow to run for the full time period/leave for an administrator. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta ( talk) 11:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTGALLERY, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. – Illegitimate Barrister ( talk • contribs), 13:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Closing discussion early per SNOW. With seven well made arguments for keep and no votes for delete, outcome appears very clear and unlikely to change, so there is a net positive to closing the discussion early. If any editor disagrees with my close, please ping me on my talk page and I will undo and allow to run for the full time period/leave for an administrator. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta ( talk) 11:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTGALLERY, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. – Illegitimate Barrister ( talk • contribs), 13:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Closing discussion early per SNOW. With seven arguments for keep, some of them strong, and no votes for delete, outcome appears very clear and unlikely to change, so there is a net positive to closing the discussion early. If any editor disagrees with my close, please ping me on my talk page and I will undo and allow to run for the full time period/leave for an administrator. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta ( talk) 11:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
As per WP:NOTGALLERY, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. – Illegitimate Barrister ( talk • contribs), 13:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Seems to fail WP:AUTHOR. No indication whether the book she co-authored is well known. -- Minorax«¦ talk¦» 13:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
One of a group of ancient Theosophy stubs sourced to a century-old book, as with the others the notability and accuracy are both dubious, and in this case the article doesn't make much sense anyway, so a WP:TNT deletion might be warranted. Mangoe ( talk) 13:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG and lacks third-party sources. Google shows no reliable sources, and while Google Books does include this which is very in-depth, it turns out the author of that book, Sebastian Bassi, is one of the two developers of DNALinux as seen on the distro's website so it is not an independent source. The other Google Books matches are all trivial mentions. Aoidh ( talk) 11:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
17:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers. if more sources are found to show SIGCOV, may qualify for his own article. Based on current consensus will redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers (non-admin closure) KSAWikipedian ( talk) 15:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
No significant coverage to meet NSPORTS or GNG. The previous AfD was closed as Keep based on the likely existence of SIGCOV sources; no sources have been found to exist or been added to the articles. NSPORTS no longer allows presumption of notability and SPORTBASIC explicitly requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. Although one source was provided at the previous AfD, it does not meet SIGCOV for Sahni as it is an interview with him about a game, not independent coverage of the man himself. – dlthewave ☎ 15:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
"Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof."This article fails the proof of SIGCOG requirement as well as WP:SPORTBASIC #5. – dlthewave ☎ 19:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
There is a distinction between "trivial", "non-trivial", and "significant" coverage, with this falling squarely in the middle category. JoelleJay ( talk) 08:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Mukesh Sahni, father of Parth Sahni of Ujjain, included in state Ranji team was welcomed.
His father Mukesh Sahni has played Ranji for Madhya Pradesh.
Mukesh Sahni, resident of Dabripeetha was felicitated by members of Nagar Brahmin Samaj on the Kshipra coast.
Mukesh Sahni has been an excellent cricketer and he has played 12 Ranji matches for Madhya Pradesh. His son Parth took two wickets for MP while debuting in the final and after 88 years made a significant contribution in defeating a strong side like Mumbai.
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notabilityThis suggests there may be non-trivial sources that are nevertheless not substantial enough to provide the in-depth coverage needed for GNG. JoelleJay ( talk) 00:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, looks like a choice between Keep and Redirect right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Modussiccandi (
talk) 11:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was draftify. ✗ plicit 02:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Reads and looks like spam, no RS. A few days ago appeared also here: Draft:HCL BigFix Morpho achilles ( talk) 07:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bungle (
talk •
contribs) 09:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:LISTN and WP:NOT. Fram ( talk) 08:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for
soft deletion due to contested PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bungle (
talk •
contribs) 09:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Only one notable review (and a barebones one at that), created by SPA for possibly promotional reasons. Admittedly didn’t look that hard but it’s a nano-budget ultra-obscure indie by a non-notable director with a cast of nobodies and only 47 “reviews” (ratings; actual reviews number like 5) on IMDb so I’m not inclined to waste my time looking. Dronebogus ( talk) 09:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
This film review is 190 words. The film review notes: "The sort of movie a young Russ Meyer would be making if he had digital cameras and were addicted to graphic novels, noir pastiche “Cigarette Girl” is a hot low-budget mess, but fun. ... Thesping goes frequently over the top, and tech credits offer a weird blend of invention and amateurishness, but the pic never bores."
The film review notes: "Because the film mostly is set in the crumbling inner-city, effects creator H.G. Ray is able to evoke a futuristic setting with minimal but effective touches. ... The lo-fi sci-fi feel places "Cigarette Girl" in the tradition of such countercultural and artsy future films of decades past as "Five" (1951), "Glen and Randa" (1971), Jean-Luc Godard's Alphaville" (1965) and Truffaut's "Fahrenheit 451" (1966). "Cigarette Girl" loses some momentum during its concluding act, in part because descent into gunplay is such a familiar story resolution and in part because the low budget becomes more obvious as the action moves into the underpopulated nightclub."
The film review notes: "Cigarette Girl is a different kind of film for Mississippi native McCarthy ... McCarthy’s new film, by contrast, cuts back on spectacle while beefing up story. It also draws on a slightly different mix of cultural influences: girlie mags, trash cinema, and early rock-and-roll giving way to anti-hero comics, film noir, and gritty sci-fi. (Fritz Lang’s silent classic Metropolis is repeatedly referenced.)"
The film review notes: "By the end of this week, "Cigarette Girl" will have been passed around more often than a cigar butt in a hobo jungle. A futuristic film noir in fishnet stockings about a sexy nicotine addict in the dystopian Memphis of 2035, 100 years after the birth of Elvis, the movie is being projected, promoted, streamed and celebrated. ... Ingeniously crafted and beautifully shot on a very low budget, "Cigarette Girl" is only the latest in a string of McCarthy features and shorts that exposes an obsession with grindhouse cinema, comic books, rock and roll, Russ Meyer, Elvis Presley and Memphis pop culture and history."
The article notes: ""Cigarette Girl" is set in the year 2035, 100 years after the birth of Elvis. (Almost all McCarthy's films reference the King of Rock and Roll.) The title character is a glamorous-looking if much-abused rogue dealer who sells smokes at the bargain price of $50 a pack, undercutting the gangsters and "Clockwork Orange Mound" street hoodlums who control the illicit cigarette trade of the future. When the mob tries to snuff her out, Cigarette Girl kicks butt, filter-tipped and otherwise."
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Improvements relating to content can take place outside of AfD Eddie891 Talk Work 13:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I can't find its chinese name for this article. The closest that I can find is Xici(繫辭), but it cannot translate as Xizi in pinyin. Ghrenghren ( talk) 11:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The book notes: "Xizi: A book of the fifth century bce I Ching (see Yijing), which was in all likelihood composed by scholars not in sympathy with prevailing Daoist (see Daoism) thought. The book stresses mythology such as that of the emperor-god Fuxi (see Fuxi, Chinese Emperors)."
The book notes: "The ten commentaries are (i–iv) Xiang zhuan 象傳 ("Treatise on the Symbols," which explains the trigrams composing the 64 hexagrams of the Changes); (v–vi) Da zhuan 大傳 (the "Great Commentary," a general treatise on the Changes—also known as the Xizi 繫辭, or the "Appended Judgments"); ..."
Xici is the same as Xizi. It is a different transliteration of the same Chinese term. The abstract notes: "There exists three levels of the ideal personality, i.e., gentleman, sage, saint, in Xici of I-Ching. The gentleman, who has been nurtured in the moral training, doesn’t have to be a winner, but he achieves his cause if the world is in peace and prosperity, and retires if in chaos. The sage has both talent and virtue, experiences the qian-tao so as to achieve the virtue, and uses the kun-tao to help the king for achievement. The saint, who owns the extraordinarily talent-virtue such that to explore and know the mystery, has been aware of the raising of the heaven and earth, and benefit the world by his high skill. From the gentleman to the saint, the higher the level of the ideal personality is, the closer the relation between the virtue and success is, and more thorough the achievement of the train’ goal and attribution for the society will be."
The article notes: "Although the commentaries are themselves composite and sometimes fragmentary, and certainly belong to a much later period than the manual itself, portions of them are hugely important as a summary statement of an early Chinese cosmology that has had a persisting influence on the Chinese sense of its world. One of these commentaries, the Xici 繋辭, also called the Great Commentary 大傳, is perhaps the most important source we presently have for exploring early Chinese cosmology. Given that a silk manuscript version of it dating from 168 BCE was found at the Mawangdui site in Changsha in 1973, we have at least a terminus ad quem for its compilation."
The book notes in the "Introduction" chapter: ""Treatise on the Appended Remarks" (Xici zhuan 繫辭傳), also called the "Great Treatise" (Dazhuan 大傳), in two parts (not divided according to hexagrams). This is the most philosophically rich appendix and was enormously influential in the Song-dynasty (960–1279) revival of Confucianism that Zhu Xi systematized."
The book notes: "The Xici zhuan— also called the Dazhuan 大傳 (Great treatise) — comprises two of the "Ten Wings" (shiyi 十翼), or appendixes, of the Yijing. As is well known, it was one of the chief sources of ideas and terminology for the Song- dynasty revival of Confucianism. It is a composite work by unknown authors, probably written primarily in the third century BCE; that is, shortly before the Qin conquest in 221 BCE, judging from its similarities to other texts of that period, especially the "Syncretist" chapters of the Zhuangzi. The two references to the Xici in the Shiji 史記 (Historical records, ca. 100 BCE), by Sima Tan 司馬談 and Sima Qian 司馬遷, are the earliest known references to the text. Considering how heavily the Song revivalists of Confucianism relied upon the Xici, it may strike some readers as surprising how little of it is identifiably Confucian in content."
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. The subject is mentioned in passing in several sources but in the course of this discussion only one independent, reliable source has been identified provides anything close to significant coverage. Based on that, and the !votes (only one editor is in favour of keeping, other contributors to the discussion favour deleting), I find that there is a clear consensus to delete. Waggers TALK 09:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
A non-notable author, who wrote a non-notable book about a non-notable person and worked at non-notable companies (went to notable universities but that's it). Abysmally fails GNG and the subject specific guidelines too. A BEFORE search only turned up non-independent sources, or a passing mention in a press release by some organisation she was on the board of. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 09:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
provide[..] the necessary links as requested. You were
am trying to locate these sources, but didn't. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but so far, there is no evidence that significant coverage in independent, reliable sources exist. Vexations ( talk) 11:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Even nominator seems to think this is keepable based on presented RS. BusterD ( talk) 01:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, only source is a blog post from 2001, a filmography, and a video the subject is in. A quick google doesn't reveal any sources that could be added to back any of this up. FrederalBacon ( talk) 00:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bungle (
talk •
contribs) 07:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Guerillero
Parlez Moi 08:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 16:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC) Adding a rationale per request. The vast majority of the initial votes were given less weight as they either did not advance a policy based argument or were bare assertions without explanation. There was a detailed source analysis on offered sources that was not effectively refuted and the clear trend of the discussion was to delete after that. Beyond that there was a lengthy discussion on whether material based on interviews are sufficient to base a gng pass but that didn’t come to a clear conclusion that would justify devaluing the large majority of delete votes following the source analysis. Spartaz Humbug! 06:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 21:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am interested to see the impact of JoelleJay's source analysis
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Guerillero
Parlez Moi 20:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Further examples of primary sources include: ...other opinion pieces, including (depending on context) reviews and interviews...It is primary when the person being interviewed is the subject of the article. When the content of the source comes from the person's mouth, that makes it both a primary source, and a non-independent source as a person cannot be independent of himself. If Wikipedia policy isn't good enough, here's a UMASS Boston guide that very clearly spells it out, and here is another guide that points this out, and here's the American Library Association pointing it out. Both Wikipedia policy and scholarly consensus is in agreement with the fact that interviews of this type are a primary source. When the person being interviewed is also the subject of the article, it makes it a non-independent source, as the person the content is coming from is the subject. Wikipedia:Interviews#Primary or secondary? sums it up well:
The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source and is also non-independent material.So this isn't something I'm making up, this is a well-established rule across not only Wikipedia but elsewhere.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Guerillero
Parlez Moi 08:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 13:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
While Hattie's commentary is often sought in news articles, there is little to no significant coverage of Hattie himself in reliable sources. Current content is predominantly unsourced. Adabow ( talk) 07:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
This article's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Djjdwetherspoon ( talk) 08:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:58, 15 August 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! 06:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable railroad junction mislabeled as an unincorporated community. Newspaper coverage consists entirely of railroad-related announcements. – dlthewave ☎ 06:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. A notable formal club, that has been shown to have SIGCOV. (non-admin closure) KSAWikipedian ( talk) 15:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
No significant coverage. Fails GNG Indianfootball98 ( talk) 05:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Dhaka Third Division Football League. Liz Read! Talk! 06:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
No significant coverage. Fails GNG Indianfootball98 ( talk) 05:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Civil servants are not covered by WP:POLITICIAN. Modussiccandi ( talk) 08:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Civil servant who has had a distinguished but nevertheless non notable career. The article is sourced to routine announcements of appointments, press statements and links to the organisation’s he has served. No in depth coverage in independent sources. Mccapra ( talk) 04:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 04:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Keep Would seem to pass WP:NPOLITICIAN by holding various secretary of state positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrigadierG ( talk • contribs) 10:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable reality television contestant; competed on, but did not win, Survivor. Bgsu98 ( talk) 02:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 03:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 05:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: After 3 previous AFDs that had Keep or No consensus closures, I'd like to see more well-articulated support for Deletion before deleting this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Mayor of a medium-sized city. Doesn't pass WP:NPOL. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 03:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 05:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Districts of Turkey are second-tier subdivisions, akin to counties or greater municipalities. Being in charge of one doesn't provide an WP:NPOL pass. I also submit that the crime in question isn't so significant that it merits notability in and of itself. Coverage of the crime appears to be on the level of local news, with nothing since. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. This is a weak Keep but there wasn't a very strong deletion rationale provided to argue for deleting this article, just a statement of why the nominator didn't think the subject wasn't notable. The other participants disagreed with this opinion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable reality television contestant; competed on, but did not win, Survivor. Bgsu98 ( talk) 03:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 03:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 05:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Peterson enjoyed a lot of media attention in 2000, which established his notability.
New York Daily News published a piece on him in August 2000: "Gervase the Greedy". The same month, he was featured in
The New York Times and profiled in
Entertainment Weekly. Of course, the book Survivor (TV Books, 2000, p. 162,
ISBN
1575001438) has a few paragraphs about his life. Peterson appeared as himself on the September 2000 season premier episode of
The Hughleys TV show, as reported in detail by
Jet magazine.
People magazine reported Peterson's appearance on Nash Bridges TV show in November 2000. Newsweek volume 135 in 2000 wrote about Peterson, reporting why he decided to appear on the show: "To prove how tough I was to myself, if I could actually hang out there on an island for 39 days." TV Guide published a story about him in 2001, volume 49, p. 195, where he is quoted saying "Winning the immunity challenges is the only way to guarantee that you're going to survive another three days and possibly win." This same quote is repeated with attribution in the 2002 book
Community That Is Christian.
Philadelphia magazine published a five-page story on him in 2008, also carried by
Boston magazine. TV critic and journalist Eric Deggans wrote a book called Race-Baiter: How the Media Wields Dangerous Words to Divide a Nation; on
pages 193–194 he talks about the strategy of Peterson, and the interplay of Peterson and Ramona Gray. Professor Vivian Zayas of Cornell wrote about the first Survivor season in "Outwit, Outplay, and Outlast", a chapter within the book The Psychology of Survivor: Leading Psychologists Take an Unauthorized Look at the Most Elaborate Psychological Experiment Ever. On
pages 98–100, Zayas analyzes the "sociable and outgoing" strategy of Peterson. Peterson got more notice in 2013 when he competed again.
Entertainment Weekly dedicated a story about him in December 2013. In November 2013, Peterson was featured on the
Philadelphia Eagles football team official website as a celebrity fan. The Arcadia Publishing book Legendary Locals of Willingboro has
one page about Peterson
. From
Binksternet at
the previous AfD. I suppose eight years is enough to test if standards have changed ("elevated"?), but this decision on a topic few of us lurking these pages care about certainly shouldn't happen without the most relevant facts starkly at hand.
Abe
g92
contribs 23:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)The result was delete. ✗ plicit 05:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 05:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:16, 1 August 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 05:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:39, 15 August 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! 06:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Subject does not qualify for an article per WP:POLITICIAN and the references here appear to be routine mentions of a change of staff in a political party. A loose necktie ( talk) 05:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
WP:NFOOTY being deprecated, simply playing football isn't enough to claim notability. I found no significant prose coverage of this guy outside of database entries. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Himachal Football League. Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
No significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG Indianfootball98 ( talk) 05:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was Redirected to Six_Flags_Great_America#Spanos/Bassoul_era_(2020–present). -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 12:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Violates Wikipedia isn't news. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 04:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. The arguments for deletion here are strong and coherent but there appears to be a clear consensus among the community for the article to be kept at this time. Waggers TALK 10:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails GNG and NSPORTS due to lack of significant coverage. No SIGCOV sources were found before, during or after the previous AfD over a year ago and since that time SPORTBASIC has been updated to explicitly require that at least one SIGCOV source be present in the article, which this does not meet. – dlthewave ☎ 04:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The consensus here is clearly to Keep this article but no one has offered the nominator a source that would establish
WP:SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 03:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOLYMPICS and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 02:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 02:37, 15 August 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! 02:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 02:17, 15 August 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! 02:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 02:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. Somewhere between a WP:BLPDEL and a WP:G10, but I've marked it as the latter because I have no WP:AGF here. Also a regular ol' WP:A7 for those keeping score at home. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 05:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Obviously non-encyclopedic article that is probably just a hoax. A Google search did not turn up any person by this name who appears to be the article subject. Article was PRODed earlier today but the PROD was removed by an IP who has made no edits apart from in this article. CodeTalker ( talk) 02:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of lunar eclipses in the 21st century. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a catalog of data. Need significant in-depth independent secondary coverage of this event for it to be notable. WP:TOOSOON. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of lunar eclipses in the 21st century. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a catalog of data. Need significant in-depth independent secondary coverage of this event for it to be notable. WP:TOOSOON. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of lunar eclipses in the 21st century. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a catalog of data. Need significant in-depth independent secondary coverage of this event for it to be notable. WP:TOOSOON. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of lunar eclipses in the 21st century. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a catalog of data. Need significant in-depth independent secondary coverage of this event for it to be notable. WP:TOOSOON. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
This musician does not meet our notability criteria for WP:GNG nor WP:NMUSICIAN. All the references are either trivial name-check mentions, music download sites, fan-uploaded YouTube videos, primary sources (the musician's own YouTube videos), or do not mention him at all. One award that he supposedly won does not mention him at all. It does not appear that significant coverage in reliable sources exist for this musician. See source assessment table.
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
musicbrainz | User submitted content | Name checks in user-submitted content website where artists can create an account | name check only (trivial coverage | ✘ No |
AaceHypez | ? Music download site | Not a reliable source | trivial mention of his name on a music download site | ✘ No |
Youtube | YouTube, anyone can upload to YouTube | Not reliable, does not contribute to notability | music video | ✘ No |
St. Johns, Canada | City in Canada website | It's a city site, like the Chamber of Commerce | Doesn't mention the artist at all. Fake citation, no mention of award or artist. | ✘ No |
Ghana Classic | Music download site/blog | ? not a reference | Name check only on a music download site | ✘ No |
Zack Nation | music download site | ? not a reference | name check, music download site | ✘ No |
Hip Radar | ? music download site | not a reference | name check only, music download site | ✘ No |
Zack Nation | music download site | not a reference | name check only, music download site | ✘ No |
You Tube | User uploaded | does not contribute to notability, not a reference | YouTube of him on his religion | ✘ No |
YouTube | User uploaded video | not a reference | It's a fan YouTube | ✘ No |
YouTube | user uploaded YouTube video | not a reference | YouTube uploaded by the artist | ✘ No |
Kumikasa | ? ? | ? ? | Fake reference for an award that he did not receive, does not mention him at all | ✘ No |
NYDJ Live.com | ? ? Unclear if this is a music blog | ? ? | name listed as a nominee | ✘ No |
OkayAfrica | ? ? | ? ? | Does not mention him at all | ✘ 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}}. |
Note:: Article is now at Gerony due to multiple confusing redirects by creator (now blocked). Netherzone ( talk) 15:27, 15 August 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. ✗ plicit 00:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Trying very hard to not be an advert, but still failing. News/Google shows no evidence of notability or WP:CORPDEPTH. BrigadierG ( talk) 00:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by anonymous IP without reason given. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty ( talk) 21:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Also nominating:
The result was no consensus. Wow, that was a lot to read for someone who isn't involved! It's time to close this as an AfD discussion, but let me be very clear that this discussion is not over. I recommend it continues on relevant article talk pages or project pages as the editors see fit.
The question I have to answer is purely about whether there is a consensus to delete the articles. The nominator has made this easy for me by effectively withdrawing the nomination during the discussion and instead arguing for a merge and redirect and/or various other remedies, none of which require the pages to be deleted as a prerequisite.
That leaves me with the technicality as to whether to close as "Keep" or "No consensus". As stated above, I don't believe the discussion around exactly what to do with these articles is fully over; there seems to be a rough consensus that outright deletion is not required, but other than that the options to fix, redirect, merge, etc. are still wide open and for that reason I am closing as "no consensus". Waggers TALK 13:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because they have the same issues.
This triple AfD is a follow-up to the previous AfDs on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Slavs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Orthodox Slavs (and Catholic Slavs), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Slavs, each of which resulted in deletion for a combination of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH with rampant generalisations to imply an inherent connection between people who just so happen to be speakers of Slavic languages or a branch of Slavic languages, and often some other arbitrary trait such as religion or geography. These three articles are slightly different from the previous ones (such as North Slavs, which was ultimately merged into North Slavic languages) in the sense that the West, East and South Slavic languages are all widely recognised branches of the Slavic language family according to the consensus amongst linguists. However, we still need to ask the question whether there is any added value in writing separate articles about West, East and South Slavs as ethnic groups – with all sorts of alleged cultural or even biological traits that go beyond the field of linguistics – or whether such information should be regarded as either unscholarly or irrelevant, as it tended to be in each of the AfD cases above. The South Slavs (or Yugoslavs) stand out a bit from the other two groups, because during the 20th century the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and later the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were political realities (although they importantly excluded Bulgaria), and in some sense South Slavs or Yugoslavs were more than just a linguistic grouping, e.g. there were "Yugoslav citizens" and you could register as an "ethnic Yugoslav". However, I think the article Yugoslavs can still serve that function to talk about the South Slavs in any other than a purely linguistic sense. (And even if we may argue that "Yugoslavs" were or are more than just a linguistic reality, Bulgarians are still usually excluded from this concept, while it is possible to include groups such as Albanian-speaking Kosovars, Hungarian-speaking Serbs or Slovenes or Italian-speaking Croats, who were at least "Yugoslav citizens" for decades).
In any case, it is still unacceptable to have articles with sections such as South Slavs#Cities, a fine example of WP:UNSOURCED, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, rampant generalisation and irrelevance in one. Why, for example, does it list Plovdiv with its 338,153 inhabitants (allegedly as of 1 October 2015) in an article about South Slavs? The reasoning seems to be: (A) Bulgarian is a South Slavic language, (B) Bulgarian is the majority-language (demographically) / national language (legally) of Bulgaria, (C) therefore we may regard the entire population of Bulgaria as "South Slavs", (D) therefore we can count every single inhabitant of Plovdiv as "South Slavs". Evidently, only A and B are correct, C is misleading/generalising/oversimplified, and D is factually incorrect. Presenting this information in this way is therefore unacceptable. (I already added those templates OR and unsourced templates there two months ago when the North Slavs AfD was in progress, but nobody has fixed it in the meantime. I'm now using it to illustrate the issues with all three of these West, East and South Slav articles). Another common feature in these articles is the mention of bits and pieces of history or culture of a specific country/state or ethnic/linguistic (sub)group, which aren't necessarily representative of the West, East or South linguistic branches. E.g. why does it state "For many centuries Poland has had close ties with its western neighbors, with the Polish ruler Bolesław I the Brave declared by Holy Roman Emperor Otto III as Frater et Cooperator Imperii ("Brother and Partner in the Empire")."? What does that have to do with "West Slavs", other than that in modern times (19th and early 20th century) the Polish language has been classified as a West Slavic language? (In the same way, Polish things were taken as representative of "North Slavic culture" generally in the former "North Slavs" article, and the AfD regarded this as OR/SYNTH). Or, why should we take the painting File:Slavic girl.jpg alias File:Ukrainian girl by Nikolay Rachkov (2nd half 19 c., Chernigov museum).jpg as representative of "East Slavs", just because Ukrainian was identified as an East Slavic language in modern times? If anything, it says something about Ukrainian culture specifically, not about some broader purported "East Slavic culture" generally, as it appears to have nothing to do with linguistics, but only with clothing. Employing linguistics to make such statements or present images in this manner is simply WP:SYNTH.
In short, when we remove all the OR, SYNTH, irrelevant and unsourced stuff,
None of these articles seems to have sufficient added value as separate articles on their own, just like all previous AfDs with a Slavic theme above have already demonstrated. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 22:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Ipse vero peracta autumnali venatione trans Rhenum ad hiemandum in loco, qui Franconofurd appellatur, profectus est. Ibique generali conventu congregato necessaria quaeque ad utilitatem orientalium partium regni sui pertinentia more solemni cum optimatibus, quos ad hoc evocare iusserat, tractare curavit. In quo conventu omnium orientalium Sclavorum, id est Abodritorum, Soraborum, Wilzorum, Beheimorum, Marvanorum, Praedenecentorum, et in Pannonia residentium Abarum legationes cum muneribus ad se directas audivit.
But he [Louis the Pious], having finished his autumn hunting, went across the Rhine to spend the winter in a place called Franconofurd [Frankfurt]. There, having assembled a general assembly, he took care to deal with the nobles, whom he had ordered to be summoned for this purpose, in a solemn manner, with the necessary matters pertaining to the welfare of the eastern parts of his kingdom. In which assembly of all the Slavs from the east, that is, the Abodrites [Obotrites?], the Sorabs [Sorbs?], the Wilzos [Veleti/Wends?], the Beheims [Bohemians?], the Marvans [Moravians?], the Praedenecenti, and the Abari [Avars?] residing in Pannonia, he heard embassies addressed to him with presents.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help); External link in |isbn=
(
help)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 22:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Also nominating:
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! 23:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 22:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. I'd be willing to restore this to Draft space as long as the page creator goes through the WP:AFC process. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
i really fail to see how this is a notable film (and it hasn't even been officially released yet), there's no real in depth coverage and it doesn't appear to have won any awards. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
NYT 1970 "PASADENA SCHOOLS TOLD TO INTEGRATE" | Relating to Prop 13, not subject | ✘ No | ||
Pasadena Now 2022 ""Award-Winning Documentary..." | ~ Geographically specific to area of premiere | ~ No author named | ~ Partial | |
theindiefest.com "Humanitarian Award.." | ? Cannot discern | Reputability of awards is questionable (See above) | ✘ 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 delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Google scholar shows a highest citation of 9. Part of a promotional walled garden. duffbeerforme ( talk) 22:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
The article has been unsourced since 2009 (the single book by Charles Leadbeater with no page number given is clearly not a reliable source for Wikipedia). The creator of this article Dchmelik has created a lot of unreliable articles which are all stubs or unsourced related to Theosophy and there is a discussion about this at WP:FTN regarding their edits [2]. Dchmelik has now redirected Anupadaka into Anupapadaka. If you look these terms up they do not mean "a philosophical term about reality such as the 'anupadaka plane' or gods or Dhyani-Buddhas that fit the definition" so this is very bad original research. I looked up the word "Anupapadaka", it is used in Theosophical literature to mean birth by metamorphosis or birth without parents, i.e. "parentless" and only that part of the article is correct. There is no mention of an "anupadaka plane", or anything else that Dchmelik has written so this is original research and against policy. I am not sure why we would need an entire article dedicated to this one word which was used by Helena Blavatsky and her followers. I believe it would be best to delete this article. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 21:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Waggers TALK 13:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NMMA. His highest ranking by Fight Matrix was 81st in the featherweight division, and he has never previously appeared in Sherdog's rankings. ♡RAFAEL♡( talk) 01:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Comr Melody Idoghor
(talk) 20:04, 15 August 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! 21:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. A Burmese Google search yielded nothing useful. Google News had nothing in Burmese. DDG just had the usual stats sites. The best that I could find was a squad list mention in an Indian football blog. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Lacks reliable sources under WP:MUSICBIO despite fulfilling WP:MUSICBIO#C2. There is limited coverage of the charting single itself and she is only a featured artist (edit: apologies, that is incorrect, she is fully credited). Significantly, the majority of sources are self-published or primary. Besides the chart listings, almost no other sources fulfill reliability guidelines, even after being cleaned up. Simply fails to have the necessary independent reliable sources anywhere else besides little more than a paragraph about Stay the Night. RedBaron12 ( talk) 17:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 19:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
either the general notability guideline... or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline, and this very clearly meets a subject-specific notability guideline, this article should not be deleted and any deletion based in WP:DEL-REASON#8 is erroneous. There exist enough independent sources to write a short article about this individual, as Dr vulpes has shown above, though I am in full agreement that the article needs to be cleaned up in order to reduce its reliance upon WP:SPS. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
A strange article history. This was a hijack of Wall of Wind, a similar facility at Florida International University. The researcher who created this article, User:Alymousaad (not coincidentally the author listed on all citations) moved from FIU to LSU in 2013 and changed the article in 2019. Unfortunately, the LSU installation does not appear to be generally notable or even known by the name "Open Jet". (The FIU one, on the other hand, picked up media coverage.) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Comr Melody Idoghor
(talk) 19:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 01:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Olympian who fails GNG. There is an academic of this name who is probably a different person. Avilich ( talk) 00:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
"Velkei Ferenc the famous Hungarian international referee...",
"Only of these Velkei Ferenc was an international referee at the age of 50...",
"Velkey Ferenc today the referee who is Bp Vörös...",
"According to Ferenc Velkei, deputy general secretary of Hungarian basketball...",
"Ferenc Velkei is a multiple Hungarian national team player...",
"...we inquired with Ferenc Velkei, the international commissioner of the MKOSZ...") – unfortunately the snippets are extremely brief (and Google translate does an awful job of translating them) and Arcanum is paywalled. There are even more hits by extending the date window up to the present. For me, it is unreasonable to think there is no significant coverage in these local language sources. wjemather please leave a message... 10:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Comr Melody Idoghor
(talk) 15:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Comr Melody Idoghor
(talk) 19:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. None of the keep arguments have provided any meaningful analysis of the sources they assert pass GNG and bare assertions do not carry weight. Non policy based and IAR arguments do not carry much weight against the professed will of the community on sports bios. The delete side includes analysis of the sourcing that shows it does not pass gng and no attempt has been made to refute this. Spartaz Humbug! 16:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. The source does not mention the name "Francisco". F Adesdae 378 21:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would like to see some discussion in response to dlthewave's source analysis. I would remind participants that
the community was clear that caps alone do not confer notability. You can not
LOCALCONSENSUS around this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Guerillero
Parlez Moi 09:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 19:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 16:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
This is not a valid disambiguation page: all entries are WP:Partial title matches not known solely as "Jamaat". An alternative to deletion might be a {{ Wiktionary redirect}} to wikt:jamaat. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 16:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 08:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 19:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
This is a company so WP:NCORP guidelines apple. I am unable to locate any references that meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability HighKing ++ 19:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. based on new sources found in this AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to have
WP:SIGCOV. On newspapers.com – which has a ton of US newspapers and should contain plenty of such information – I found nothing but passing mentions (i.e., cast lists) for the queries Charles Crockett Guilty Hands
, Charles Crockett Gingham Girl
, Charles Crockett Princess from Hoboken
.
Ovinus (
talk) 18:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
The book notes: "Charles B. Crockett was born in Baltimore, Maryland, on December 29, 1870, and he died on June 12, 1934, in Los Angeles, California, at age 64. I could find very little on his background except that he came to the screen from the stage. He may have appeared in comedy shorts as four of his twelve features were of that genre. He appeared in four Westerns two of which were considered epic. He also appeared in two historical and One Northwest film. Some of his films are: 1924: The Millionaire Cowboy with Lefty Flynn and Gloria Grey, (her father); Sundown with Besside Love and Roy Stewart (Joe Patton). ..."
The entry provides 74 words of coverage about the subject. The entry notes: "Charles Crockett was an actor who had a successful Hollywood career. Crockett began his career with a role in the Richard Dix historical feature "The Vanishing American" (1925)."
The article was published in 1926 so is in the public domain. The article notes: "Charles Crockett, well-known character actor, who was teamed with Claude Gillingwater a year ago in Frank Lloyd's "Winds of Chance" and who played the Indian agent in "Vanishing American," was selected by Svend Gade to play Senov, a street faker and carnival Punch and Judy operator in Corinne Griffith's Capitol Theater's photo-feature opening Sunday. In addition to being an actor of repute, Crockett is known in studioland as "Hollywood's Will Rogers," so famous have his many humorous after-dinner speeches become in every quarter of the studio city."
The article notes (bolding added for emphasis): "An amusing innovation was occasioned by a speech by "Karl Frankel" introduced as a famous engineer from Berlin, Germany, who lampooned the Academy, the Engineers, Hollywood and the motion picture industry so cleverly that all guests, except the few who were informed, were unaware of the deception until Mr. Niblo re-introduced "Herr Frankel" at the end of his speech as Charles Crockett, the well known character actor of Hollywood."
The article notes (bolding added for emphasis): "Claude Gillingwater, Charles Crockett, Marcel Corday and a number of other screen luminaries are listed among those playing important parts In Into Her Kingdom."
Regarding the 1927 silent film The Princess from Hoboken, the article notes: "One of the finest characterisations in this story of the screen is by Edmund Burns but there is also a fine bit of character acting, by Charles Crockett."
The article notes: "Hollywood has its full share of these love feasts and at one of these given for Mr. Lasky, Charles Crockett, the other gag man, got up and told, as an out-of-town exhibitor, that he was going to have to refuse to show any more of the filthy sexy immoral pictures being produced by that company, Famous-Lasky. Mr. Jesse Lasky turned white and did not seem to be enjoying his dinner, but the situation was lightened by the toastmaster pulling off the false whiskers and introducing Mr. Crockett, for what he was."
The article notes: "Other roles of importance in the cast have been assigned to Barry Gray, Charles Crockett, veteran character actor who is cast as the chief executive of the small town; Rosemary Cooper and Spec O'Donnell."
The article notes (bolding added for emphasis): "Completing the all-star line-up of supporting players are such prominent names as George Magill, Shannon Day, Charles Crockett, Bert Woodruff, Bernard Siegel, Guy Oliver, Charles Stevens, Joe Ryan.
The article notes: "Claude Gillingwater and Charles Crockett as Tom and Jerry, two old prospectors eternally quarrelling, yet deeply devoted to each other, are a hit. Gillingwater has ever since his memorable debut as the Earl in "Little Lord Fauntleroy" been ranked as one of our best character actors and teamed with Crockett, his work has never been more convincing, appealing or enjoyable."
The result was redirect to Dagon#In popular culture. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Dagon in popular culture violates our policies regarding stand-alone lists, indiscriminate collections of information, trivia and the general notability guideline. The vast majority of the examples relate to H. P. Lovecraft's Dagon, who is discussed in Deep One. Since barely any of the examples are sourced, there is nothing to merge into that article. ― Susmuffin Talk 17:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:NBIO. I could not find any good reliable sources that show that this person is notable. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 17:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Deleting as the article in Draft space is more developed than this one in main space. Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Recent recreation with no evidence that anything has even been announced yet. I believe this may be a too soon situation and probably should continue to be worked on at Draft:Miss Universe Philippines 2023 until there are enough sources discussing this. The two source I have found to even mention this are [12] and [13] which touches on how they will allow married women and mothers to compete. In short this does not yet meet WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 16:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of notability - seems like one of the thousands of local colleges in India which does not satisfy WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG. Doing WP:BEFORE I found some mentions of the college in books and catalogues (such as the 1964 New Educational Directory of the World) but no in-depth coverage. Muhandes ( talk) 16:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability
The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Where possible, also please make use of The Wikipedia Library, which offers free access to various subscription databases of additional resources. Not every resource available in that collection will always be relevant in every situation, so it is not necessary to exhaustively check every database, but there are many resources that may be useful for specialized or older topics that might not Google well.
If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted.
If you spend more time examining the sources and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an AfD nomination may still be appropriate.
If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice in Wikipedia:Citing sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern.
Here, the search on Google Scholar shows many research articles published by the faculties of this college. Please see:
In summary, this college satisfies the notability criteria. User:Soumitrahazra
The result was closed as the article had been hijacked from a different topic and has been reverted back to the prior subject. Bearcat ( talk) 15:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Insufficient evidence that subject of the article meets the WP:NOTABILITY threshold. — The Anome ( talk) 15:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Tedd Arnold. Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Currently unreferenced. Fails GNG and WP:NBOOKS - Google searches return mainly bookseller and library pages, plus miscellaneous uses of Huggly as an adjective, etc; I can't immediately see any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Draftification reverted by original creator without improvement of article. Paul W ( talk) 14:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 15:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Completely unsourced, no evidence of existence (i.e., being known as the South Dakota Panhandle) or significance in reliable sources. Fails WP:NGEO, possibly original research. Complex/ Rational 14:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Geometry Wars. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Unable to find adequate sources for uncited article. Article appears to be a minigame on Project Gotham Racing 4, and later apart of Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved 2. Both articles already include information regarding the Waves mini-game. Fails WP:GNG. If any adequate sources could be found, I suggest merging any additional information to the aforementioned articles and Geometry Wars. Skipple ☎ 14:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Closing discussion early per SNOW. With five well made arguments for keep and no votes for delete, outcome appears very clear and unlikely to change, so there is a net positive to closing the discussion early. If any editor disagrees with my close, please ping me on my talk page and I will undo and allow to run for the full time period/leave for an administrator. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta ( talk) 11:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTGALLERY, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. – Illegitimate Barrister ( talk • contribs), 13:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Closing discussion early per SNOW. With seven well made arguments for keep and no votes for delete, outcome appears very clear and unlikely to change, so there is a net positive to closing the discussion early. If any editor disagrees with my close, please ping me on my talk page and I will undo and allow to run for the full time period/leave for an administrator. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta ( talk) 11:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTGALLERY, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. – Illegitimate Barrister ( talk • contribs), 13:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Closing discussion early per SNOW. With seven arguments for keep, some of them strong, and no votes for delete, outcome appears very clear and unlikely to change, so there is a net positive to closing the discussion early. If any editor disagrees with my close, please ping me on my talk page and I will undo and allow to run for the full time period/leave for an administrator. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta ( talk) 11:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
As per WP:NOTGALLERY, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. – Illegitimate Barrister ( talk • contribs), 13:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Seems to fail WP:AUTHOR. No indication whether the book she co-authored is well known. -- Minorax«¦ talk¦» 13:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
One of a group of ancient Theosophy stubs sourced to a century-old book, as with the others the notability and accuracy are both dubious, and in this case the article doesn't make much sense anyway, so a WP:TNT deletion might be warranted. Mangoe ( talk) 13:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG and lacks third-party sources. Google shows no reliable sources, and while Google Books does include this which is very in-depth, it turns out the author of that book, Sebastian Bassi, is one of the two developers of DNALinux as seen on the distro's website so it is not an independent source. The other Google Books matches are all trivial mentions. Aoidh ( talk) 11:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
17:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers. if more sources are found to show SIGCOV, may qualify for his own article. Based on current consensus will redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers (non-admin closure) KSAWikipedian ( talk) 15:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
No significant coverage to meet NSPORTS or GNG. The previous AfD was closed as Keep based on the likely existence of SIGCOV sources; no sources have been found to exist or been added to the articles. NSPORTS no longer allows presumption of notability and SPORTBASIC explicitly requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. Although one source was provided at the previous AfD, it does not meet SIGCOV for Sahni as it is an interview with him about a game, not independent coverage of the man himself. – dlthewave ☎ 15:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
"Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof."This article fails the proof of SIGCOG requirement as well as WP:SPORTBASIC #5. – dlthewave ☎ 19:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
There is a distinction between "trivial", "non-trivial", and "significant" coverage, with this falling squarely in the middle category. JoelleJay ( talk) 08:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Mukesh Sahni, father of Parth Sahni of Ujjain, included in state Ranji team was welcomed.
His father Mukesh Sahni has played Ranji for Madhya Pradesh.
Mukesh Sahni, resident of Dabripeetha was felicitated by members of Nagar Brahmin Samaj on the Kshipra coast.
Mukesh Sahni has been an excellent cricketer and he has played 12 Ranji matches for Madhya Pradesh. His son Parth took two wickets for MP while debuting in the final and after 88 years made a significant contribution in defeating a strong side like Mumbai.
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notabilityThis suggests there may be non-trivial sources that are nevertheless not substantial enough to provide the in-depth coverage needed for GNG. JoelleJay ( talk) 00:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, looks like a choice between Keep and Redirect right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Modussiccandi (
talk) 11:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was draftify. ✗ plicit 02:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Reads and looks like spam, no RS. A few days ago appeared also here: Draft:HCL BigFix Morpho achilles ( talk) 07:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bungle (
talk •
contribs) 09:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:LISTN and WP:NOT. Fram ( talk) 08:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for
soft deletion due to contested PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bungle (
talk •
contribs) 09:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Only one notable review (and a barebones one at that), created by SPA for possibly promotional reasons. Admittedly didn’t look that hard but it’s a nano-budget ultra-obscure indie by a non-notable director with a cast of nobodies and only 47 “reviews” (ratings; actual reviews number like 5) on IMDb so I’m not inclined to waste my time looking. Dronebogus ( talk) 09:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
This film review is 190 words. The film review notes: "The sort of movie a young Russ Meyer would be making if he had digital cameras and were addicted to graphic novels, noir pastiche “Cigarette Girl” is a hot low-budget mess, but fun. ... Thesping goes frequently over the top, and tech credits offer a weird blend of invention and amateurishness, but the pic never bores."
The film review notes: "Because the film mostly is set in the crumbling inner-city, effects creator H.G. Ray is able to evoke a futuristic setting with minimal but effective touches. ... The lo-fi sci-fi feel places "Cigarette Girl" in the tradition of such countercultural and artsy future films of decades past as "Five" (1951), "Glen and Randa" (1971), Jean-Luc Godard's Alphaville" (1965) and Truffaut's "Fahrenheit 451" (1966). "Cigarette Girl" loses some momentum during its concluding act, in part because descent into gunplay is such a familiar story resolution and in part because the low budget becomes more obvious as the action moves into the underpopulated nightclub."
The film review notes: "Cigarette Girl is a different kind of film for Mississippi native McCarthy ... McCarthy’s new film, by contrast, cuts back on spectacle while beefing up story. It also draws on a slightly different mix of cultural influences: girlie mags, trash cinema, and early rock-and-roll giving way to anti-hero comics, film noir, and gritty sci-fi. (Fritz Lang’s silent classic Metropolis is repeatedly referenced.)"
The film review notes: "By the end of this week, "Cigarette Girl" will have been passed around more often than a cigar butt in a hobo jungle. A futuristic film noir in fishnet stockings about a sexy nicotine addict in the dystopian Memphis of 2035, 100 years after the birth of Elvis, the movie is being projected, promoted, streamed and celebrated. ... Ingeniously crafted and beautifully shot on a very low budget, "Cigarette Girl" is only the latest in a string of McCarthy features and shorts that exposes an obsession with grindhouse cinema, comic books, rock and roll, Russ Meyer, Elvis Presley and Memphis pop culture and history."
The article notes: ""Cigarette Girl" is set in the year 2035, 100 years after the birth of Elvis. (Almost all McCarthy's films reference the King of Rock and Roll.) The title character is a glamorous-looking if much-abused rogue dealer who sells smokes at the bargain price of $50 a pack, undercutting the gangsters and "Clockwork Orange Mound" street hoodlums who control the illicit cigarette trade of the future. When the mob tries to snuff her out, Cigarette Girl kicks butt, filter-tipped and otherwise."
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Improvements relating to content can take place outside of AfD Eddie891 Talk Work 13:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I can't find its chinese name for this article. The closest that I can find is Xici(繫辭), but it cannot translate as Xizi in pinyin. Ghrenghren ( talk) 11:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The book notes: "Xizi: A book of the fifth century bce I Ching (see Yijing), which was in all likelihood composed by scholars not in sympathy with prevailing Daoist (see Daoism) thought. The book stresses mythology such as that of the emperor-god Fuxi (see Fuxi, Chinese Emperors)."
The book notes: "The ten commentaries are (i–iv) Xiang zhuan 象傳 ("Treatise on the Symbols," which explains the trigrams composing the 64 hexagrams of the Changes); (v–vi) Da zhuan 大傳 (the "Great Commentary," a general treatise on the Changes—also known as the Xizi 繫辭, or the "Appended Judgments"); ..."
Xici is the same as Xizi. It is a different transliteration of the same Chinese term. The abstract notes: "There exists three levels of the ideal personality, i.e., gentleman, sage, saint, in Xici of I-Ching. The gentleman, who has been nurtured in the moral training, doesn’t have to be a winner, but he achieves his cause if the world is in peace and prosperity, and retires if in chaos. The sage has both talent and virtue, experiences the qian-tao so as to achieve the virtue, and uses the kun-tao to help the king for achievement. The saint, who owns the extraordinarily talent-virtue such that to explore and know the mystery, has been aware of the raising of the heaven and earth, and benefit the world by his high skill. From the gentleman to the saint, the higher the level of the ideal personality is, the closer the relation between the virtue and success is, and more thorough the achievement of the train’ goal and attribution for the society will be."
The article notes: "Although the commentaries are themselves composite and sometimes fragmentary, and certainly belong to a much later period than the manual itself, portions of them are hugely important as a summary statement of an early Chinese cosmology that has had a persisting influence on the Chinese sense of its world. One of these commentaries, the Xici 繋辭, also called the Great Commentary 大傳, is perhaps the most important source we presently have for exploring early Chinese cosmology. Given that a silk manuscript version of it dating from 168 BCE was found at the Mawangdui site in Changsha in 1973, we have at least a terminus ad quem for its compilation."
The book notes in the "Introduction" chapter: ""Treatise on the Appended Remarks" (Xici zhuan 繫辭傳), also called the "Great Treatise" (Dazhuan 大傳), in two parts (not divided according to hexagrams). This is the most philosophically rich appendix and was enormously influential in the Song-dynasty (960–1279) revival of Confucianism that Zhu Xi systematized."
The book notes: "The Xici zhuan— also called the Dazhuan 大傳 (Great treatise) — comprises two of the "Ten Wings" (shiyi 十翼), or appendixes, of the Yijing. As is well known, it was one of the chief sources of ideas and terminology for the Song- dynasty revival of Confucianism. It is a composite work by unknown authors, probably written primarily in the third century BCE; that is, shortly before the Qin conquest in 221 BCE, judging from its similarities to other texts of that period, especially the "Syncretist" chapters of the Zhuangzi. The two references to the Xici in the Shiji 史記 (Historical records, ca. 100 BCE), by Sima Tan 司馬談 and Sima Qian 司馬遷, are the earliest known references to the text. Considering how heavily the Song revivalists of Confucianism relied upon the Xici, it may strike some readers as surprising how little of it is identifiably Confucian in content."
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. The subject is mentioned in passing in several sources but in the course of this discussion only one independent, reliable source has been identified provides anything close to significant coverage. Based on that, and the !votes (only one editor is in favour of keeping, other contributors to the discussion favour deleting), I find that there is a clear consensus to delete. Waggers TALK 09:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
A non-notable author, who wrote a non-notable book about a non-notable person and worked at non-notable companies (went to notable universities but that's it). Abysmally fails GNG and the subject specific guidelines too. A BEFORE search only turned up non-independent sources, or a passing mention in a press release by some organisation she was on the board of. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 09:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
provide[..] the necessary links as requested. You were
am trying to locate these sources, but didn't. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but so far, there is no evidence that significant coverage in independent, reliable sources exist. Vexations ( talk) 11:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Even nominator seems to think this is keepable based on presented RS. BusterD ( talk) 01:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, only source is a blog post from 2001, a filmography, and a video the subject is in. A quick google doesn't reveal any sources that could be added to back any of this up. FrederalBacon ( talk) 00:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bungle (
talk •
contribs) 07:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Guerillero
Parlez Moi 08:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 16:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC) Adding a rationale per request. The vast majority of the initial votes were given less weight as they either did not advance a policy based argument or were bare assertions without explanation. There was a detailed source analysis on offered sources that was not effectively refuted and the clear trend of the discussion was to delete after that. Beyond that there was a lengthy discussion on whether material based on interviews are sufficient to base a gng pass but that didn’t come to a clear conclusion that would justify devaluing the large majority of delete votes following the source analysis. Spartaz Humbug! 06:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 21:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am interested to see the impact of JoelleJay's source analysis
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Guerillero
Parlez Moi 20:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Further examples of primary sources include: ...other opinion pieces, including (depending on context) reviews and interviews...It is primary when the person being interviewed is the subject of the article. When the content of the source comes from the person's mouth, that makes it both a primary source, and a non-independent source as a person cannot be independent of himself. If Wikipedia policy isn't good enough, here's a UMASS Boston guide that very clearly spells it out, and here is another guide that points this out, and here's the American Library Association pointing it out. Both Wikipedia policy and scholarly consensus is in agreement with the fact that interviews of this type are a primary source. When the person being interviewed is also the subject of the article, it makes it a non-independent source, as the person the content is coming from is the subject. Wikipedia:Interviews#Primary or secondary? sums it up well:
The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source and is also non-independent material.So this isn't something I'm making up, this is a well-established rule across not only Wikipedia but elsewhere.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Guerillero
Parlez Moi 08:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 13:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
While Hattie's commentary is often sought in news articles, there is little to no significant coverage of Hattie himself in reliable sources. Current content is predominantly unsourced. Adabow ( talk) 07:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
This article's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Djjdwetherspoon ( talk) 08:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:58, 15 August 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! 06:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable railroad junction mislabeled as an unincorporated community. Newspaper coverage consists entirely of railroad-related announcements. – dlthewave ☎ 06:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. A notable formal club, that has been shown to have SIGCOV. (non-admin closure) KSAWikipedian ( talk) 15:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
No significant coverage. Fails GNG Indianfootball98 ( talk) 05:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Dhaka Third Division Football League. Liz Read! Talk! 06:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
No significant coverage. Fails GNG Indianfootball98 ( talk) 05:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Civil servants are not covered by WP:POLITICIAN. Modussiccandi ( talk) 08:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Civil servant who has had a distinguished but nevertheless non notable career. The article is sourced to routine announcements of appointments, press statements and links to the organisation’s he has served. No in depth coverage in independent sources. Mccapra ( talk) 04:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 04:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Keep Would seem to pass WP:NPOLITICIAN by holding various secretary of state positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrigadierG ( talk • contribs) 10:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable reality television contestant; competed on, but did not win, Survivor. Bgsu98 ( talk) 02:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 03:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 05:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: After 3 previous AFDs that had Keep or No consensus closures, I'd like to see more well-articulated support for Deletion before deleting this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Mayor of a medium-sized city. Doesn't pass WP:NPOL. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 03:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 05:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Districts of Turkey are second-tier subdivisions, akin to counties or greater municipalities. Being in charge of one doesn't provide an WP:NPOL pass. I also submit that the crime in question isn't so significant that it merits notability in and of itself. Coverage of the crime appears to be on the level of local news, with nothing since. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. This is a weak Keep but there wasn't a very strong deletion rationale provided to argue for deleting this article, just a statement of why the nominator didn't think the subject wasn't notable. The other participants disagreed with this opinion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable reality television contestant; competed on, but did not win, Survivor. Bgsu98 ( talk) 03:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 03:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 05:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Peterson enjoyed a lot of media attention in 2000, which established his notability.
New York Daily News published a piece on him in August 2000: "Gervase the Greedy". The same month, he was featured in
The New York Times and profiled in
Entertainment Weekly. Of course, the book Survivor (TV Books, 2000, p. 162,
ISBN
1575001438) has a few paragraphs about his life. Peterson appeared as himself on the September 2000 season premier episode of
The Hughleys TV show, as reported in detail by
Jet magazine.
People magazine reported Peterson's appearance on Nash Bridges TV show in November 2000. Newsweek volume 135 in 2000 wrote about Peterson, reporting why he decided to appear on the show: "To prove how tough I was to myself, if I could actually hang out there on an island for 39 days." TV Guide published a story about him in 2001, volume 49, p. 195, where he is quoted saying "Winning the immunity challenges is the only way to guarantee that you're going to survive another three days and possibly win." This same quote is repeated with attribution in the 2002 book
Community That Is Christian.
Philadelphia magazine published a five-page story on him in 2008, also carried by
Boston magazine. TV critic and journalist Eric Deggans wrote a book called Race-Baiter: How the Media Wields Dangerous Words to Divide a Nation; on
pages 193–194 he talks about the strategy of Peterson, and the interplay of Peterson and Ramona Gray. Professor Vivian Zayas of Cornell wrote about the first Survivor season in "Outwit, Outplay, and Outlast", a chapter within the book The Psychology of Survivor: Leading Psychologists Take an Unauthorized Look at the Most Elaborate Psychological Experiment Ever. On
pages 98–100, Zayas analyzes the "sociable and outgoing" strategy of Peterson. Peterson got more notice in 2013 when he competed again.
Entertainment Weekly dedicated a story about him in December 2013. In November 2013, Peterson was featured on the
Philadelphia Eagles football team official website as a celebrity fan. The Arcadia Publishing book Legendary Locals of Willingboro has
one page about Peterson
. From
Binksternet at
the previous AfD. I suppose eight years is enough to test if standards have changed ("elevated"?), but this decision on a topic few of us lurking these pages care about certainly shouldn't happen without the most relevant facts starkly at hand.
Abe
g92
contribs 23:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)The result was delete. ✗ plicit 05:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 05:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:16, 1 August 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 05:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:39, 15 August 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! 06:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Subject does not qualify for an article per WP:POLITICIAN and the references here appear to be routine mentions of a change of staff in a political party. A loose necktie ( talk) 05:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
WP:NFOOTY being deprecated, simply playing football isn't enough to claim notability. I found no significant prose coverage of this guy outside of database entries. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Himachal Football League. Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
No significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG Indianfootball98 ( talk) 05:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was Redirected to Six_Flags_Great_America#Spanos/Bassoul_era_(2020–present). -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 12:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Violates Wikipedia isn't news. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 04:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. The arguments for deletion here are strong and coherent but there appears to be a clear consensus among the community for the article to be kept at this time. Waggers TALK 10:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails GNG and NSPORTS due to lack of significant coverage. No SIGCOV sources were found before, during or after the previous AfD over a year ago and since that time SPORTBASIC has been updated to explicitly require that at least one SIGCOV source be present in the article, which this does not meet. – dlthewave ☎ 04:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The consensus here is clearly to Keep this article but no one has offered the nominator a source that would establish
WP:SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 03:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOLYMPICS and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 02:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 02:37, 15 August 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! 02:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 02:17, 15 August 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! 02:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 02:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. Somewhere between a WP:BLPDEL and a WP:G10, but I've marked it as the latter because I have no WP:AGF here. Also a regular ol' WP:A7 for those keeping score at home. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 05:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Obviously non-encyclopedic article that is probably just a hoax. A Google search did not turn up any person by this name who appears to be the article subject. Article was PRODed earlier today but the PROD was removed by an IP who has made no edits apart from in this article. CodeTalker ( talk) 02:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of lunar eclipses in the 21st century. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a catalog of data. Need significant in-depth independent secondary coverage of this event for it to be notable. WP:TOOSOON. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of lunar eclipses in the 21st century. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a catalog of data. Need significant in-depth independent secondary coverage of this event for it to be notable. WP:TOOSOON. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of lunar eclipses in the 21st century. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a catalog of data. Need significant in-depth independent secondary coverage of this event for it to be notable. WP:TOOSOON. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of lunar eclipses in the 21st century. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a catalog of data. Need significant in-depth independent secondary coverage of this event for it to be notable. WP:TOOSOON. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
This musician does not meet our notability criteria for WP:GNG nor WP:NMUSICIAN. All the references are either trivial name-check mentions, music download sites, fan-uploaded YouTube videos, primary sources (the musician's own YouTube videos), or do not mention him at all. One award that he supposedly won does not mention him at all. It does not appear that significant coverage in reliable sources exist for this musician. See source assessment table.
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
musicbrainz | User submitted content | Name checks in user-submitted content website where artists can create an account | name check only (trivial coverage | ✘ No |
AaceHypez | ? Music download site | Not a reliable source | trivial mention of his name on a music download site | ✘ No |
Youtube | YouTube, anyone can upload to YouTube | Not reliable, does not contribute to notability | music video | ✘ No |
St. Johns, Canada | City in Canada website | It's a city site, like the Chamber of Commerce | Doesn't mention the artist at all. Fake citation, no mention of award or artist. | ✘ No |
Ghana Classic | Music download site/blog | ? not a reference | Name check only on a music download site | ✘ No |
Zack Nation | music download site | ? not a reference | name check, music download site | ✘ No |
Hip Radar | ? music download site | not a reference | name check only, music download site | ✘ No |
Zack Nation | music download site | not a reference | name check only, music download site | ✘ No |
You Tube | User uploaded | does not contribute to notability, not a reference | YouTube of him on his religion | ✘ No |
YouTube | User uploaded video | not a reference | It's a fan YouTube | ✘ No |
YouTube | user uploaded YouTube video | not a reference | YouTube uploaded by the artist | ✘ No |
Kumikasa | ? ? | ? ? | Fake reference for an award that he did not receive, does not mention him at all | ✘ No |
NYDJ Live.com | ? ? Unclear if this is a music blog | ? ? | name listed as a nominee | ✘ No |
OkayAfrica | ? ? | ? ? | Does not mention him at all | ✘ 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}}. |
Note:: Article is now at Gerony due to multiple confusing redirects by creator (now blocked). Netherzone ( talk) 15:27, 15 August 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. ✗ plicit 00:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Trying very hard to not be an advert, but still failing. News/Google shows no evidence of notability or WP:CORPDEPTH. BrigadierG ( talk) 00:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)