The result was keep didn't happen speedily due to timing, not an issue with the !votes as such. AfD should not be used for cleanup Star Mississippi 01:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
(see below, step 2/3 of nomination were done 16:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC))
The article has these issues: 1) the subject is not notable; 2) the article reads more like a whitepaper or concept discussion rather than anything meriting an encyclopedia entry—at most, the topics discussed could be integrated into other existing, notable articles; 3) it is fundamentally a promotion piece. — Ryanaxp ( talk) 16:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Case of WP:TOOSOON. Might be notable someday, but for now the only coverage is from press releases. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) TNstingray ( talk) 14:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
This article is essentially a duplication of Professor X in other media. As such, I see no reason for its continued existence per a variety of Wikipedia guidelines that we can get into during this discussion. TNstingray ( talk) 22:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. NFOOTY is defunct; GNG is the standard. Based on the rebuttals to the sources presented, I do not believe there is consensus that GNG is met. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 17:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep: pass NFooty: there's a coverage about the player, he played in a professional league. https://www.eurosport.com/football/mustafa-mohammad-abdul-hafeth_prs413019/person.shtml https://www.soccer24.com/player/hafeth-mustafa/6Vu24oFb Oloriebi 10:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly some coverage, but let's be grownups, if someone asks you to explain why you are putting forward a source as helping meet GNG, its useful to provide that information, especially when they are not in English / roman alphabet, rather than just pointing to Google translate, it can only help bolster arguments. Likewise the opposite applies when dismissing sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk) 22:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the sources provided by Nfitz are just briefly quoting the subject about upcoming matches. He has the usual generic statements about "facing strong opposition". There's no actual secondary coverage of the subject. In the third article, he's mentioned once and his opinions on an upcoming game are paraphrased in 1 sentence. I don't think this is significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 22:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is the sourcing (rehashes of team website, social media, press releases) is not suitable. If someone believes they can identify compliant sourcing and wants to work on it in draft space, happy to provide. However I doubt it's forthcoming in the timeline of a relist. Star Mississippi 01:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Prod removed on the basis that subject plays in a certain football league. That doesn't confer notability. Coverage is limited to routine blurbs from local sports publications. I would urge the closer to apply policy rather than the certain deluge of keep votes from people unwilling to let go of WP:NFOOTY. agtx 17:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinions are divided, but the keep vote arguments are weak, with the only coverage of sufficient size shown to be clearly
a primary source. There's obviously some trivial coverage but no real suggestion of any thing more. Extending to provide more time to add to the sources if possible, but editors are encouraged not to refer to the final point of
WP:SPORTCRIT, which is clearly not trying to say a single source is sufficient for notability for a sports person, when the first sentence aligns exactly with GNG in the requirement of multiple significant independent sources as all articles require.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk) 21:55, 10 May 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 23:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. No google news results as well. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 21:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 21:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Article tagged for notability since 2012. According to MIAR it still is not indexed in any selective databases (the only one listed being zMATH), so this fails WP:NJournals. There are two references, one a trivial listing, the other a dead link, but most likely this was a simple listing, too. Therefore this also fails WP:GNG. In the absence of any other evidence: Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 18:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for a Soft Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 16:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Mythdon (
talk •
contribs) 21:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Likely a WP:HOAX, the sole source does not mention this. See discussion at Special:PermanentLink/1087149739#Did_the_Battle_of_Karasounk_ever_take_place? RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 20:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Körber. valid ATD. Star Mississippi 01:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Notability tagged since 2012, promo tagged since 2014, doesn't appear to meet the stringent notability guidelines for companies. Deleted from de-wiki in 2017: "no encyclopaedic relevance" ( [8]) asilvering ( talk) 20:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consider the possibility of a redirect (to where?) as an alternative to deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 20:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to 40 Below Summer. ✗ plicit 23:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable album. Redirect to band's discography. Mooonswimmer 16:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 20:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to 40 Below Summer. ✗ plicit 23:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable album. Redirect to band's discography. Mooonswimmer 16:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 20:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 11:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Poorly sourced to largely web content none of which appears to be WP:RS Acous mana 20:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
A quick search reveals that this is quite real and there is serious anthropological study of this idea, in both North American and Asian shamanism, e.g. ISBN 9780520212770 page 31 and ISBN 9780306477546 page 148. There's all sorts of additional stuff such as soul loss as the cause of illness per the Temiar people in ISBN 9780520082816 page 8. Were this currently poorly sourced it could still be properly sourced. Editors would just have to read books. But, indeed, editors can read the books cited as sources in this article. Contrary to the nomination, which doesn't seem to recognize a chapter of a book, fully footnoted and authored by Mircea Eliade (it being xyr 1951 book on Shamanism), this is not sourced largely to web content. Indeed, the book is cited three times over in two different ways. The translator, Immanuelle, could have done a much better job with translating the citations, but ru:Мирча Элиаде isn't that hard to find. As noted, there are other books by anthropologists and the like that address this, too, so this is not just one author's pet invention, either. Not that Eliade is exactly just some random bloke in this field. There is no policy reason for deleting this.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
Joe (
talk) 09:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 19:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 23:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Footballer lacking in sufficient secondary source coverage for notability. There is an article on a local sports blog and routine game coverage from a website dedicated to covering local sports teams (like [11]). agtx 19:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Yet another boilerplate "List of mayors of X" article that, like all the others before it, has no reason to exist. The city is not a major one, and most of these mayors are therefore not notable on their own so siphoning them off to their own list does nothing to improve their notability. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 19:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
NOTE@ TenPoundHammer: Can you please add this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians. Thanks. Djflem ( talk) 18:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete.No notability according to WP:NLIST. Lurking shadow ( talk) 13:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Stifle ( talk) 08:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Does not seem to meet requirements for notability per WP:GEOLAND. Also, there seems to be a dearth of reliable sources. ( 👋 • 🗣 • ✍️) 18:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is sourcing is not sufficient. Star Mississippi 03:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a musician, not
properly referenced as passing
WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claim on offer here is that his music exists, which is not automatically enough in and of itself -- and the only referencing is his music metaverifying its own existence on CDBaby, YouTube or
user-generated lyrics databases, which are not reliable or notability-supporting sources.
As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which musicians are automatically entitled to have articles just because their music exists: the notability test is the reception of reliable source coverage about him in media, verifying that he passes one or more notability criteria (charting hits, playlisting, touring, etc.), but nothing here passes either part of that equation.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:20, 10 May 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 23:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet Wikipedia’s WP:NBIO, as well as if you go through the edit history it’s become aware that Mr. Alkazian was editing his own page by adding false claims over his career. He was also running multiple sock puppet accounts, all of which have been blocked. Pillowdelight ( talk) 17:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was Merge to the appropriate articles as proposed in the discussion. Consensus is that this is a WP:SYNTH problem in its current form. Sandstein 10:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Article is entirely synthesis of unrelated topics. There are no sources that cover this topic as a whole to establish notability or the relevance of grouping these. The fact that LGBT people own pets has nothing to do with some LGBT people dressing as furries, which has nothing to do with hairy men being called bears, which has nothing to do with Arthur showing a gay character, which has nothing to do with LGBT people taking part in the Unicorn trend. Animals are relevant to many parts of human life, language, and media, and grouping them in this way is not a cohesive, notable topic.
Most of the slang terms are already at LGBT slang and the rest should be added, and the lines about unicorns can be added to LGBT Symbols#Unicorns. The fictional animals have little to do with animals in particular, with sources like [17] discussing the LGBT presence and queer coding in Disney films in general, with nothing distinguishing animal characters from human characters (or hybrids like Ursula). I just don't see any encyclopedic basis for this grouping of disjoined topics and standalone facts, none of whose references paint a broader picture of what established their relationship "in LGBT culture." Reywas92 Talk 17:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 18:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Right now this seems like an WP:NOTESSAY rather than a Wikipedia article, and I'm struggling to see if it can be re-written. Ultimately, I think this AfD is required. Right now there appears to a lot of opinion and WP:Original research (for example, In the context of India, the Hindi language perfectly fits these characteristics) with some quotes from the relevant legislation, and what appears to be a lengthy quote from a speech. Singularity42 ( talk) 15:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. By about 3 to 1, people here are of the view that this list suffers from the problems identified in the nomination. These arguments are also stronger, because while the "keep" opinions contest this view, they do not substantiate their arguments by indicating why exactly the policies and guidelines indicated in the nomination do not apply to this content. They mostly argue that the topic is notable, which does not address the reasons for deletion identified by the "delete" side. Sandstein 10:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
A list(icle) of media in which SEALs appear. Tagged with "This article appears to contain trivial, minor, or unrelated references to popular culture", this is yet another violation of multiple policies and recommendations (multiple policies and guidelines ( WP:IPC, WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:V, plus the just created WP:NOTTVTROPES). Mostly unreferenced and according to my BEFORE, probably unrescuable, as this topic does not appear to have been covered before in a way that meets SIGCOV, etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Blah blah"... got it. - wolf 15:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Sorry[but your comment]
is almost Trumpian in its meaninglessness..." -Heeeeyy now, no need to be so nasty. I was just explaining why I wasn't aware of the other noms.
You seem to be thinking of all list articles as the same" - No, I'm only referring to a practice that has long been accepted at many of the list articles that I'm aware of, (through editing or just reading). You must be aware of it, and if you have an issue with it (which it appears you do), then surely you agree with my suggestion to have it addressed, project-wide, by way of a single RfC, which could very well negate the need for many, many AfDs. As for the rest of your comments, I don't necessarily disagree with you, I absolutely support sourcing for article content, the more refs the better, especially quality secondary sources. Have a good evening. - wolf 03:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 15:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 11:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Trivial namedrops in half-a-dozen sources cannot lead to the passage of GNG. If he was the founder of DCS, he might have claimed notability; sadly, he was among the first students. TrangaBellam ( talk) 12:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 13:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more participation with policy-based opinions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 15:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 00:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Matthews was at the time of his death the oldest verterna living in the state of Alabama. Being the oldest vereran living in one of the 50 states (and we could then spread this to hundreds of other countries, and all the states of India, Mexico, Brazil, Grermany and probably some other places), this is not a claim to notability. So let us look at the sourcing. It is one obituary from the local paper in Florence, Alabama where he lived. If we had articles noting him as the oldest veteran or his death in the Birmingham, Montgomery or even Hunsville papers, we might have something to work in, but it is only in the locality where he lives that notice is taken. Basically this article exists because he was mentioned in an article in a paper after Wikipedia was started, and so its very existence adds to our presentism. At best this might be one event. If we keep this we will I guess need articles on every person who was ever the oldest veteran in any first level sub-national entity of a federal style government, just the prospect of how many articles that will be, and how many of them will have utterly escaped any notice for the rest of their lives, suggests that down this road lies madness. Also, if we give this recognition to the oldest veterans at the first level-sub-national level of federal governments, what other oldest also will we give recognition to, just for being the oldest? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 18:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable "beatmaker", producer, rapper, and illustrator lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains( talk) 14:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 18:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Lack of notability, unknown racer that does not meet WP:BIO. Gabe114 ( talk) 14:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Technically ineligible, but there is no one actually contesting this in nearly three weeks. Star Mississippi 03:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOT the place for detailed statistics and little or no background. We have no sources which actually discuss this (small) group in depth (and the sources we do have in the article don't seem to work?). A redirect to Demographics of Antigua and Barbuda might be a solution, even though that article doesn't mention the Syrian or Lebanese. Fram ( talk) 11:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 12:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Mauro Iurato does not seem to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The only source cited in the article (presented as an external link rather than a reference) is a page on his own web site, and my searches have not turned up any substantial coverage in any independent source. (The article was originally draftified as not ready, but the author re-created it as an article. It was tagged for A7 speedy deletion, but I have declined that, as I think it does have enough assertion of significance to invalidate that criterion. The conflict of interest guideline appears to apply to the author of the article.) JBW ( talk) 10:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 12:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 11:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
No notable wrestler. Sources are reports of events, WP:ROUTINE, which don't established notability for the subject. No in-deep coverage of the wrestler. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 13:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. While there is a desire to keep, this has run more than two weeks and there is no sourcing. If someone wants to work on this in draft space, happy to provide it. Star Mississippi 02:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
No notable wrestler. Sources are reports of events, WP:ROUTINE, which don't established notability for the subject. No in-deep coverage of the wrestler. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 13:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 18:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I previously placed a PROD with the rationale "The subject's political career as a local councillor and unsuccessful parliamentary candidate is insufficient for notability as a politician. Nor is notability inherited from a spouse or from appearing on a reality TV show, and there is no evidence that the subject's social media outings are significant." The PROD was removed by an IP but the notability issues remain so I am now bringing this to AfD. AllyD ( talk) 14:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus appears to be that Bajarani is notable and the issues of the article can be addressed editorially. Ulvi95, you're welcome to provide sources and edit requests on the Talk, but please do not edit the article directly. Star Mississippi 02:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
This article seems to be a list of wins for a chess player so fails WP:PROMO. Unsure if being named on a chess results page counts for notability if not will fail WP:GNG as remaining references are not independent of the subject. Carver1889 ( talk) 13:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
:Usually, chess encyclopedias provide the notable results of the player (for example, the Soviet chess encyclopedia "Шахматы" published in 1990), so I included my notable results on the article. Regarding the Chess-Results.com, it is the hugest database of tournaments created in Swiss-Manager chess program. Most of the official and open tournaments are uploaded to the chess-results.com, so it might be considered a reliable source. Additionally, I used to have the site ulvichess.az where I covered the notable results of Azerbaijani players playing in various tournaments. During the writing, I checked
Vasif Durarbayli article to have some solid basis of how to write.
The result was no consensus. There is a valid question of whether identified coverage is in enough depth, which is an ongoing issue with awards. Is the award notable, the award it's in honor of, and or the recipient. There is no doubt that Bowden is notable but we do not have a clear consensus here that sourcing is enough. With two input-free relists, I don't see a third helping provide clarity here. Star Mississippi 02:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
All sources are WP:PRIMARY. No secondary sourcing found Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 00:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 04:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
Joe (
talk) 12:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is clearly against keeping. Whether a redirect makes sense is not clear from this discussion, but remains up to interested expert editors. Sandstein 10:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
The concept is not notable, and the definition given in the first line is almost nonsensical: in general, the coefficients of the differential equations that are considered are analytic, and the solutions are also analytic, which means that their natural domain is a large part of the complex plane, even if everything is real in the equation.
Except for the first line, the article consists only of assertions that are dubious, unsourced or unrelated to the article title (generally, at least two of these three issues).
So, nothing is to be salvaged, and there is no plausible redirect for this non existing concept. D.Lazard ( talk) 10:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Similar challenges in sourcing as the other lists which have appeared. I do not see consensus for a redirect, but if someone wants to post deletion, that's an editorial decision as there's also no one arguing against it. Star Mississippi 02:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Unsourced since 2004, woefully incomplete. Fails WP:LISTN. It has no stamps of Vanuatu, despite the title (and the existence of plenty of stamps from Vanuatu depicting people) , and the list of the New Hebrides is badly incomplete or wrong (e.g. lacks the first stamps of Elisabeth II, but also stamps of Prince Philip, William Wales and William Hodges). No evidence that this is a notable subject, and being looked at on average once every five days [33] shows a total lack of interest among our readers and our editors. Fram ( talk) 10:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy redirect to 2022 Sri Lankan protests#PM's resignation. as an uninvolved editor, as the page clearly falls under WP:A10, but the redirect is plausible nevertheless. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 13:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:CONTENTFORK from 2022 Sri Lankan protests, stub and better to remain as part of main Protest article UtoD 10:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. Policy-based consensus is there's no lasting impact of this fire. Should there be a change, or a development of legislation, I am happy to provide this in draft space but at the moment there are no grounds for an article. Star Mississippi 02:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
As per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING, there is nothing to indicate that fire that happened in the residential area, U.P. Campus, Quezon City was historic (e.g. record deaths or property damage).
While coverage includes BBC News and a Hong Kong site, all falls under WP:ROUTINE. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 04:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not all !votes are policy backed, but amongst those that are, there's sufficient to warrant from another week's discussion - especially as to whether it is ROUTINE and LASTING coverage (or not)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Nosebagbear (
talk) 08:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to EP Daily#History. Viable ATD in the absence of sourcing. Star Mississippi 02:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Current sources are all press releases, forum posts (seriously, WTF), or other unreliable first-party coverage. I tried googling various forms of the name + "Victor Lucas" and found literally nothing. Previously kept in 2008. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 04:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 04:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Modussiccandi (
talk) 08:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. consensus is sourcing is not at the quality required for notability Star Mississippi 00:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS, but does pass WP:NBADMINTON. GNG takes precedence in this case. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 03:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 03:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ks0stm (
T•
C•
G•
E) 08:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 11:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Uncited since 2007. Film actor who appears to have only played minor roles, most not even with named characters. asilvering ( talk) 04:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
*Keep More than enough mentions in GBooks to show he exists. Would probably find better sources in German of course.
Oaktree b (
talk) 23:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ks0stm (
T•
C•
G•
E) 08:17, 10 May 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 11:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 06:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Bungle ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
ill-sourced concept (dictionary definition?) and wild edit history; maybe merge into Social software (social procedure)? fgnievinski ( talk) 16:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Mythdon (
talk •
contribs) 17:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Friday (franchise)#Friday: The Animated Series (2007). Viable AtD in the absence of significant sourcing. Star Mississippi 02:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Found only passing mentions and name-drops in people who were on the show. WP:NOTINHERITED. Seems to have been too short-lived and too under-publicized for any RS coverage to surface. Deprodded without comment Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The ScreenRant entry is potentially acceptable, but no other users have offered solid evidence of notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄) 05:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 05:22, 10 May 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 11:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT. A search per WP:BEFORE turned up plenty of mentions, but no significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 05:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
non-notable/barely notable (I can't find articles about similar companies). Astroturfing perhaps? Codeofdusk ( talk) 05:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. per sourcing identified within the course of this discussion. Star Mississippi 03:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable film, all references are reproductions of press releases, no truly independent coverage, per WP:NF and WP:GNG BOVINEBOY 2008 22:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
AssumeGoodWraith (
talk |
contribs) 04:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The last AFD resulted in a move to Draft space. If this move is repeated, will it end up back at AFD for a third go-round?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 04:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
But that was so easy to find that I'm sure WP:BEFORE process would have shown them to the nominator, so that makes me think maybe these sources aren't good enough? Can the nominator please say something about that, because I don't know what the normal sources might be for a cartoon movie. Certainly DAWN seems solid. CT55555 ( talk) 04:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The review notes: "It's a perfectly fine movie for its targeted audience. Interestingly, the titular cat and mouse don't even come across as the stars of their own movie. There's one distinct sequence near the beginning where Tom chases Jerry, but in the rest of the movie they're overshadowed by Jerry's nephews, the prairie dogs, other cats, the sheriff, and all the other humans. It's nothing new, but kids are likely to enjoy the silly antics."
The review notes: "Want to watch an animated film that is both musical and comical, with a touch of the Wild West? Turn to Tom and Jerry: Cowboy Up, for it is an amalgamation of all three genres. This flick can only be termed as a God-sent for those who had been waiting for an action-adventure animation with songs and lots of fun, for it caters to them exclusively."
The review notes: "“TOM AND JERRY COWBOY UP”: Two of animation’s most classic characters play their literal cat-and-mouse game again in this made-for-home-video attraction that, as the title should indicate, has a Western theme. They try to help two siblings protect their land against someone who’s intent on taking it away from them, and they get assistance from both relatives and complete strangers in the quest. Though there are some nods to contemporary humor along the way, by and large, the story sticks to the time-tested elements that have kept Tom and Jerry audience favorites since they were created by cartoon titans William Hanna and Joseph Barbera more than 80 years ago. *** (Also on Digital)"
The article notes: "Cartoon comedy’s iconic cat and mouse duo is back in action in Tom and Jerry Cowboy Up, the all-new, full-length animated family film set for release on Digital and DVD ($14.99 SRP / $19.99 SRP Canada) on January 25, 2022 by Warner Bros. Home Entertainment. Produced by Warner Bros. Animation, Tom and Jerry Cowboy Up finds the rip-roaring duo in the wild west where they help save a ranch from the hands of a greedy villain."
The article notes: "Tom and Jerry was created in 1940 by William Hanna and Joseph Barbera. Now, 82 years later, the latest release of the famous cat and mouse team – Tom and Jerry Cowboy Up! – is available on DVD. This 75-minute animated movie finds Tom and Jerry working to save a ranch owned by a brother and sister from an evil land-grabber. Helping out are Jerry’s three nephews as well as numerous prairie dogs. But can they all work together to defeat the greedy man who wants their ranch in this western adventure that includes several songs?"
The article notes: "“Tom and Jerry Cowboy Up!”: Unlike last year’s “Tom and Jerry” movie, which combined live action and animation, this new straight-to-video feature is fully animated. It’s a mild Western, with Tom and Jerry teaming up to help save a family ranch from a villainous land baron. It’s strictly for kids. There are no celebrity voices, no rude humor and not even much cartoon violence — Tom gets tossed around and smooshed a bit, and that’s it. There also are a few original songs, all sung by prairie dogs, and some life lessons, such as family sticks together and never sit on a rattlesnake."
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
This article fails WP:GNG and relies on non-notable sources like corporate and institutional blogs and press releases. It's also written in a plainly promotional tone. — Mainly 01:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 01:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 03:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Didn't notice the sources added. Good work, @ NemesisAT: (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 16:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:BAND. Has worked with a few artists but isn't notable on his own. Zero sourcing found Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 03:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ks0stm (
T•
C•
G•
E) 03:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sourcing has been provided. Star Mississippi 02:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Pilot episodes are not usually notable on their own. The only non-primary source is a "who would win?" clickbait article which pits it against another non-notable show. Despite the notable names involved, WP:NOTINHERITED is in full force here Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 00:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
The review notes: "Despite some clever writing and well-executed animation, each episode comes with a super-sized serving of violence and a side order of misogynistic undertones. The bloodletting is particularly brutal and pervasive, and since there are no guns or out-of-this-world weapons in Korgoth's world, audiences might find the fight scenes more realistic than those in other animated series. The scenes in which women are held captive (in one episode, this happened twice) are also troublesome. Parents' best bet? Watch an episode or two before letting younger teens tune in, and keep Korgoth off the screen if young kids are watching."
The review notes: "The "Pilot" episode for the show actually surpassed our expectations, unlike the channel's last new program (ahem, Metalocalypse). But like Metalocalypse, Korgoth of Barbaria will be funniest to a particular audience; in Korgoth's case, that would be anybody who loved and laughed all the way through the Conan the Barbarian films. Bearing more than a small resemblance to said movie, Korgoth holds his own against Arnold Schwarzenegger's classic character. This show features the same brutal fighting, the same misogyny, and the same disregard for life as the Conan films did, and when you tie in humor that doesn't distract from the story you get an awesome new show."
The article notes: "But can it hold a candle to the legendary Korgoth of Barbaria, the hyperviolent, hyperhilarious animated 2006 pilot from Dexter's Laboratory director Aaron Springer and toon virtuoso Genndy Tartakovksy (Star Wars: Clone Wars, Samurai Jack)? After dropping jaws when it first aired on Adult Swim three years ago, the pilot was never picked up by Cartoon Network, although it still retains a dedicated fan base. Too bad, as its excessive gore and riotous jokes were perfectly subversive, which is to say the opposite of Krod Mandoon."
The article notes: "Originally intended as a series for Adult Swim in 2007, this heavy-metal and bloody parody of Conan the Barbarian was dropped for being too costly. Adult Swim has run the pilot created by Aaron Springer (Dexter’s Laboratory, SpongeBob SquarePants) twice since its rejection, and audiences still enjoy it now."
The encyclopedia notes: "Concept: It is a future time when all cities and structures have been destroyed and people have regressed to a medieval time. It is here that the adventures of Korgoth, a warrior are depicted as he goes about trying to survive in a savage land (even though animated, the pilot is violent, bloody and gory and had been designated to the evening Adult Swim time slot of Cartoon Network)."
The book notes: "Concept: A rather violent (and gory) pilot about Korgoth, a barbaric warrior living in a cruel world following an apocalypse wherein only the fittest survive."
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 01:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ks0stm (
T•
C•
G•
E) 03:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Modussiccandi ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
A new editor tagged this article for speedy deletion as "vandalism". I removed the CSD tag and thought it was better to consider this article at AFD. It is so superlative (a novelist! a professor! a champion martial artist!) that it reads like a hoax article. I found evidence of his academic articles that have been published but nothing about the 900 gold medals he has supposedly earned. If it matters, much of this same content is repeated in his Amazon profile. It's unusual for an academic bio to be such an over-the-top exaggeration, I mean, it sounds like there is a super hero teaching at Fayetteville State University. Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
References
References
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Bowen, Jessie (August 13, 2017). "2017 Who's Who in the Martial Arts". Lulu.com – via Google Books. | subjective | ~ | ✘ No | |
Robert W. McGee". Amazon | self-written author entry | ? | ✘ No | |
Bowen, Jessie (August 13, 2017). "2017 Who's Who in the Martial Arts". Lulu.com – via Google Books. | subjective | ~ one in a large who's who | ✘ No | |
https://warwick.ac.uk/alumni/news-events/news/robert-mcgee/ | article by alma mater | ✘ No | ||
https://www.clevelandstatemagazine.com/tenacious-mcgee/ | article by alma mater (JD) | ? | ✘ No | |
https://www.uncfsu.edu/robert-mcgee-martial-arts-champ | article by school newspaper | ? | ✘ No | |
https://alumni.sunderland.ac.uk/Keep-Informed/WAYN/2000-2009/Robert-McGee | article by alma mater, with clear reflection on his degree, there is a clear interest in positive portrayal | ? | ✘ No | |
https://community.myunion.edu/alumni-spotlight-at-72-robert-w-mcgee-is-just-getting-started/ | article by alma mater alumni newsletter | ~ unclear | ✘ No | |
https://www.gannon.edu/alumnispotlight.aspx?profile=81 | article by alma mater | ? | ✘ No | |
https://www.excelsior.edu/article/robert-w-mcgee-bs-1976-as-1979-aa-1980-bs-1983/ | article by alma mater | ? | ? | ✘ No |
https://books.google.com/books?id=ILwDnwEACAAJ | ~ | does not cover the individual, just the fact that he has written this book | ✘ No | |
Robert W. McGee and Walter Block. Academic Tenure: An Economic Critique, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Volume 14, No. 2 | publication by the subject | ? | does not actually cover any biographical facts | ✘ No |
Robert W. McGee and Danny Lam, Hong Kong's Option to Secede | publication by the subject | ? | does not actually cover any biographical facts | ✘ No |
Robert W. McGee, The Theory of Secession and Emerging Democracies: A Constitutional Solution | publication by the subject | ? | does not actually cover any biographical facts | ✘ No |
Robert W. McGee, If Dwarf Tossing Is Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Toss Dwarfs: Is Dwarf Tossing a Victimless Crime | publication by the subject | ? | does not actually cover any biographical facts | ✘ No |
Robert W. McGee and Yeomin Yoon, Technical Flaws in the Application of the U.S. Antidumping Laws: The Experience of U.S.-Korean Trade | publication by the subject | ? | does not actually cover any biographical facts | ✘ No |
Richard A. Bernardi, Accounting Authors Publishing in Ethics Journals | ? | only one of many covered | ✘ No | |
Sabrin, Murray (April 1, 2002). "A Ranking of the Most Productive Business Ethics Scholars: A Five-Year Study". | ? | only one of many covered | ✘ 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}}. |
I would consider this to be very strongly in favour of deletion. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 19:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
A non-notable film that fails the WP:GNG. I initially PRODed it with the following rationale: "Non-notable film that fails the WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. It was never picked up for distribution, and was never reviewed by a reliable source." The PROD was removed, though the user that did then stated that it was done in error, and that they had actually been meaning to remove it from a different article. Unfortunately, once a PROD has been contested for any reason, it cannot PRODed again, and must go to AFD, so here we are. Rorshacma ( talk) 02:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete ( G3) by Justlettersandnumbers. Non-admin closure. -- MuZemike 11:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Reviewed as a part of New page patrol. No sources, and they do not appear to exist. So 100% of content violates wp:Ver. It appears that this name doesn't and didn't exist. The only source for this name was another wiki (unsourced) which this is an exact copy of. Editor that created this is indeffed. North8000 ( talk) 01:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. There is definitely not a consensus to delete, but this does not mean a merger cannot be considered if there's more to say about the show and Warren together. Star Mississippi 02:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Prod and redirect to List of Animal Planet original programming both declined. I tried, but all I found was PR puff pieces about Katrina Warren that refer to her as "Beverly Hills Vet" and mention the show either passingly or not at all. Editor who undid prod claimed sources on Proquest but failed to WP:PROVEIT. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consider whether the limited sources are enough to establish notability for the TV series rather than the show's host.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 00:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Playboy of the West Indies. I think a redirect to the original source of material is a good resolution. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Reviewed as a part of new page patrol A performance scheduled at a theater for late June through early July 2022. Zero indication of notability under GNG or SNG. One source is pretty clearly just a press release of theirs on a website, than other is about the venue and has 1-2 sentences on the topic. North8000 ( talk) 00:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 00:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Reviewed as a part of New Page Patrol. Basically a list of of all of the years that existed between 1900 and 2022. (a list of 120 years) including 112 red links and 8 that go to a stub article which list 1-2 events that happened in Brunei that year. No indication of wp:notability for the list concept. Further does not fulfill the nature of list articles (just a list of years) nor the intended purposes of them North8000 ( talk) 00:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
*Delete. If we were to create an article for the history of each year of each country, that easily would be tens of thousands of articles. And if countries, why not cities? It is much better to keep articles such as
History of Brunei. This is simply beyond the current scope and abilities of this encyclopedia.
Jacona (
talk) 00:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:ORGCRIT. No notability independent of the parent organisation. AusLondonder ( talk) 00:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
largely per IT wiki deletions (of which there are nearly a dozen) and extensive discussion there, he doesn't appear to be notable and most of the sources are PR, primary or otherwise not able to establish notability. I'm not sure what being the 'protagonist' of a tour is but it certainly doesn't make him notable. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like one unmarked Keep vote by the page creator, I'd like to see further evaluation of the sources that are present. Any native Italian speakers patrolling AFD? I'm sure much meaning is lost using Google Translate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 00:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Reviewed as a part of New Page Patrol. No indication of notability under GNG or SNG. Of the three sources, one is the instagram log in and the other two are general website info about two competitions that he was in. He also owns a supplement company related to this field and editor has listed the supplement company and redlinked it for creation. North8000 ( talk) 00:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. This discussion has received ample input, but no consensus for a particular outcome has transpired. North America 1000 02:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Reviewed as a part of new page patrol. I wish them the best but this is a local coffee shop. It is about the business, so the higher bar of ncorp (vs geo) applies but I don't think that it would even meet a lower bar. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or Ncorp. Sources are local reviews. North8000 ( talk) 00:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The Straits Times is the newspaper of record of Singapore. Coverage in the newspaper of record of Singapore meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience, which says:
The article notes: "If there was one shop along Balestier Road which could offer that special something to perk up your spirits any time, any day, it would be No. 328. Here, for $2 per 100g, roasted beans get crushed into brown-black powder before being pumped into boiling water. Doused with milk and left to sit in mugs, the resulting woody fragrance wafts through the humid room. Ah, coffee. Not from Starbucks, UCC or Lavazza, but Singapore's own Lam Yeo Coffee Powder. The name of the store is a Hokkien translation of the word Nanyang, for South Sea. Since 1959, it has been dispensing its 10 signature blends of coffee harvested from various parts of Indonesia to Singapore's coffee-philes."The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.
The article provides three paragraphs of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "The Hokkien name Lam Yeo translates to Nanyang in Mandarin, meaning “South Sea”. The shop’s coffee powder business started in 1959, when Tan Thian Kang began selling the coffee beans door-to-door, before setting up shop in Balestier in 1960. The same shop still exists today and second-generation owner Tan Bong Heong continues to roast the local coffee beans with margarine and sugar the way his father did. [quote from owner]"
The article provides nine paragraphs of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Lam Yeo Coffee Powder stands facing the frenetic waves of traffic along Balestier Road. Passing cars stir up the dust outside its shopfront, a relic from a Singapore of old, when a generation of coffee drinkers brewed their morning cuppa in a sock-like strainer rather than a Nespresso machine. Lam Yeo is Hokkien for "Nanyang" and since the late 1950s, it has been trading in Nanyang-style coffee beans and grounds on the very same premises. Time seems to stand still the moment you step into the shop."
The article provides 174 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "A sepia-toned vision of coffee culture, this stalwart has been purveying its kopi blends – the uniquely Singaporean concoction of beans roasted with margarine and sugar – since 1959. Not much has seemed to change since then. Vintage coffee grinders still sit on the shelves."
The book provides 78 words of coverage about the company. The book notes: "Lam Yeo Coffee Powder. Owner Tan Peck Hoe retains the long-standing tradition of roasting coffee beans with sugar and margarine to give them that lusciously black exterior unique to local coffee. While his traditional coffee powder remains an old favourite, Mr Tan has also adapted and started importing gourmet beans from South Africa and Central America. These are roasted plain and ground only upon purchase to ensure freshness"
The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.
There are two types of independence to consider when evaluating sources:
- Independence of the author (or functional independence): the author must be unrelated to the company, organization, or product. Related persons include organization's personnel, owners, investors, (sub)contractors, vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees (including astroturfing), and other parties that have something, financially or otherwise, to gain or lose.
- Independence of the content (or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties. Often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
The article begins, "If there was one shop along Balestier Road which could offer that special something to perk up your spirits any time, any day, it would be No. 328." This is the journalist's independent opinion about the shop. The article continues, "Here, for $2 per 100g, roasted beans get crushed into brown-black powder before being pumped into boiling water. Doused with milk and left to sit in mugs, the resulting woody fragrance wafts through the humid room." This is the journalist's observations of what it's to visit the shop: what can be seen, what can be smelled, and what can be felt. The article continues that the shop uses "10 signature blends of coffee harvested from various parts of Indonesia to Singapore's coffee-philes". This is independent reporting of where the shop sources its coffee from. The article continues, "For all the freshness of his coffee, Mr Tan's shop wears the air of a place where time has stood still out of boredom, routine and age. An ancient abacus lies, its beads rubbed down over time, on a table with a peeling formica top. Sacks of coffee beans and coffee powder, imported every month from Indonesia, strain tired plywood shelves." This more in-depth analysis of her observations in the shop.
The article begins: "Lam Yeo Coffee Powder stands facing the frenetic waves of traffic along Balestier Road. Passing cars stir up the dust outside its shopfront, a relic from a Singapore of old, when a generation of coffee drinkers brewed their morning cuppa in a sock-like strainer rather than a Nespresso machine." Calling Lam Yeo Coffee Powder "a relic from a Singapore of old" is independent analysis of the company and provides societal context about the earlier history of the company.
The article later notes: "Time seems to stand still the moment you step into the shop. Burlap sacks of coffee beans pile up against plywood shelves sagging under the weight of coffee pots, strainers and cups. In the middle of the shop floor, three prized traditional hand-grinders glint atop containers of coffee beans, browned to varying degrees. The grinders have been there since the shop's humble beginnings and were originally bought from a Singaporean manufacturer, Zhi Min Zao, which has now ceased operations." This is very in-depth analysis of the journalist's observations of what the shop looks like. None of this information is based on the shop's website. Several other paragraphs discuss the company's early history and how it was passed from father to son. This is independent reporting that the journalist gathered through her research. That some facts about the company's history (such as its being founded in 1959 and that Lam Yeo is Hokkien for "Nanyang") are present on the company's website does not mean the article is non-independent. These are important facts about the company that any article discussing its history should always include.
Cunard ( talk) 01:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
The journalists "personall experienced" or visited the coffee shop "and describ[e] their experiences in some depth [and] provid[e] broader context" about the shop's history. Cunard ( talk) 10:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Significant reviews are where the author has personally experienced or tested the product and describes their experiences in some depth, provides broader context, and draws comparisons with other products. Reviews that narrowly focus on a particular product or function without broader context (e.g. review of a particular meal without description of the restaurant as a whole) do not count as significant sources. Reviews that are too generic or vague to make the determination whether the author had personal experience with the reviewed product are not to be counted as significant sources.
The result was keep didn't happen speedily due to timing, not an issue with the !votes as such. AfD should not be used for cleanup Star Mississippi 01:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
(see below, step 2/3 of nomination were done 16:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC))
The article has these issues: 1) the subject is not notable; 2) the article reads more like a whitepaper or concept discussion rather than anything meriting an encyclopedia entry—at most, the topics discussed could be integrated into other existing, notable articles; 3) it is fundamentally a promotion piece. — Ryanaxp ( talk) 16:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Case of WP:TOOSOON. Might be notable someday, but for now the only coverage is from press releases. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) TNstingray ( talk) 14:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
This article is essentially a duplication of Professor X in other media. As such, I see no reason for its continued existence per a variety of Wikipedia guidelines that we can get into during this discussion. TNstingray ( talk) 22:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. NFOOTY is defunct; GNG is the standard. Based on the rebuttals to the sources presented, I do not believe there is consensus that GNG is met. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 17:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep: pass NFooty: there's a coverage about the player, he played in a professional league. https://www.eurosport.com/football/mustafa-mohammad-abdul-hafeth_prs413019/person.shtml https://www.soccer24.com/player/hafeth-mustafa/6Vu24oFb Oloriebi 10:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly some coverage, but let's be grownups, if someone asks you to explain why you are putting forward a source as helping meet GNG, its useful to provide that information, especially when they are not in English / roman alphabet, rather than just pointing to Google translate, it can only help bolster arguments. Likewise the opposite applies when dismissing sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk) 22:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the sources provided by Nfitz are just briefly quoting the subject about upcoming matches. He has the usual generic statements about "facing strong opposition". There's no actual secondary coverage of the subject. In the third article, he's mentioned once and his opinions on an upcoming game are paraphrased in 1 sentence. I don't think this is significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 22:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is the sourcing (rehashes of team website, social media, press releases) is not suitable. If someone believes they can identify compliant sourcing and wants to work on it in draft space, happy to provide. However I doubt it's forthcoming in the timeline of a relist. Star Mississippi 01:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Prod removed on the basis that subject plays in a certain football league. That doesn't confer notability. Coverage is limited to routine blurbs from local sports publications. I would urge the closer to apply policy rather than the certain deluge of keep votes from people unwilling to let go of WP:NFOOTY. agtx 17:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinions are divided, but the keep vote arguments are weak, with the only coverage of sufficient size shown to be clearly
a primary source. There's obviously some trivial coverage but no real suggestion of any thing more. Extending to provide more time to add to the sources if possible, but editors are encouraged not to refer to the final point of
WP:SPORTCRIT, which is clearly not trying to say a single source is sufficient for notability for a sports person, when the first sentence aligns exactly with GNG in the requirement of multiple significant independent sources as all articles require.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk) 21:55, 10 May 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 23:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. No google news results as well. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 21:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 21:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Article tagged for notability since 2012. According to MIAR it still is not indexed in any selective databases (the only one listed being zMATH), so this fails WP:NJournals. There are two references, one a trivial listing, the other a dead link, but most likely this was a simple listing, too. Therefore this also fails WP:GNG. In the absence of any other evidence: Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 18:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for a Soft Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 16:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Mythdon (
talk •
contribs) 21:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Likely a WP:HOAX, the sole source does not mention this. See discussion at Special:PermanentLink/1087149739#Did_the_Battle_of_Karasounk_ever_take_place? RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 20:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Körber. valid ATD. Star Mississippi 01:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Notability tagged since 2012, promo tagged since 2014, doesn't appear to meet the stringent notability guidelines for companies. Deleted from de-wiki in 2017: "no encyclopaedic relevance" ( [8]) asilvering ( talk) 20:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consider the possibility of a redirect (to where?) as an alternative to deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 20:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to 40 Below Summer. ✗ plicit 23:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable album. Redirect to band's discography. Mooonswimmer 16:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 20:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to 40 Below Summer. ✗ plicit 23:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable album. Redirect to band's discography. Mooonswimmer 16:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 20:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 11:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Poorly sourced to largely web content none of which appears to be WP:RS Acous mana 20:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
A quick search reveals that this is quite real and there is serious anthropological study of this idea, in both North American and Asian shamanism, e.g. ISBN 9780520212770 page 31 and ISBN 9780306477546 page 148. There's all sorts of additional stuff such as soul loss as the cause of illness per the Temiar people in ISBN 9780520082816 page 8. Were this currently poorly sourced it could still be properly sourced. Editors would just have to read books. But, indeed, editors can read the books cited as sources in this article. Contrary to the nomination, which doesn't seem to recognize a chapter of a book, fully footnoted and authored by Mircea Eliade (it being xyr 1951 book on Shamanism), this is not sourced largely to web content. Indeed, the book is cited three times over in two different ways. The translator, Immanuelle, could have done a much better job with translating the citations, but ru:Мирча Элиаде isn't that hard to find. As noted, there are other books by anthropologists and the like that address this, too, so this is not just one author's pet invention, either. Not that Eliade is exactly just some random bloke in this field. There is no policy reason for deleting this.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
Joe (
talk) 09:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 19:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 23:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Footballer lacking in sufficient secondary source coverage for notability. There is an article on a local sports blog and routine game coverage from a website dedicated to covering local sports teams (like [11]). agtx 19:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Yet another boilerplate "List of mayors of X" article that, like all the others before it, has no reason to exist. The city is not a major one, and most of these mayors are therefore not notable on their own so siphoning them off to their own list does nothing to improve their notability. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 19:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
NOTE@ TenPoundHammer: Can you please add this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians. Thanks. Djflem ( talk) 18:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete.No notability according to WP:NLIST. Lurking shadow ( talk) 13:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Stifle ( talk) 08:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Does not seem to meet requirements for notability per WP:GEOLAND. Also, there seems to be a dearth of reliable sources. ( 👋 • 🗣 • ✍️) 18:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is sourcing is not sufficient. Star Mississippi 03:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a musician, not
properly referenced as passing
WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claim on offer here is that his music exists, which is not automatically enough in and of itself -- and the only referencing is his music metaverifying its own existence on CDBaby, YouTube or
user-generated lyrics databases, which are not reliable or notability-supporting sources.
As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which musicians are automatically entitled to have articles just because their music exists: the notability test is the reception of reliable source coverage about him in media, verifying that he passes one or more notability criteria (charting hits, playlisting, touring, etc.), but nothing here passes either part of that equation.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:20, 10 May 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 23:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet Wikipedia’s WP:NBIO, as well as if you go through the edit history it’s become aware that Mr. Alkazian was editing his own page by adding false claims over his career. He was also running multiple sock puppet accounts, all of which have been blocked. Pillowdelight ( talk) 17:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was Merge to the appropriate articles as proposed in the discussion. Consensus is that this is a WP:SYNTH problem in its current form. Sandstein 10:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Article is entirely synthesis of unrelated topics. There are no sources that cover this topic as a whole to establish notability or the relevance of grouping these. The fact that LGBT people own pets has nothing to do with some LGBT people dressing as furries, which has nothing to do with hairy men being called bears, which has nothing to do with Arthur showing a gay character, which has nothing to do with LGBT people taking part in the Unicorn trend. Animals are relevant to many parts of human life, language, and media, and grouping them in this way is not a cohesive, notable topic.
Most of the slang terms are already at LGBT slang and the rest should be added, and the lines about unicorns can be added to LGBT Symbols#Unicorns. The fictional animals have little to do with animals in particular, with sources like [17] discussing the LGBT presence and queer coding in Disney films in general, with nothing distinguishing animal characters from human characters (or hybrids like Ursula). I just don't see any encyclopedic basis for this grouping of disjoined topics and standalone facts, none of whose references paint a broader picture of what established their relationship "in LGBT culture." Reywas92 Talk 17:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 18:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Right now this seems like an WP:NOTESSAY rather than a Wikipedia article, and I'm struggling to see if it can be re-written. Ultimately, I think this AfD is required. Right now there appears to a lot of opinion and WP:Original research (for example, In the context of India, the Hindi language perfectly fits these characteristics) with some quotes from the relevant legislation, and what appears to be a lengthy quote from a speech. Singularity42 ( talk) 15:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. By about 3 to 1, people here are of the view that this list suffers from the problems identified in the nomination. These arguments are also stronger, because while the "keep" opinions contest this view, they do not substantiate their arguments by indicating why exactly the policies and guidelines indicated in the nomination do not apply to this content. They mostly argue that the topic is notable, which does not address the reasons for deletion identified by the "delete" side. Sandstein 10:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
A list(icle) of media in which SEALs appear. Tagged with "This article appears to contain trivial, minor, or unrelated references to popular culture", this is yet another violation of multiple policies and recommendations (multiple policies and guidelines ( WP:IPC, WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:V, plus the just created WP:NOTTVTROPES). Mostly unreferenced and according to my BEFORE, probably unrescuable, as this topic does not appear to have been covered before in a way that meets SIGCOV, etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Blah blah"... got it. - wolf 15:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Sorry[but your comment]
is almost Trumpian in its meaninglessness..." -Heeeeyy now, no need to be so nasty. I was just explaining why I wasn't aware of the other noms.
You seem to be thinking of all list articles as the same" - No, I'm only referring to a practice that has long been accepted at many of the list articles that I'm aware of, (through editing or just reading). You must be aware of it, and if you have an issue with it (which it appears you do), then surely you agree with my suggestion to have it addressed, project-wide, by way of a single RfC, which could very well negate the need for many, many AfDs. As for the rest of your comments, I don't necessarily disagree with you, I absolutely support sourcing for article content, the more refs the better, especially quality secondary sources. Have a good evening. - wolf 03:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 15:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 11:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Trivial namedrops in half-a-dozen sources cannot lead to the passage of GNG. If he was the founder of DCS, he might have claimed notability; sadly, he was among the first students. TrangaBellam ( talk) 12:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 13:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more participation with policy-based opinions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 15:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 00:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Matthews was at the time of his death the oldest verterna living in the state of Alabama. Being the oldest vereran living in one of the 50 states (and we could then spread this to hundreds of other countries, and all the states of India, Mexico, Brazil, Grermany and probably some other places), this is not a claim to notability. So let us look at the sourcing. It is one obituary from the local paper in Florence, Alabama where he lived. If we had articles noting him as the oldest veteran or his death in the Birmingham, Montgomery or even Hunsville papers, we might have something to work in, but it is only in the locality where he lives that notice is taken. Basically this article exists because he was mentioned in an article in a paper after Wikipedia was started, and so its very existence adds to our presentism. At best this might be one event. If we keep this we will I guess need articles on every person who was ever the oldest veteran in any first level sub-national entity of a federal style government, just the prospect of how many articles that will be, and how many of them will have utterly escaped any notice for the rest of their lives, suggests that down this road lies madness. Also, if we give this recognition to the oldest veterans at the first level-sub-national level of federal governments, what other oldest also will we give recognition to, just for being the oldest? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 18:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable "beatmaker", producer, rapper, and illustrator lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains( talk) 14:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 18:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Lack of notability, unknown racer that does not meet WP:BIO. Gabe114 ( talk) 14:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Technically ineligible, but there is no one actually contesting this in nearly three weeks. Star Mississippi 03:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOT the place for detailed statistics and little or no background. We have no sources which actually discuss this (small) group in depth (and the sources we do have in the article don't seem to work?). A redirect to Demographics of Antigua and Barbuda might be a solution, even though that article doesn't mention the Syrian or Lebanese. Fram ( talk) 11:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 12:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Mauro Iurato does not seem to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The only source cited in the article (presented as an external link rather than a reference) is a page on his own web site, and my searches have not turned up any substantial coverage in any independent source. (The article was originally draftified as not ready, but the author re-created it as an article. It was tagged for A7 speedy deletion, but I have declined that, as I think it does have enough assertion of significance to invalidate that criterion. The conflict of interest guideline appears to apply to the author of the article.) JBW ( talk) 10:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 12:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 11:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
No notable wrestler. Sources are reports of events, WP:ROUTINE, which don't established notability for the subject. No in-deep coverage of the wrestler. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 13:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. While there is a desire to keep, this has run more than two weeks and there is no sourcing. If someone wants to work on this in draft space, happy to provide it. Star Mississippi 02:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
No notable wrestler. Sources are reports of events, WP:ROUTINE, which don't established notability for the subject. No in-deep coverage of the wrestler. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 13:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 18:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I previously placed a PROD with the rationale "The subject's political career as a local councillor and unsuccessful parliamentary candidate is insufficient for notability as a politician. Nor is notability inherited from a spouse or from appearing on a reality TV show, and there is no evidence that the subject's social media outings are significant." The PROD was removed by an IP but the notability issues remain so I am now bringing this to AfD. AllyD ( talk) 14:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus appears to be that Bajarani is notable and the issues of the article can be addressed editorially. Ulvi95, you're welcome to provide sources and edit requests on the Talk, but please do not edit the article directly. Star Mississippi 02:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
This article seems to be a list of wins for a chess player so fails WP:PROMO. Unsure if being named on a chess results page counts for notability if not will fail WP:GNG as remaining references are not independent of the subject. Carver1889 ( talk) 13:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
:Usually, chess encyclopedias provide the notable results of the player (for example, the Soviet chess encyclopedia "Шахматы" published in 1990), so I included my notable results on the article. Regarding the Chess-Results.com, it is the hugest database of tournaments created in Swiss-Manager chess program. Most of the official and open tournaments are uploaded to the chess-results.com, so it might be considered a reliable source. Additionally, I used to have the site ulvichess.az where I covered the notable results of Azerbaijani players playing in various tournaments. During the writing, I checked
Vasif Durarbayli article to have some solid basis of how to write.
The result was no consensus. There is a valid question of whether identified coverage is in enough depth, which is an ongoing issue with awards. Is the award notable, the award it's in honor of, and or the recipient. There is no doubt that Bowden is notable but we do not have a clear consensus here that sourcing is enough. With two input-free relists, I don't see a third helping provide clarity here. Star Mississippi 02:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
All sources are WP:PRIMARY. No secondary sourcing found Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 00:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 04:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
Joe (
talk) 12:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is clearly against keeping. Whether a redirect makes sense is not clear from this discussion, but remains up to interested expert editors. Sandstein 10:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
The concept is not notable, and the definition given in the first line is almost nonsensical: in general, the coefficients of the differential equations that are considered are analytic, and the solutions are also analytic, which means that their natural domain is a large part of the complex plane, even if everything is real in the equation.
Except for the first line, the article consists only of assertions that are dubious, unsourced or unrelated to the article title (generally, at least two of these three issues).
So, nothing is to be salvaged, and there is no plausible redirect for this non existing concept. D.Lazard ( talk) 10:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Similar challenges in sourcing as the other lists which have appeared. I do not see consensus for a redirect, but if someone wants to post deletion, that's an editorial decision as there's also no one arguing against it. Star Mississippi 02:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Unsourced since 2004, woefully incomplete. Fails WP:LISTN. It has no stamps of Vanuatu, despite the title (and the existence of plenty of stamps from Vanuatu depicting people) , and the list of the New Hebrides is badly incomplete or wrong (e.g. lacks the first stamps of Elisabeth II, but also stamps of Prince Philip, William Wales and William Hodges). No evidence that this is a notable subject, and being looked at on average once every five days [33] shows a total lack of interest among our readers and our editors. Fram ( talk) 10:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy redirect to 2022 Sri Lankan protests#PM's resignation. as an uninvolved editor, as the page clearly falls under WP:A10, but the redirect is plausible nevertheless. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 13:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:CONTENTFORK from 2022 Sri Lankan protests, stub and better to remain as part of main Protest article UtoD 10:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. Policy-based consensus is there's no lasting impact of this fire. Should there be a change, or a development of legislation, I am happy to provide this in draft space but at the moment there are no grounds for an article. Star Mississippi 02:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
As per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING, there is nothing to indicate that fire that happened in the residential area, U.P. Campus, Quezon City was historic (e.g. record deaths or property damage).
While coverage includes BBC News and a Hong Kong site, all falls under WP:ROUTINE. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 04:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not all !votes are policy backed, but amongst those that are, there's sufficient to warrant from another week's discussion - especially as to whether it is ROUTINE and LASTING coverage (or not)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Nosebagbear (
talk) 08:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to EP Daily#History. Viable ATD in the absence of sourcing. Star Mississippi 02:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Current sources are all press releases, forum posts (seriously, WTF), or other unreliable first-party coverage. I tried googling various forms of the name + "Victor Lucas" and found literally nothing. Previously kept in 2008. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 04:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 04:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Modussiccandi (
talk) 08:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. consensus is sourcing is not at the quality required for notability Star Mississippi 00:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS, but does pass WP:NBADMINTON. GNG takes precedence in this case. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 03:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 03:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ks0stm (
T•
C•
G•
E) 08:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 11:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Uncited since 2007. Film actor who appears to have only played minor roles, most not even with named characters. asilvering ( talk) 04:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
*Keep More than enough mentions in GBooks to show he exists. Would probably find better sources in German of course.
Oaktree b (
talk) 23:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ks0stm (
T•
C•
G•
E) 08:17, 10 May 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 11:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 06:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Bungle ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
ill-sourced concept (dictionary definition?) and wild edit history; maybe merge into Social software (social procedure)? fgnievinski ( talk) 16:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Mythdon (
talk •
contribs) 17:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Friday (franchise)#Friday: The Animated Series (2007). Viable AtD in the absence of significant sourcing. Star Mississippi 02:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Found only passing mentions and name-drops in people who were on the show. WP:NOTINHERITED. Seems to have been too short-lived and too under-publicized for any RS coverage to surface. Deprodded without comment Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The ScreenRant entry is potentially acceptable, but no other users have offered solid evidence of notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄) 05:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 05:22, 10 May 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 11:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT. A search per WP:BEFORE turned up plenty of mentions, but no significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 05:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
non-notable/barely notable (I can't find articles about similar companies). Astroturfing perhaps? Codeofdusk ( talk) 05:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. per sourcing identified within the course of this discussion. Star Mississippi 03:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable film, all references are reproductions of press releases, no truly independent coverage, per WP:NF and WP:GNG BOVINEBOY 2008 22:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
AssumeGoodWraith (
talk |
contribs) 04:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The last AFD resulted in a move to Draft space. If this move is repeated, will it end up back at AFD for a third go-round?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 04:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
But that was so easy to find that I'm sure WP:BEFORE process would have shown them to the nominator, so that makes me think maybe these sources aren't good enough? Can the nominator please say something about that, because I don't know what the normal sources might be for a cartoon movie. Certainly DAWN seems solid. CT55555 ( talk) 04:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The review notes: "It's a perfectly fine movie for its targeted audience. Interestingly, the titular cat and mouse don't even come across as the stars of their own movie. There's one distinct sequence near the beginning where Tom chases Jerry, but in the rest of the movie they're overshadowed by Jerry's nephews, the prairie dogs, other cats, the sheriff, and all the other humans. It's nothing new, but kids are likely to enjoy the silly antics."
The review notes: "Want to watch an animated film that is both musical and comical, with a touch of the Wild West? Turn to Tom and Jerry: Cowboy Up, for it is an amalgamation of all three genres. This flick can only be termed as a God-sent for those who had been waiting for an action-adventure animation with songs and lots of fun, for it caters to them exclusively."
The review notes: "“TOM AND JERRY COWBOY UP”: Two of animation’s most classic characters play their literal cat-and-mouse game again in this made-for-home-video attraction that, as the title should indicate, has a Western theme. They try to help two siblings protect their land against someone who’s intent on taking it away from them, and they get assistance from both relatives and complete strangers in the quest. Though there are some nods to contemporary humor along the way, by and large, the story sticks to the time-tested elements that have kept Tom and Jerry audience favorites since they were created by cartoon titans William Hanna and Joseph Barbera more than 80 years ago. *** (Also on Digital)"
The article notes: "Cartoon comedy’s iconic cat and mouse duo is back in action in Tom and Jerry Cowboy Up, the all-new, full-length animated family film set for release on Digital and DVD ($14.99 SRP / $19.99 SRP Canada) on January 25, 2022 by Warner Bros. Home Entertainment. Produced by Warner Bros. Animation, Tom and Jerry Cowboy Up finds the rip-roaring duo in the wild west where they help save a ranch from the hands of a greedy villain."
The article notes: "Tom and Jerry was created in 1940 by William Hanna and Joseph Barbera. Now, 82 years later, the latest release of the famous cat and mouse team – Tom and Jerry Cowboy Up! – is available on DVD. This 75-minute animated movie finds Tom and Jerry working to save a ranch owned by a brother and sister from an evil land-grabber. Helping out are Jerry’s three nephews as well as numerous prairie dogs. But can they all work together to defeat the greedy man who wants their ranch in this western adventure that includes several songs?"
The article notes: "“Tom and Jerry Cowboy Up!”: Unlike last year’s “Tom and Jerry” movie, which combined live action and animation, this new straight-to-video feature is fully animated. It’s a mild Western, with Tom and Jerry teaming up to help save a family ranch from a villainous land baron. It’s strictly for kids. There are no celebrity voices, no rude humor and not even much cartoon violence — Tom gets tossed around and smooshed a bit, and that’s it. There also are a few original songs, all sung by prairie dogs, and some life lessons, such as family sticks together and never sit on a rattlesnake."
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
This article fails WP:GNG and relies on non-notable sources like corporate and institutional blogs and press releases. It's also written in a plainly promotional tone. — Mainly 01:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 01:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 03:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Didn't notice the sources added. Good work, @ NemesisAT: (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 16:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:BAND. Has worked with a few artists but isn't notable on his own. Zero sourcing found Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 03:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ks0stm (
T•
C•
G•
E) 03:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sourcing has been provided. Star Mississippi 02:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Pilot episodes are not usually notable on their own. The only non-primary source is a "who would win?" clickbait article which pits it against another non-notable show. Despite the notable names involved, WP:NOTINHERITED is in full force here Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 00:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
The review notes: "Despite some clever writing and well-executed animation, each episode comes with a super-sized serving of violence and a side order of misogynistic undertones. The bloodletting is particularly brutal and pervasive, and since there are no guns or out-of-this-world weapons in Korgoth's world, audiences might find the fight scenes more realistic than those in other animated series. The scenes in which women are held captive (in one episode, this happened twice) are also troublesome. Parents' best bet? Watch an episode or two before letting younger teens tune in, and keep Korgoth off the screen if young kids are watching."
The review notes: "The "Pilot" episode for the show actually surpassed our expectations, unlike the channel's last new program (ahem, Metalocalypse). But like Metalocalypse, Korgoth of Barbaria will be funniest to a particular audience; in Korgoth's case, that would be anybody who loved and laughed all the way through the Conan the Barbarian films. Bearing more than a small resemblance to said movie, Korgoth holds his own against Arnold Schwarzenegger's classic character. This show features the same brutal fighting, the same misogyny, and the same disregard for life as the Conan films did, and when you tie in humor that doesn't distract from the story you get an awesome new show."
The article notes: "But can it hold a candle to the legendary Korgoth of Barbaria, the hyperviolent, hyperhilarious animated 2006 pilot from Dexter's Laboratory director Aaron Springer and toon virtuoso Genndy Tartakovksy (Star Wars: Clone Wars, Samurai Jack)? After dropping jaws when it first aired on Adult Swim three years ago, the pilot was never picked up by Cartoon Network, although it still retains a dedicated fan base. Too bad, as its excessive gore and riotous jokes were perfectly subversive, which is to say the opposite of Krod Mandoon."
The article notes: "Originally intended as a series for Adult Swim in 2007, this heavy-metal and bloody parody of Conan the Barbarian was dropped for being too costly. Adult Swim has run the pilot created by Aaron Springer (Dexter’s Laboratory, SpongeBob SquarePants) twice since its rejection, and audiences still enjoy it now."
The encyclopedia notes: "Concept: It is a future time when all cities and structures have been destroyed and people have regressed to a medieval time. It is here that the adventures of Korgoth, a warrior are depicted as he goes about trying to survive in a savage land (even though animated, the pilot is violent, bloody and gory and had been designated to the evening Adult Swim time slot of Cartoon Network)."
The book notes: "Concept: A rather violent (and gory) pilot about Korgoth, a barbaric warrior living in a cruel world following an apocalypse wherein only the fittest survive."
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 01:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ks0stm (
T•
C•
G•
E) 03:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Modussiccandi ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
A new editor tagged this article for speedy deletion as "vandalism". I removed the CSD tag and thought it was better to consider this article at AFD. It is so superlative (a novelist! a professor! a champion martial artist!) that it reads like a hoax article. I found evidence of his academic articles that have been published but nothing about the 900 gold medals he has supposedly earned. If it matters, much of this same content is repeated in his Amazon profile. It's unusual for an academic bio to be such an over-the-top exaggeration, I mean, it sounds like there is a super hero teaching at Fayetteville State University. Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
References
References
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Bowen, Jessie (August 13, 2017). "2017 Who's Who in the Martial Arts". Lulu.com – via Google Books. | subjective | ~ | ✘ No | |
Robert W. McGee". Amazon | self-written author entry | ? | ✘ No | |
Bowen, Jessie (August 13, 2017). "2017 Who's Who in the Martial Arts". Lulu.com – via Google Books. | subjective | ~ one in a large who's who | ✘ No | |
https://warwick.ac.uk/alumni/news-events/news/robert-mcgee/ | article by alma mater | ✘ No | ||
https://www.clevelandstatemagazine.com/tenacious-mcgee/ | article by alma mater (JD) | ? | ✘ No | |
https://www.uncfsu.edu/robert-mcgee-martial-arts-champ | article by school newspaper | ? | ✘ No | |
https://alumni.sunderland.ac.uk/Keep-Informed/WAYN/2000-2009/Robert-McGee | article by alma mater, with clear reflection on his degree, there is a clear interest in positive portrayal | ? | ✘ No | |
https://community.myunion.edu/alumni-spotlight-at-72-robert-w-mcgee-is-just-getting-started/ | article by alma mater alumni newsletter | ~ unclear | ✘ No | |
https://www.gannon.edu/alumnispotlight.aspx?profile=81 | article by alma mater | ? | ✘ No | |
https://www.excelsior.edu/article/robert-w-mcgee-bs-1976-as-1979-aa-1980-bs-1983/ | article by alma mater | ? | ? | ✘ No |
https://books.google.com/books?id=ILwDnwEACAAJ | ~ | does not cover the individual, just the fact that he has written this book | ✘ No | |
Robert W. McGee and Walter Block. Academic Tenure: An Economic Critique, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Volume 14, No. 2 | publication by the subject | ? | does not actually cover any biographical facts | ✘ No |
Robert W. McGee and Danny Lam, Hong Kong's Option to Secede | publication by the subject | ? | does not actually cover any biographical facts | ✘ No |
Robert W. McGee, The Theory of Secession and Emerging Democracies: A Constitutional Solution | publication by the subject | ? | does not actually cover any biographical facts | ✘ No |
Robert W. McGee, If Dwarf Tossing Is Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Toss Dwarfs: Is Dwarf Tossing a Victimless Crime | publication by the subject | ? | does not actually cover any biographical facts | ✘ No |
Robert W. McGee and Yeomin Yoon, Technical Flaws in the Application of the U.S. Antidumping Laws: The Experience of U.S.-Korean Trade | publication by the subject | ? | does not actually cover any biographical facts | ✘ No |
Richard A. Bernardi, Accounting Authors Publishing in Ethics Journals | ? | only one of many covered | ✘ No | |
Sabrin, Murray (April 1, 2002). "A Ranking of the Most Productive Business Ethics Scholars: A Five-Year Study". | ? | only one of many covered | ✘ 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}}. |
I would consider this to be very strongly in favour of deletion. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 19:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
A non-notable film that fails the WP:GNG. I initially PRODed it with the following rationale: "Non-notable film that fails the WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. It was never picked up for distribution, and was never reviewed by a reliable source." The PROD was removed, though the user that did then stated that it was done in error, and that they had actually been meaning to remove it from a different article. Unfortunately, once a PROD has been contested for any reason, it cannot PRODed again, and must go to AFD, so here we are. Rorshacma ( talk) 02:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete ( G3) by Justlettersandnumbers. Non-admin closure. -- MuZemike 11:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Reviewed as a part of New page patrol. No sources, and they do not appear to exist. So 100% of content violates wp:Ver. It appears that this name doesn't and didn't exist. The only source for this name was another wiki (unsourced) which this is an exact copy of. Editor that created this is indeffed. North8000 ( talk) 01:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. There is definitely not a consensus to delete, but this does not mean a merger cannot be considered if there's more to say about the show and Warren together. Star Mississippi 02:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Prod and redirect to List of Animal Planet original programming both declined. I tried, but all I found was PR puff pieces about Katrina Warren that refer to her as "Beverly Hills Vet" and mention the show either passingly or not at all. Editor who undid prod claimed sources on Proquest but failed to WP:PROVEIT. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consider whether the limited sources are enough to establish notability for the TV series rather than the show's host.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 00:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Playboy of the West Indies. I think a redirect to the original source of material is a good resolution. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Reviewed as a part of new page patrol A performance scheduled at a theater for late June through early July 2022. Zero indication of notability under GNG or SNG. One source is pretty clearly just a press release of theirs on a website, than other is about the venue and has 1-2 sentences on the topic. North8000 ( talk) 00:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 00:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Reviewed as a part of New Page Patrol. Basically a list of of all of the years that existed between 1900 and 2022. (a list of 120 years) including 112 red links and 8 that go to a stub article which list 1-2 events that happened in Brunei that year. No indication of wp:notability for the list concept. Further does not fulfill the nature of list articles (just a list of years) nor the intended purposes of them North8000 ( talk) 00:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
*Delete. If we were to create an article for the history of each year of each country, that easily would be tens of thousands of articles. And if countries, why not cities? It is much better to keep articles such as
History of Brunei. This is simply beyond the current scope and abilities of this encyclopedia.
Jacona (
talk) 00:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:ORGCRIT. No notability independent of the parent organisation. AusLondonder ( talk) 00:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
largely per IT wiki deletions (of which there are nearly a dozen) and extensive discussion there, he doesn't appear to be notable and most of the sources are PR, primary or otherwise not able to establish notability. I'm not sure what being the 'protagonist' of a tour is but it certainly doesn't make him notable. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like one unmarked Keep vote by the page creator, I'd like to see further evaluation of the sources that are present. Any native Italian speakers patrolling AFD? I'm sure much meaning is lost using Google Translate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 00:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Reviewed as a part of New Page Patrol. No indication of notability under GNG or SNG. Of the three sources, one is the instagram log in and the other two are general website info about two competitions that he was in. He also owns a supplement company related to this field and editor has listed the supplement company and redlinked it for creation. North8000 ( talk) 00:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. This discussion has received ample input, but no consensus for a particular outcome has transpired. North America 1000 02:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Reviewed as a part of new page patrol. I wish them the best but this is a local coffee shop. It is about the business, so the higher bar of ncorp (vs geo) applies but I don't think that it would even meet a lower bar. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or Ncorp. Sources are local reviews. North8000 ( talk) 00:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The Straits Times is the newspaper of record of Singapore. Coverage in the newspaper of record of Singapore meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience, which says:
The article notes: "If there was one shop along Balestier Road which could offer that special something to perk up your spirits any time, any day, it would be No. 328. Here, for $2 per 100g, roasted beans get crushed into brown-black powder before being pumped into boiling water. Doused with milk and left to sit in mugs, the resulting woody fragrance wafts through the humid room. Ah, coffee. Not from Starbucks, UCC or Lavazza, but Singapore's own Lam Yeo Coffee Powder. The name of the store is a Hokkien translation of the word Nanyang, for South Sea. Since 1959, it has been dispensing its 10 signature blends of coffee harvested from various parts of Indonesia to Singapore's coffee-philes."The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.
The article provides three paragraphs of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "The Hokkien name Lam Yeo translates to Nanyang in Mandarin, meaning “South Sea”. The shop’s coffee powder business started in 1959, when Tan Thian Kang began selling the coffee beans door-to-door, before setting up shop in Balestier in 1960. The same shop still exists today and second-generation owner Tan Bong Heong continues to roast the local coffee beans with margarine and sugar the way his father did. [quote from owner]"
The article provides nine paragraphs of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Lam Yeo Coffee Powder stands facing the frenetic waves of traffic along Balestier Road. Passing cars stir up the dust outside its shopfront, a relic from a Singapore of old, when a generation of coffee drinkers brewed their morning cuppa in a sock-like strainer rather than a Nespresso machine. Lam Yeo is Hokkien for "Nanyang" and since the late 1950s, it has been trading in Nanyang-style coffee beans and grounds on the very same premises. Time seems to stand still the moment you step into the shop."
The article provides 174 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "A sepia-toned vision of coffee culture, this stalwart has been purveying its kopi blends – the uniquely Singaporean concoction of beans roasted with margarine and sugar – since 1959. Not much has seemed to change since then. Vintage coffee grinders still sit on the shelves."
The book provides 78 words of coverage about the company. The book notes: "Lam Yeo Coffee Powder. Owner Tan Peck Hoe retains the long-standing tradition of roasting coffee beans with sugar and margarine to give them that lusciously black exterior unique to local coffee. While his traditional coffee powder remains an old favourite, Mr Tan has also adapted and started importing gourmet beans from South Africa and Central America. These are roasted plain and ground only upon purchase to ensure freshness"
The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.
There are two types of independence to consider when evaluating sources:
- Independence of the author (or functional independence): the author must be unrelated to the company, organization, or product. Related persons include organization's personnel, owners, investors, (sub)contractors, vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees (including astroturfing), and other parties that have something, financially or otherwise, to gain or lose.
- Independence of the content (or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties. Often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
The article begins, "If there was one shop along Balestier Road which could offer that special something to perk up your spirits any time, any day, it would be No. 328." This is the journalist's independent opinion about the shop. The article continues, "Here, for $2 per 100g, roasted beans get crushed into brown-black powder before being pumped into boiling water. Doused with milk and left to sit in mugs, the resulting woody fragrance wafts through the humid room." This is the journalist's observations of what it's to visit the shop: what can be seen, what can be smelled, and what can be felt. The article continues that the shop uses "10 signature blends of coffee harvested from various parts of Indonesia to Singapore's coffee-philes". This is independent reporting of where the shop sources its coffee from. The article continues, "For all the freshness of his coffee, Mr Tan's shop wears the air of a place where time has stood still out of boredom, routine and age. An ancient abacus lies, its beads rubbed down over time, on a table with a peeling formica top. Sacks of coffee beans and coffee powder, imported every month from Indonesia, strain tired plywood shelves." This more in-depth analysis of her observations in the shop.
The article begins: "Lam Yeo Coffee Powder stands facing the frenetic waves of traffic along Balestier Road. Passing cars stir up the dust outside its shopfront, a relic from a Singapore of old, when a generation of coffee drinkers brewed their morning cuppa in a sock-like strainer rather than a Nespresso machine." Calling Lam Yeo Coffee Powder "a relic from a Singapore of old" is independent analysis of the company and provides societal context about the earlier history of the company.
The article later notes: "Time seems to stand still the moment you step into the shop. Burlap sacks of coffee beans pile up against plywood shelves sagging under the weight of coffee pots, strainers and cups. In the middle of the shop floor, three prized traditional hand-grinders glint atop containers of coffee beans, browned to varying degrees. The grinders have been there since the shop's humble beginnings and were originally bought from a Singaporean manufacturer, Zhi Min Zao, which has now ceased operations." This is very in-depth analysis of the journalist's observations of what the shop looks like. None of this information is based on the shop's website. Several other paragraphs discuss the company's early history and how it was passed from father to son. This is independent reporting that the journalist gathered through her research. That some facts about the company's history (such as its being founded in 1959 and that Lam Yeo is Hokkien for "Nanyang") are present on the company's website does not mean the article is non-independent. These are important facts about the company that any article discussing its history should always include.
Cunard ( talk) 01:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
The journalists "personall experienced" or visited the coffee shop "and describ[e] their experiences in some depth [and] provid[e] broader context" about the shop's history. Cunard ( talk) 10:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Significant reviews are where the author has personally experienced or tested the product and describes their experiences in some depth, provides broader context, and draws comparisons with other products. Reviews that narrowly focus on a particular product or function without broader context (e.g. review of a particular meal without description of the restaurant as a whole) do not count as significant sources. Reviews that are too generic or vague to make the determination whether the author had personal experience with the reviewed product are not to be counted as significant sources.