The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The entire article is sourced by YouTube channels in violation of WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and WP:COPYVIO. No evidence of WP:GNG ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Editors are encouraged to improve the articles sourcing using any of the sources indicated in this discussion if needed. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 00:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
According to a search of sources, the topic has not received widespread coverage other than its cancellation. Poor notability per WP:GNG and mostly sourced from WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
"Page stats can help determine how popular a page is, but are not an indication of a topic's notability.". ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 08:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of presidents of The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite). It does not appear any further input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 01:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable religious leader. Of the three sources given, one is from a non-independent source, the other isn't significant coverage, and the third is a family written obituary. No other SIGCOV found. schetm ( talk) 20:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bungle (
talk •
contribs) 21:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 23:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
A search of news sources fails to establish notability for television programmes or more generally WP:GNG. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:57, 9 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. Star Mississippi 01:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Article about a television pilot that did not advance to series, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:TVSHOW. This is sourced to one single (deadlinked) production announcement in one magazine and a blog, which is not enough coverage to get it over the bar. Bearcat ( talk) 20:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:56, 9 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. Star Mississippi 01:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Poorly sourced and confusing with little attention to WP:GNG. It seems to be a timeline of the show's history with little extensive or independent coverage. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:56, 9 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. Star Mississippi 01:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Notability is not inherited just because the host/subject of the tv show is notable. There is a lack of general coverage which fails to establish notability beyond existence. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 01:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Most of this looks like bought publicity. There's a small bit of collateral coverage in serious newspapers, but overall it does not appear to amount to WP:SIGCOV. The company is still quite young, and so the lack of coverage is in line with this. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 23:52, 9 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. Star Mississippi 01:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
It may be a transliteration issue or something else, but I can't find any sources for this Durgāradeshadipati Baba Kaliveer (also when looking separately, "Durgāradeshadipati" "Baba Kaliveer"). The online sources in the article are either unreliable (TheReaderApp) or don't mention this at all ( sacred texts.com vedabase.io, and the article as written is very confusing to find out what it is actually about (it reads like some religious story written here as truth), so even if verified would need a complete overhaul to become encyclopedic. But without verification we shouldn't have an article of course. Fram ( talk) 12:01, 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! 22:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:50, 9 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. Star Mississippi 01:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
non notable bodyguard/actor, previously deleted as a7/spam, nothing has changed. Working for notable individuals does not make one notable themselves and he is not exception. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:52, 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! 22:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 16:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable show per WP:NTV. Sources are all primary or unreliable, and I could find none better Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 18:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
The book notes: "Food Network's "The Big Waste" (first broadcast in 2012) addressed the need for greater awareness by exposing the types of food that are typically thrown away and helping us to reshape what we consider waste and how we might repurpose excess. The documentary follows Food Network chefs and their experiences "in the field" from sourcing food to eating food. Emphasis was put on the star chefs' personal learning experiences through this journey, indicating that waste is a widespread problem but the intricacies of our food waste system are a well-kept secret. The show also focused heavily on the surprise the chefs experience when noting the quality of many of the ingredients that are about to be or have been thrown away (deemed unfit for use) and explained that the issue in food waste lies not only in our excess purchasing of food, but in our perception of what is acceptable or unacceptable to eat. Still, in this show and across the media studied, the lack of attention to the consequences of allowing current levels of production, distribution, and consumption in developed countries to continue, as well as lack of awareness about the benefits to our environment and society of broadening our diet to include unused food, are remarkable."
From https://www.cultursmag.com/about-culturs/: "Founded: by in 2014, CULTURS.guru represents the first stage of impending launch of the Institute for Global Culture Research proposed to be housed in the Journalism Department of Colorado State University in 2016. Partnered: CULTURS.guru is partnered with the Department of Journalism at Colorado State University, including original content published by students in Class Workshop “Mobilizing Global Culture,” along with articles by celebrated experts from around the globe."
The article notes: "In 2012, The Food Network tried to tackle this issue. Top Chefs teamed up and created the special show called “The Big Waste”. In this TV special, the chefs were divided up in to two culinary teams and had exactly 48 hours to create a multi course gourmet meal that was A) worthy of their reputations and B) could only use food that was on it’s way to the garbage. ... These chefs had to visit food processors and wholesalers that willingly gave them their wasted food. This included overstock, returned, blemished, damaged and other unwanted produce. This series was not only a cook off but also a learning experience."
The article notes: "In the Food Network's January 15 segment "The Big Waste," first-class chefs Bobby Flay, Michael Symon, Anne Burrell and Alex Guarnaschelli tackled the problem of waste in the food industry. Divided into two teams, with only 48 hours on the clock, the chefs were challenged to create a multicourse gourmet banquet worthy of their great reputations, but with a big twist - they could only use food that is on its way to the trash."
The book notes: "In one Food Network special, the behind-the-scense action was in full view. Called The Big Waste, four chefs—Anne Burrell, Bobby Flay, Alex Guarnaschelli, and Michael Symon—were followed by camera people as they collected throw-away foods from markets, a bakery, farms, butchers, and even dumpsters. An expert tested everything to be sure it was safe. Anne and Alex collected food from a bakery, chickens with broken wings, eggs, meats, and produce. The show would highlight how much food is wasted in the United States—about 40 percent of the food produced every year, according to the federal government. ... The challenge for the chefs was to create a gourmet banquet using only throw-away foods. Food Network chefs rose to the challenge, and those who ate the food declared it delicious. The Big Waste special had little or no effect on food shows that followed. On current Food Network shows, there are no fruits with brown spots, wilted lettuce, misshapen carrots, chickens with broken wings, or dented canned goods."
The book notes: "In January 2012, The Food Network hosted a special, The Big Waste, that brought together four top chefs (Bobby Flay, Michael Symon, Anne Burrell, and Alex Guarnaschelli) to explore the potential of America's burgeoning food waste. The chefs collected discarded food from various sources and then prepared meals using only those ingredients. The program included discussions of waste in food preparation and distribution, a dumpster-diving session behind a supermarket, and a look at waste on the farm."
The book provides two sentences of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "In America, the Food Network's The Big Waste featured four chefs – Bobby Flay, Michael Symon, Anne Burrell and Alex Guarnaschelli. They were split into two teams and given 48 hours to create a multi-course banquet using only food that was on its way to the bin."
The article provides a few sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "In 2012, the Food Network premiered The Big Waste. The show featured world-renowned chefs Bobby Flay, Michael Symon, Anne Burrell, and Alex Guarnaschelli competing in pairs to prepare a gourmet banquet meal. The twist? They could only use food intended for the landfill. The episode drew attention to the issue of food waste."
The article provides two sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "“The Big Waste,” on the Food Network, recently showed celebrity chefs creating dishes out of food typically destined for the trash. Days after it aired, viewers were still commenting online about the shocking details of what doesn’t make it to our plates in America."
Cunard ( talk) 00:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Kids Baking Championship. is there such thing as a weak merge? It does not appear that any input is forthcoming and there is no dissension. Star Mississippi 01:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable show. Current sources are all WP:PRIMARY and I could find no secondary coverage at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 18:51, 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! 22:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 01:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Very thin on sources. Two of them only mention that the film was shot in Costa Rica and say nothing else. The two reviews cited are from websites that do not seem to be reliable. Prod contested due to reviews Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:25, 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! 23:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Star Mississippi 01:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
This stub contains no references, nor does it show any information that demonstrates the importance of its subject. CollectiveSolidarity ( talk) 23:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. The earlier draft has also been history merged into this version. – Joe ( talk) 11:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Vietnam at the 2021 Southeast Asian Games
Unreferenced, and so not verifiable. A copy of this article was already created in article space once, and moved to draft space by User:DarkGlow, who noted correctly that it was unsourced, and should be incubated in draft space. Instead, a copy has been created in article space, still without references, which was tendentious. This copy should be deleted and the draft left for addition of sources. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:49, 9 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, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I found no significant coverage. He won a few awards, but they don't appear to be major. SL93 ( talk) 22:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable candidate (never elected) for French external constituencies. Does not meet WP:BASIC nor WP:POL. Article is created by an SPA. Whiteguru ( talk) 22:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus as to whether the sources represent significant coverage, but nor is there a consensus to delete Star Mississippi 01:45, 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) 09:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
There is coverage, 1, 2, focused on ricardo. I think that you want it like this. In my opinion, There were many paper coverage, focus on Ricardo during 2000-2006. But many coverage are not converted to the coverage on internet news media. In conclusion, Ricardo is old football player. Please don't judge by the same standard. Footwiks ( talk) 02:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 11:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus, would be useful for one of the two keep voters to outline their understanding of the two sources presented, as they both seem very confident they satisfy GNG, which is odd in itself given that firstly, three sources are normally required and secondly and more importantly, they both seem very brief comprising a few sentences each which undermines the strength of the keep arguments presented
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk) 22:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. This was a very interesting discussion and something of a case study in the ongoing, wider discussions about the notability of sportspeople in relation to the general notability guideline. We started with a bare assertion that the subject is not notable, which was challenged, followed by a bare assertion that there must be sources, which was also challenged. BilledMammal then presented a detailed analysis of the level of coverage in the available sources, which for a time seemed to shift the consensus towards deletion. Yet at the same time, other editors showed it was possible to significantly expand the article based on these "insignificant" sources, though not everyone considered this sufficient to keep it. More sources, from more difficult-to-access print media, were presented as the discussion progressed, (e.g. in the final comment by Nfitz), somewhat undercutting Billed's source analysis and the !votes based on it.
What we end with, after a well-attended discussion, is no consensus to delete the article and, following long-standing convention at AfD, that means we're keeping it for now. But it's a productive lack of consensus: the implicit question here is whether it is possible for a subject to fail the GNG but still be notable? That is, notable in the most basic sense that we can write a stand-alone article on it that meets our core content policies and doesn't turn us into an indiscriminate collection of information. We have SNGs that recognise that it is possible to assemble encyclopaedic articles from many brief mentions—i.e. WP:NPROF—could this be the basis of a new consensus on the notability of footballers and other sportspeople? – Joe ( talk) 11:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 18:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
https://grecianarchive.exeter.ac.uk/items/show/1938 | Founded and supported by the Exeter City Football Club Supporters Trust, who own Exeter City | Transfer information, goal count, and game count only - nothing beyond statistics. Coverage is also routine, as the source intends to document all Exeter players | ✘ No | |
https://www.enfa.co.uk/ | ? | ? Source behind a paywall. Probably not, as their FAQ page describes themselves as a database. | ? Unknown | |
https://fchd.info/lghist/fl1900.htm | ? Self published by Richard Rundle | Statistics only database | ✘ No | |
https://fchd.info/lghist/fl1901.htm | ? Self published by Richard Rundle | Statistics only database | ✘ No | |
https://fchd.info/lghist/fl1902.htm | ? Self published by Richard Rundle | Statistics only database | ✘ No | |
https://www.lfchistory.net/Players/Player/Profile/643 | Official statistics site of Liverpool | Minimal information beyond statistics | ✘ No | |
https://fchd.info/lghist/fl1903.htm | ? Self published by Richard Rundle | Statistics only database | ✘ No | |
https://fchd.info/lghist/fl1905.htm | ? Self published by Richard Rundle | Statistics only database | ✘ No | |
https://fchd.info/lghist/fl1906.htm | ? Self published by Richard Rundle | Statistics only database | ✘ No | |
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000377/19060502/098/0004 | ? | ? Unknown | ||
https://fchd.info/lghist/fl1908.htm | ? Self published by Richard Rundle | Statistics only database | ✘ No | |
https://fchd.info/lghist/fl1909.htm | ? Self published by Richard Rundle | Statistics only database | ✘ No | |
https://grecianarchive.exeter.ac.uk/items/show/1662 | Founded and supported by the Exeter City Football Club Supporters Trust, who own Exeter City | Exeter statistics only database | ✘ 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}}. |
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
https://playupliverpool.com/1883/11/25/thomas-green-tommy-green-playupliverpool-com/ | ? | ? | Statistics only | ✘ No |
http://www.swindon-town-fc.co.uk/Results.asp?Season=1903-1904 | ? | Statistics only | ✘ No | |
http://www.swindon-town-fc.co.uk/MatchCentre.asp?MatchID=19040201 | ? | Match positions only | ✘ No | |
http://www.swindon-town-fc.co.uk/MatchCentre.asp?MatchID=19040202 | ? | Match positions only | ✘ No | |
http://www.swindon-town-fc.co.uk/Person.asp?PersonID=GREENTOM | ? | Statistics only | ✘ No | |
http://www.swindon-town-fc.co.uk/PlayingRecord.asp?PersonID=GREENTOM&Season=1903-1904 | ? | Statistics only | ✘ No | |
Non-League Football Tables 1889–2017 | ? Probably not, as it is a book of football tables | ? Unknown | ||
http://www.rsssf.com/tablese/englancacombhist.html | ? | Statistics only | ✘ No | |
http://gogogocounty.org/players/G/GreenTom.html | ? | Primarily statistics, no WP:SIGCOV | ✘ No | |
http://gogogocounty.org/seasons/190405/190405Fdetails.html | ? | Statistics only | ✘ No | |
Exeter City: A Complete Record 1904–1990 | ? Unlikely, based on the size of the book, its scope, and what it is used as a reference for. It is also a source that attempt to cover everyone within a group, and so do not contribute to notability as they are routine coverage for that group. | ? Unknown | ||
Non-League Football Tables 1889–2017 | ? Probably not, as it is a book of football tables | ? Unknown | ||
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}}. |
What began as a hobby in 2002 has evolved into something much more than that proving a valuable resource to Liverpool Football Club culminating in an agreement with the club in 2009 effectively making LFChistory.net‘s stats the official stats of the club, a fact that Arnie and Gudmundur are incredibly proud of.But even if it was independent, it is clearly not WP:SIGCOV and does not contribute to WP:GNG. BilledMammal ( talk) 08:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.You cannot pass GNG without SIGCOV. BilledMammal ( talk) 17:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There has been significant efforts to critique the sources provided in the article. These seem to indicate a lot of statistical sources but only a few which could be significant enough for GNG. Needs more discussion on the keep side of things to help illustrate where significant coverage is being located to help generate consensus that goes beyond simple votes. There is also a concerning lack of understanding of GNG on the keep side of things with at least one editor seeming to state that GNG can be passed without SIGCOV, when GNG and SIGCOV are the same thing with shortcuts for the two leading to the same text and SIGCOV is the first matter discussed as a requirement of GNG . Fundamentally there is nothing presented as yet on the keep side to show GNG bar a lot of statistical / primary sources. Am extending as a courtesy as there is no rush, but not sure how any reasonable closer could articulate a close to keep that was clearly grounded in accepted guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk) 21:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. to preserve history/attribution and so that improvements can be made now that he's made his debut. Star Mississippi 01:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
No evidence found of any notability. Barely anything for "Alex" Cox-Ashwood, a few more hits for "Alexandre" Cox-Ashwood, but nothing substantial from independent reliable sources, just databases. Fram ( talk) 16:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Anderson men's soccer senior Alexandre Cox-Ashwood and volleyball senior Regan Duty have been honored for their impressive weeks on the field and court last week. They were named the Jimmy John’s Male and Female Athletes of the Week on Tuesday. In addition, Cox-Ashwood was named the South Atlantic Conference Astroturf Men’s Soccer Offensive Player of the Week ... Cox-Ashwood led the Trojans with 5 goals and 1 assist in the team’s two wins over Mount Olive and Lander. He recorded a hat trick in the Lander game. His 5 goals currently lead the conference.(with the rest being quotes, so probably not SIGCOV). So I'd say he still fails GNG as multiple pieces of SIGCOV are required. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 21:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus, some coverage clearly exists, needs further discussion to develop consensus as to whether the coverage is sufficiently significant.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk) 21:41, 9 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. Star Mississippi 01:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Non notable actor. No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails every criteria of WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 19:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. with a side of IAR reflective of consensus. It is already the 17th in Australia and she is slated to be elected on the 21st. Given the duration of this AfD, it would be process wonkery to draftify this for four days to enforce consensus on NPOL. Star Mississippi 01:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
This subject currently fails to meet WP:NPOL and WP:GNG the coverage so far has only that she is running to replace a currently serving senator or listings of her on her previous positions. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 00:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need consensus on whether the subject passes the existing policies to secure the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 18:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. with a side of IAR as is reflected in the consensus. The election is this week, draftifying would be process wonkery. If she loses, this can be revisited. Star Mississippi 01:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPOL unelected politician and also fails WP:GNG McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 00:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed - please base your decision on the existing policies.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 18:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. WP:SK1. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 ( talk) 19:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
This article was deleted by AfD two years ago as unsourced then recreated with sources last year. A potential BLP violation, it lists unsourced birthday and marriage date, listing unsourced names of wife and three minor children. None of the sourcing directly details this living subject, but instead details the assertion of micronation status on less than two otherwise non-notable acres in Nevada. A reasonable BEFORE finds nothing independent about this subject which isn't primarily detailing the micronation. This is IMHO a stunt, and Wikipedia is not here to promote your public joke. BusterD ( talk) 18:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was No Consensus/Keep. this could legitimately be closed either way with !votes after the improvement not unanimous. With the outcome the same with either and given the era in which he played and the lack of consensus around sports guidelines, it is unlikely a relist would provide clarity to close this differently. Star Mississippi 01:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Completely unsourced article about a player with a few claimed professional football appearances in the 1930s. The only incoming links are from lists of people by name or nationality so it seems he isn't mentioned on any sports pages. The corresponding article in Italian has links to stats websites whose reliability I can't comment on, but also no GNG sources. This was a PROD, contested as "too controversial for PROD". — Kusma ( talk) 10:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the article is in the process of expansion and there are claims that there are IRS to be added, let's give it a try. We do need more consensus on the subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 18:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. This has run a month, and there is absolutely no consensus to be found. However sources have been confirmed to exist, and they could be added. No policy based reason to move this to draft space, and the improvement could happen in mainspace Star Mississippi 03:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Zero reliable sources in the article, strong doubts in the notability of the subject. Ymblanter ( talk) 07:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 07:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 10:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 18:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to New Madrid, Missouri. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 03:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
List of non notable mayors of tiny town. Dronebogus ( talk) 11:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 13:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still more participation needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 18:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I do not see a consensus forming here. Language, contentious sports guidelines and no input after a relist. Star Mississippi 02:01, 18 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) 16:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more consensus on whether the subject passes
WP:GNG
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 18:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Modussiccandi ( talk) 07:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Impossibly poorly referenced advert for Amazon Prime TV show. Likely Fancruft. WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz
Humbug! 17:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MBisanz
talk 17:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more obvious consensus on whether the subject passes
WP:N
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 17:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. After almost a month on AFD what is clear is that there is no consensus to delete. Whilst there is also no consensus on whether to merge, redirect, cleanup, or any other set of actions, that is an editorial matter which can be hashed out on the article talk page. Stifle ( talk) 08:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Yet another "X in popular culture" article that has ballooned to an ungodly amount of "every single time anyone said the words 'Jeff Gordon' in a work". Far too many of these are unsourced WP:OR or too inconsequential to even mention. While the sourcing is a bit better than most articles of this sort, it's still prone to synthesis -- the Tim Wilson song doesn't mention Jeff Gordon proper, just uses him in a jokey mashup manner. I suspect a great deal of WP:REFBOMBing is also in play, as this is far from the only example where the cited references do not verify this.
The list of works in which Gordon has appeared in cameos can be added as a filmography list in his main article, but everything else is in sheer violation of User:TenPoundHammer/Wikipedia is not TV Tropes. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 16:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
“ | Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist. Rather, all such references should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary or tertiary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article. This source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item. | ” |
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MBisanz
talk 17:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 17:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus which defaults to keep, which is the slightly stronger side of the see saw. There are valid points of view to keep, and to redirect. The tipping factor to keep is the qualifying tournament that begins in July of this year as noted in the penultimate !vote and the nom's willingness to withdraw if the AfD was still running on June 1. We do not need two more weeks when this has already run nearly a month. Star Mississippi 03:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON. 2023 CONCACAF Champions League is still a redirect, and I do not see any evidence that the qualifying for 2024 is started. Can consider a redirect to CONCACAF Champions League or draftify or delete directly Hhkohh ( talk) 12:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk) 22:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 17:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 12:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Does not satisfy GNG. Perhaps worth a mention in a relevant article, but there is not enough to substantiate a separate article. – DarkGlow • 17:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was Deleted under WP:CSD, non-admin closure because of executed CSD Amadeus22 🙋 🔔 19:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Article is not supported by credible sources, with the majority of links being primary sources, such as the subject's own LinkedIn account or website, or broken links to unrelated sites. Dexxtrall ( talk) 16:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus appears clear that offline sources are sufficient. Star Mississippi 03:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Hazlewood was a scouting official. All the sources we have are basically scoting publications, that are not fully indepdent of him. We lack any sources indepdent enough to lead to a passing of GNG John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. Clear consensus that it is too soon for this sort of article and as such there simply is nowhere near the level of coverage of Europa Conference League hat tricks as a subject in and of itself to satisfy WP:LISTN Fenix down ( talk) 22:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
It's far too soon to have a list of Europa Conference League hat-tricks. While I don't oppose the existence of such a list in the future (we have them for the Champions League and Europa League), there are only three UECL hat-tricks at present, which is far too few for its own standalone list. – Pee Jay 16:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Harrogate. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 01:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a directory. Fails WP:NLIST. AusLondonder ( talk) 15:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NLIST. AusLondonder ( talk) 15:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Star Mississippi 03:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Page fails to meet the general notability guidelines for a biolography of a living person. All sources rely on his recent casting on Days of Our Lives, and provide not real-world context for who he is. livelikemusic ( TALK!) 15:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Modussiccandi ( talk) 07:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Soft delete, so no issue with the recreation, however the underlying issues of notability remain. Quantity of sources does not match quality. Star Mississippi 15:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:BASIC as lacking "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" AusLondonder ( talk) 15:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Noting also that the nominator has withdrawn their nomination. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet any of the criteria for WP:BK. Should be deleted. Gabe114 ( talk) 14:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Unsourced since its inception in 2004, a "list" of 2 items for a "country" which hardly existed, and which never created any stamps (they reused stamps from elsewhere with a print on it stating "Bushire under British Occupation"). No evidence that this is a notable subject. Fram ( talk) 13:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like a notable political party. The only coverage I was able to find is from a less-than-reliable source [33]. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Curbon7 ( talk) 05:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Building information modeling. Star Mississippi 02:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
promotion of niche concept advanced by Blaise and Dudek. fgnievinski ( talk) 06:01, 25 April 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) 09:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 11:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Does not pass WP:GNG. Kadı Message 09:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is the volume of work does not meet the requirements for notability. JoeNMLC, if you want to work on this in draft space, let me know and I'm happy to provide. Star Mississippi 02:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable film producer. No significant coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are
JoeNMLC changes enough to keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
Joe (
talk) 09:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Not much input after Cunard identidied sourcing that countered the nom and Sergecross73's !vote, but nor is anyone contending they don't counter. Star Mississippi 02:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable game show. Zero sourcing found. Deprodded because "notability is just your opinion". Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 00:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
The article notes: "Lip Service is karaoke MTV-style. Teams lip-sync and dance to the song of their choice for a cash award or prize. The crew is on the hunt for contestants. Lots of contestants. They plan to shoot 50 shows in the next three weeks. They need 150 amateur acts by the middle of next month. Contestants must perform in groups of three or five and be between the ages of 18 and 25."
The article notes: "This Saturday, MTV introduces a new series designed to ride the crest of this increasingly popular wave of volunteer entertainment. " 'Lip Service' is a talent-driven game show," executive producer Lauren Corrao said. ... "Lip Service" follows in the footsteps of the TV trivia game show, Remote Control," MTV's first game show that ran daily from 1987-90 and continued successfully in repeats."
The article notes: "When MTV host John Ales and scouts Rich Korson and Todd Warner searched Hampton Roads for contestants to perform on their Lip Service show last month, they almost returned empty handed. Almost. ... On MTV's Lip Service contestants lip-sync and dance to the song of their choice for prizes. The three young women landed a spot on the show, so today they begin rehearsal."
The article notes: "On Thursday, look for the University of Kentucky trio to do just that when the women perform on MTV's "Lip Service." The popular game show features contestants who dance and lip sync to popular music. Celebrity judges, like former porn star Tracy Lords, psychologist Ruth Westheimer, singer Little Richard and actor Al Lewis (Grandpa from "The Munsters") rate the groups on their performance, lip-syncing ability and choreography."
The article notes: "During the fast-paced show two teams compete in three different rounds: Contestants lip-sync on the spot with no knowledge of the song list; they sing to a popular song while the stars in their own videos appear to lip-sync to the contestant's voice; and they perform a prepared routine to a song that is manipulated (sped up, slowed down and scratched) at will by T-Money, the show's resident disc jockey. The half-hour game show features a revolving panel of celebrity judges, including Linda Blair, Dr. Joyce Brothers, Tiny Tim and rapper LL Cool J. The final show of the first 26-episode season features the best four teams of the year competing for the opportunity to make their own video for MTV."
The article notes: "I expect to have my hands - and lips - full all day. Big Apple folks from MTV's Lip Service game show will be in town to audition Brevard's best lip-syncers. Among which, I am. ... Problem: MTV folks say the only people who will be allowed to audition are kids 18 to 25. Such nonsense. What kid that age knows the first thing about lip-syncing with real verve?"
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 09:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Boston, Lincolnshire#Education. Whether and how much to merge can be discussed editorially. The history is under the redirect. Star Mississippi 03:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Primary school which fails WP:NSCHOOL, lacking significant coverage in secondary sources. PROD tag placed by MadeYourReadThis in 2009, but removed without comment by article creator who hasn't edited since. AusLondonder ( talk) 23:24, 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 10:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Article makes claims to notability (zzinna awards wins, other awards) but none of these are verifiable, and looking for other sources produced nothing even remotely indicating any actual notability. Fram ( talk) 10:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
•Delete- clearly an autobiography, plus confusing to read and weird idioms? Asparagusus (interaction) 15:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Leinster Rugby#Academy squad. ✗ plicit 11:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet WP:GNG; has made a single appearance for Leinster and in line with recent developing consensus, meeting sport notability guidelines does not justify an article alone. Stifle ( talk) 08:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Sources are routine and/or press release. There does not seem to be significant, in-depth coverage meeting WP:NCORP. MarioGom ( talk) 08:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists. ✗ plicit 11:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Prodded with the justification Violates the general criteria of
WP:NOTDATABASE, and fails
WP:GNG and
WP:SPORTCRIT #5. Also fails
WP:NOLYMPICS, as only two teams participated. An attempt to find additional sources failed, and
WikiProject Cricket was also unable to help.
Pinging Bobo192 who removed the prod for more information. BilledMammal ( talk) 08:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Little is known about George Buckley other than he was a member of the Castle Cary cricket club and also the gold medal winning Devon Wanderers team in 1900.Govvy ( talk) 09:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete per CSD G4: the article's content was basically the same as that discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Barnette, with the new version of the article not making any additional claims of notability. I've also salted the page to prevent this from re-occuring.. Nick-D ( talk) 11:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Consensus was already reached to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Barnette. I don't see anything having changed since then. This person is still not notable. ― Tartan357 Talk 08:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists. ✗ plicit 11:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Prodded with the justification Violates the general criteria of
WP:NOTDATABASE, and fails
WP:GNG and
WP:SPORTCRIT #5. Also fails
WP:NOLYMPICS, as only two teams participated. An attempt to find additional sources failed, and
WikiProject Cricket was also unable to help.
Prod was removed with the comment there could be more info in local sources
BilledMammal (
talk) 08:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists. ✗ plicit 11:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Prodded with the justification Violates the general criteria of
WP:NOTDATABASE, and fails
WP:GNG and
WP:SPORTCRIT #5. Also fails
WP:NOLYMPICS, as only two teams participated. An attempt to find additional sources failed, and
WikiProject Cricket was also unable to help.
Prod removed with the comment maybe local sources in English/Welsh press are available and should be looked into as a first option here
Redirect is not suitable, as a different Harry Corner is mentioned at Savage Sisters. BilledMammal ( talk) 08:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was roundrobin redirect per the below. Star Mississippi 02:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Prodded with the justification Violates the general criteria of
WP:NOTDATABASE, and fails
WP:GNG and
WP:SPORTCRIT #5. An attempt to find additional sources failed, and
WikiProject Cricket was also unable to help.
Prod removed with the comment possibilty of more info about him with his MCC connection, per
https://www.olympedia.org/athletes/17919
Redirect is not suitable, as Frederick Cuming (artist) exists and should be moved here. BilledMammal ( talk) 08:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists. ✗ plicit 11:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Prodded with the justification Violates the general criteria of
WP:NOTDATABASE, and fails
WP:GNG and
WP:SPORTCRIT #5. An attempt to find additional sources failed, and
WikiProject Cricket was also unable to help.
Prod was removed with the comment there could be more info in local sources, based on his bio
https://www.olympedia.org/athletes/17913
Redirect is not suitable as different Arthur Birkett's are mentioned at Jimmy Simpson (motorcyclist) and HM Prison Manchester. BilledMammal ( talk) 07:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
There have been multiple previous AfDs for A-team cricket tours, and they have all ended in delete ( one, two, three, four), as these tours are not at the highest international level. The article creator has had multiple similar pages deleted, so while I'd like to WP:AGF, I think they're just ignoring the consensus here, which could be viewed as disurption or WP:IDHT. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. and I don't think an additional relist will provide one. We have the uncertainty around athletes coupled with a language barrier in source access and established editors looking at it from both sides. Perhaps if his career does not progress and/or guidelines stabilize, this can be revisited down the line but at the moment there is not a consensus to delete or draftify Star Mississippi 02:28, 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) 12:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time. In my opinion the player has only recieved a brief bursts of news coverage and thus fails WP:GNG. He does though have an active career and a decent possibility to gain further coverage so I think the best course of action would be to draftify the article. Alvaldi ( talk) 20:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It has been established that there are several sources in Arabic covering the subject. No detailed argument as to the depth of coverage in each of them has been presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Modussiccandi (
talk) 07:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. and it does not appear further input is forthcoming. The decision to keep or redirect can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 02:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
This office does not exist as set out by the PROD tag placed by Ebonelm in 2016. Appears to be a misunderstanding of the wording used by primary government sources to refer to the Secretary of State for Justice AusLondonder ( talk) 14:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Page 20 of the same report says "For these purposes the Justice Secretary is the relevant Privy Councillor." Historian Charles Crawley agrees:The relationship between us and the Crown Dependencies is a subtle one. They are dependencies of the Crown, they are not part of the United Kingdom, so the responsibilities I have for them are as a privy councillor.
— Crown Dependencies: Eighth Report of Session 2009–10: Report, Together with Formal Minutes, Volume 1, page 6
It's a privy councillor according to the experts, not a minister of the U.K. government. Uncle G ( talk) 21:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)The Privy Counsellor who is the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor is responsible for managing their relationship with the Crown,
— ISBN 9781443881289 page 363
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 10:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 07:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to École normale supérieure de Rennes. ✗ plicit 11:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Article PRODed with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article created WP:TOOSOON" PROD was replaced with a proposal to merge to the publisher's article, but this was rejected without the notability problem being addressed. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 05:58, 9 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 11:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:SERIESA. Non-notable holding company with a couple notable holdings (notability is not inherited). Sources are all routine announcements or to the company's own site. Little to no coverage of this company specifically. FalconK ( talk) 05:17, 9 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 11:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:SERIESA. This article makes no claim to notability at all. No reference is to a reliable source. Internet presence about them is corporate PR, with all mentions in WP:RS being merely routine business announcements or the company being quoted as a source for some data. They might be large, but they don't satisfy the relevant notability criteria and I can't find anything to add to this article that would make it right. COI tag unresolved since 2014. FalconK ( talk) 05:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:RESUME that doesn't seem to meet WP:ANYBIO. Coverage of this person seems very fleeting, and generally routine stuff - winning non-notable awards, announcements of corporate officer appointments, that kind of thing. I looked at the sources noted in the previous AfD - which had extremely minimal participation - and didn't find evidence of notability. FalconK ( talk) 05:10, 9 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 11:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Sources are mainly articles about involvement in committees raised by Donald Trump for his own policy purposes, Lowe's, and JCPenney. The article is a WP:RESUME and I don't see a lot of news that's about just him rather than the companies. There are a few interviews, which are dependent sources and don't establish general notability. FalconK ( talk) 05:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. There is no applicable inherent notability. Consensus is clear among established editors that the sourcing does not back up the claim that he's "quite famous in Bangladesh" and I'm shocked. SHOCKED! at the verbatim !votes. Star Mississippi 02:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Procedural AfD. I've declined both a WP:A7 request on this (there's an obvious CCS) and a WP:G11 request (I don't consider it unambiguous spam). However, the subject is of very marginal notability despite the world records, and there's a legitimate argument that in these circumstances we should default to not covering a subject in the case of BLPs. Procedural nomination so I abstain. ‑ Iridescent 04:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
"Comment" - he has his news covered by large presses starting from prothom alo ( click here) to dhaka tribune ( click here) which passes WP:GNG which proves he has a huge notability in Bangladesh and this page should be kept. Jhohanfreestyle ( talk) 11:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)— Jhohanfreestyle ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
"Ashraful Islam Jhohan" -wikipedia -facebook -instagram -youtube -twittergave me exactly 5 results. However that's just the English google, some of the sourcing looks okay on the article, The Business Standard and Dhaka Tribune have in-depth stories for the guy. So those comments above that say there is no notability really should look at the sources if you ask me. Govvy ( talk) 16:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
[43] - Prothom Alo [44]- Dainik Samakal [45]- Prothom Alo [46]- Sarabangla [47]- Daily Star [48] - Dainik Azadi [49] Dainik Purbokone [50] Daily Star [51]- Dhaka Tribune [52] - Dhaka Tribune
These are just 10 newspaper article sources only. His story was covered by almost all Tv news media's of Bangladesh but I think TV news reports are not independent or reliable so I didn't leave the links here. Attaining world records might not confer automatic notability but if he has significant coverage by reliable sources multiple times about his journey of becoming a freestyler and attaining a world record wouldn't that confer automatic WP:GNG? If there are numerous reliable independent sources covering his story about achieving 4 World Records, wouldn't that be counted as significant coverage? Or just because they cover his achievements Only they are not reliable enough? I don't think there is anywhere written in the GNG guidelines that if the news are about any specific achievements/world records only it wouldn't pass GNG. Please enlighten me if I am wrong. Jhohanfreestyle ( talk) 18:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)— Jhohanfreestyle ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
References
The result was Speedy close. Article was moved to draft space during AFD, meaning AFD rationale is no longer valid. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 17:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
White Men Can't Jump (upcoming film)
Unreleased, and unproduced, film that does not satisfy any version of film notability guidelines or general notability. An article should speak for itself, and this article says nothing about independent significant coverage by reliable sources, because such coverage is not possible, because production has not yet started. This is very much too soon and should be draftified (or deleted). I am not moving it unilaterally to draft space because it was already in draft space and then moved to article space, so the mover evidently wants it in article space (where it doesn't belong yet), so the community should decide. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I attempted to copyedit this article but had to give up because there is almost no useful substance in it. It is a stream-of-consciousness essay possibly intended to promote penny-stocks and definitely in violation of the efficient market hypothesis. While the market capitalization of lithium stocks may be impressive, it pales in comparison with the market capitalization of the article, in that it insists on capitalizing the word market (and every other noun). Uses ampersands instead of and throughout and quickly gets lost in minutia. K. Oblique 03:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. A two year old AfD is not a reason not to revisit this, and precedent in either direction is not binding. However, consensus, especially with the addition of the museum source seems clear that Sharp meets NMUSIC. Whether or not that is sufficient in lieu of GNG is a meta conversation for another venue. Star Mississippi 02:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
As I pointed out in the last AFD, which closed as "no consensus":
The people who said "keep" in the last AFD were either blindly saying "keep because charted single = notable", or "keep because there might possibly maybe be sources we don't know about yet". Neither is a valid argument.
"Charted single = automatically notable" has been contradicted in several AFDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waycross (band), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Born (rapper), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Wolf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Sanz was also deleted despite that artist having three charted singles, simply because the lack of sourcing overrode that. Lisa Shaffer also charted, but her article was recently deleted via PROD due to my thoroughly detailed explanation of the lack of sources.
"There might be sources" is entirely WP:BURDEN. Her singles charted as high as #9 on the RPM charts, yet RPM didn't see fit to mention anything about her. Literally the only info we even have is that she charted and that she was from Fort Worth, both of which are sourced solely to the Joel Whitburn book -- and guess what, Brad Wolf, Victor Sanz, and Waycross are in that book too because that book gathers everyone who ever charted. Worldradiohistory.com is a site full of old music magazines from the time in which she charted, but every result is merely the chart itself, or an individual stations list of songs they added that week. And none of that contributes to WP:GNG. Attempts to poke the "keep" crowd in the last AFD about the lack of sourcing were mostly shrugged off.
(I am curious as to how a song that only got to #67 in the US got to #9 in Canada, especially given that the songs themselves don't seem to meet CanCon laws...)
tl;dr: while she does meet WP:BAND as a charted artist, that is not an ironclad reason to keep the article if the sourcing isn't there (especially given the presence of the AFDs I just cited), and it's patently obvious that the sourcing isn't. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Modussiccandi ( talk) 07:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
dubious notability, virtually no hits on Google Scholar, created by an SPA with an interest in promoting this individual FASTILY 23:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 01:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Modussiccandi ( talk) 19:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
MacOS Mammoth is not announce yet. This is crystal ball article like iOS 16 and iPadOS 16. Hajoon0102 💬 22:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment I've already created Draft:macOS Mammoth. So, I can't move Draft:macOS Mammoth to mainspace because of this article. -- Hajoon0102 💬 23:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 01:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Users are kindly asked to refrain from moving (renaming) articles while they are on AFD as it breaks a number of maintenance scripts. Stifle ( talk) 11:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:CRYSTALBALL. The event that may take place after 4 years from now. Presented sources are basically about the previous election. Entire article is based on speculation. The article was draftified initially so that the creator may take an opportunity to fix references but entire article appears to be based on presumptions. Hitro talk 08:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Note: CiteInformation has been repeatedly removing the AfD notice on this article. -- NotCharizard 🗨 08:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
This election is going to take place after 48 months from now. Just 12 months have passed since last edition of these elections. I do not think referring that AfD to make case for keeping this article has any relevance. Unless WP:GNG is met, this is a case of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Hitro talk 13:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:CHRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." This format of "Next XXXX election" is standard in dealing with regular elections which have a unspecified cycle.There's nothing to suggest the election will not take place. Moreover, at some point we're going to move from "Next Assam election" to "2026 election", which would entail another round of deletes... or just leave this in place as a placeholder and save everyone the bother. FWIW - electoral politics in India is on a scale no where else on earth...there's already sourcing discussing the 2026 Assam election and even 2031. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 02:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MBisanz
talk 19:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 01:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 01:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Speedy was contested, so I removed it. However, I believe that the article should still be deleted. Sources appear to be too close to the subject and would thus fail WP:GNG. I also have concerns about WP:POV and WP:BLP. I think it's worth the discussion to come to a group consensus.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 00:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Wards of Dundee. Or similar, as determined by editorial consensus. Sandstein 19:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
All of these pages fail WP:NOTSTATS. There is no proper prose (the only one which contains anything basically has a textual summary, unsourced, of the stats tables lower below) or other encyclopedic content whatsoever about these electoral wards which are of only very limited significance (i.e. there's not much if anything beyond WP:ROTM: yeah, most cities in Western democracies have electoral wards for local elections, but there's not much to be said about the vast majority of them, and these ones seem like no exception). On top of that many don't seem to cite a single source for the stats results within, so fail WP:V as well. These should all probably be redirected to Dundee City Council; and Template:Wards of Dundee should probably be deleted. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
That an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and listed it for deletion yet.Or, in other words, similarly problematic articles existing is not a reason to keep these ones, it's a reason to remove the others, too... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 14:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
If we applied that same logic to UK or Scottish parliamentary constituencies- if they have the same issues, namely being mere statistical dumps with little to no encyclopedic coverage (as opposed to routine "X and Y were elected in Z ward", which is not significant coverage of either the politicians or of the ward), then, yes, as I was saying, they warrant the same treatment: Wikipedia is not a database and this is probably one of those areas (like with all those thousands upon thousands of sports "biographies") where being a bit more rigourous wouldn't hurt. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 20:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Mirfield. ✗ plicit 12:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Primary school that fails WP:NSCHOOL. Not notable because an actor went there. Kept at 2007 AfD with arguments such as "Being rated 'Outstanding' by Ofsted is a very rare eventuality and shows clear notability". AusLondonder ( talk) 13:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 00:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Subject is a casting director - not an inherently notable position, even in connection with notable films - who happens to have some notable relatives. All working links to sources on the page are to IMDb or the subject's personal webpage or organizational webpage. BD2412 T 18:56, 1 May 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 00:15, 9 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 12:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't believe this meets any MP:MUSIC requirements outside possibly #6, and even that's a stretch. AuroraAlexander77 ( talk) 08:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 19:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 00:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete. After looking them up myself I've found very limited results. Wikipedia Article sources are almost entirely dedicated to just... albums the band made or label deals made, but seemingly absolutely no indication of notability (reviews from third party independent sources, sales data, etc). It seems like ELC was a side project for some of the band members, so a possible Merge into their pages or similar approach would be warranted? A MINOTAUR ( talk) 02:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 12:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Basically a dicdef with a list of examples, rather than an encyclopedic topic. This should be deleted, and all of the incoming links unlinked. BD2412 T 23:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 00:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 04:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Previously prodded in 2010. Current state of article has been unreferenced since 2007 and notability questioned since 2019. Not every show that aired on a network is inherently notable per WP:NTV, and I see no reason that this one is notable if zero sourcing exists anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 00:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The entire article is sourced by YouTube channels in violation of WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and WP:COPYVIO. No evidence of WP:GNG ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Editors are encouraged to improve the articles sourcing using any of the sources indicated in this discussion if needed. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 00:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
According to a search of sources, the topic has not received widespread coverage other than its cancellation. Poor notability per WP:GNG and mostly sourced from WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
"Page stats can help determine how popular a page is, but are not an indication of a topic's notability.". ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 08:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of presidents of The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite). It does not appear any further input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 01:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable religious leader. Of the three sources given, one is from a non-independent source, the other isn't significant coverage, and the third is a family written obituary. No other SIGCOV found. schetm ( talk) 20:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bungle (
talk •
contribs) 21:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 23:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
A search of news sources fails to establish notability for television programmes or more generally WP:GNG. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:57, 9 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. Star Mississippi 01:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Article about a television pilot that did not advance to series, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:TVSHOW. This is sourced to one single (deadlinked) production announcement in one magazine and a blog, which is not enough coverage to get it over the bar. Bearcat ( talk) 20:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:56, 9 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. Star Mississippi 01:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Poorly sourced and confusing with little attention to WP:GNG. It seems to be a timeline of the show's history with little extensive or independent coverage. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:56, 9 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. Star Mississippi 01:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Notability is not inherited just because the host/subject of the tv show is notable. There is a lack of general coverage which fails to establish notability beyond existence. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 01:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Most of this looks like bought publicity. There's a small bit of collateral coverage in serious newspapers, but overall it does not appear to amount to WP:SIGCOV. The company is still quite young, and so the lack of coverage is in line with this. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 23:52, 9 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. Star Mississippi 01:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
It may be a transliteration issue or something else, but I can't find any sources for this Durgāradeshadipati Baba Kaliveer (also when looking separately, "Durgāradeshadipati" "Baba Kaliveer"). The online sources in the article are either unreliable (TheReaderApp) or don't mention this at all ( sacred texts.com vedabase.io, and the article as written is very confusing to find out what it is actually about (it reads like some religious story written here as truth), so even if verified would need a complete overhaul to become encyclopedic. But without verification we shouldn't have an article of course. Fram ( talk) 12:01, 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! 22:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:50, 9 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. Star Mississippi 01:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
non notable bodyguard/actor, previously deleted as a7/spam, nothing has changed. Working for notable individuals does not make one notable themselves and he is not exception. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:52, 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! 22:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 16:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable show per WP:NTV. Sources are all primary or unreliable, and I could find none better Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 18:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
The book notes: "Food Network's "The Big Waste" (first broadcast in 2012) addressed the need for greater awareness by exposing the types of food that are typically thrown away and helping us to reshape what we consider waste and how we might repurpose excess. The documentary follows Food Network chefs and their experiences "in the field" from sourcing food to eating food. Emphasis was put on the star chefs' personal learning experiences through this journey, indicating that waste is a widespread problem but the intricacies of our food waste system are a well-kept secret. The show also focused heavily on the surprise the chefs experience when noting the quality of many of the ingredients that are about to be or have been thrown away (deemed unfit for use) and explained that the issue in food waste lies not only in our excess purchasing of food, but in our perception of what is acceptable or unacceptable to eat. Still, in this show and across the media studied, the lack of attention to the consequences of allowing current levels of production, distribution, and consumption in developed countries to continue, as well as lack of awareness about the benefits to our environment and society of broadening our diet to include unused food, are remarkable."
From https://www.cultursmag.com/about-culturs/: "Founded: by in 2014, CULTURS.guru represents the first stage of impending launch of the Institute for Global Culture Research proposed to be housed in the Journalism Department of Colorado State University in 2016. Partnered: CULTURS.guru is partnered with the Department of Journalism at Colorado State University, including original content published by students in Class Workshop “Mobilizing Global Culture,” along with articles by celebrated experts from around the globe."
The article notes: "In 2012, The Food Network tried to tackle this issue. Top Chefs teamed up and created the special show called “The Big Waste”. In this TV special, the chefs were divided up in to two culinary teams and had exactly 48 hours to create a multi course gourmet meal that was A) worthy of their reputations and B) could only use food that was on it’s way to the garbage. ... These chefs had to visit food processors and wholesalers that willingly gave them their wasted food. This included overstock, returned, blemished, damaged and other unwanted produce. This series was not only a cook off but also a learning experience."
The article notes: "In the Food Network's January 15 segment "The Big Waste," first-class chefs Bobby Flay, Michael Symon, Anne Burrell and Alex Guarnaschelli tackled the problem of waste in the food industry. Divided into two teams, with only 48 hours on the clock, the chefs were challenged to create a multicourse gourmet banquet worthy of their great reputations, but with a big twist - they could only use food that is on its way to the trash."
The book notes: "In one Food Network special, the behind-the-scense action was in full view. Called The Big Waste, four chefs—Anne Burrell, Bobby Flay, Alex Guarnaschelli, and Michael Symon—were followed by camera people as they collected throw-away foods from markets, a bakery, farms, butchers, and even dumpsters. An expert tested everything to be sure it was safe. Anne and Alex collected food from a bakery, chickens with broken wings, eggs, meats, and produce. The show would highlight how much food is wasted in the United States—about 40 percent of the food produced every year, according to the federal government. ... The challenge for the chefs was to create a gourmet banquet using only throw-away foods. Food Network chefs rose to the challenge, and those who ate the food declared it delicious. The Big Waste special had little or no effect on food shows that followed. On current Food Network shows, there are no fruits with brown spots, wilted lettuce, misshapen carrots, chickens with broken wings, or dented canned goods."
The book notes: "In January 2012, The Food Network hosted a special, The Big Waste, that brought together four top chefs (Bobby Flay, Michael Symon, Anne Burrell, and Alex Guarnaschelli) to explore the potential of America's burgeoning food waste. The chefs collected discarded food from various sources and then prepared meals using only those ingredients. The program included discussions of waste in food preparation and distribution, a dumpster-diving session behind a supermarket, and a look at waste on the farm."
The book provides two sentences of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "In America, the Food Network's The Big Waste featured four chefs – Bobby Flay, Michael Symon, Anne Burrell and Alex Guarnaschelli. They were split into two teams and given 48 hours to create a multi-course banquet using only food that was on its way to the bin."
The article provides a few sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "In 2012, the Food Network premiered The Big Waste. The show featured world-renowned chefs Bobby Flay, Michael Symon, Anne Burrell, and Alex Guarnaschelli competing in pairs to prepare a gourmet banquet meal. The twist? They could only use food intended for the landfill. The episode drew attention to the issue of food waste."
The article provides two sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "“The Big Waste,” on the Food Network, recently showed celebrity chefs creating dishes out of food typically destined for the trash. Days after it aired, viewers were still commenting online about the shocking details of what doesn’t make it to our plates in America."
Cunard ( talk) 00:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Kids Baking Championship. is there such thing as a weak merge? It does not appear that any input is forthcoming and there is no dissension. Star Mississippi 01:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable show. Current sources are all WP:PRIMARY and I could find no secondary coverage at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 18:51, 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! 22:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 01:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Very thin on sources. Two of them only mention that the film was shot in Costa Rica and say nothing else. The two reviews cited are from websites that do not seem to be reliable. Prod contested due to reviews Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:25, 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! 23:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Star Mississippi 01:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
This stub contains no references, nor does it show any information that demonstrates the importance of its subject. CollectiveSolidarity ( talk) 23:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. The earlier draft has also been history merged into this version. – Joe ( talk) 11:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Vietnam at the 2021 Southeast Asian Games
Unreferenced, and so not verifiable. A copy of this article was already created in article space once, and moved to draft space by User:DarkGlow, who noted correctly that it was unsourced, and should be incubated in draft space. Instead, a copy has been created in article space, still without references, which was tendentious. This copy should be deleted and the draft left for addition of sources. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:49, 9 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, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I found no significant coverage. He won a few awards, but they don't appear to be major. SL93 ( talk) 22:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable candidate (never elected) for French external constituencies. Does not meet WP:BASIC nor WP:POL. Article is created by an SPA. Whiteguru ( talk) 22:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus as to whether the sources represent significant coverage, but nor is there a consensus to delete Star Mississippi 01:45, 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) 09:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
There is coverage, 1, 2, focused on ricardo. I think that you want it like this. In my opinion, There were many paper coverage, focus on Ricardo during 2000-2006. But many coverage are not converted to the coverage on internet news media. In conclusion, Ricardo is old football player. Please don't judge by the same standard. Footwiks ( talk) 02:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 11:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus, would be useful for one of the two keep voters to outline their understanding of the two sources presented, as they both seem very confident they satisfy GNG, which is odd in itself given that firstly, three sources are normally required and secondly and more importantly, they both seem very brief comprising a few sentences each which undermines the strength of the keep arguments presented
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk) 22:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. This was a very interesting discussion and something of a case study in the ongoing, wider discussions about the notability of sportspeople in relation to the general notability guideline. We started with a bare assertion that the subject is not notable, which was challenged, followed by a bare assertion that there must be sources, which was also challenged. BilledMammal then presented a detailed analysis of the level of coverage in the available sources, which for a time seemed to shift the consensus towards deletion. Yet at the same time, other editors showed it was possible to significantly expand the article based on these "insignificant" sources, though not everyone considered this sufficient to keep it. More sources, from more difficult-to-access print media, were presented as the discussion progressed, (e.g. in the final comment by Nfitz), somewhat undercutting Billed's source analysis and the !votes based on it.
What we end with, after a well-attended discussion, is no consensus to delete the article and, following long-standing convention at AfD, that means we're keeping it for now. But it's a productive lack of consensus: the implicit question here is whether it is possible for a subject to fail the GNG but still be notable? That is, notable in the most basic sense that we can write a stand-alone article on it that meets our core content policies and doesn't turn us into an indiscriminate collection of information. We have SNGs that recognise that it is possible to assemble encyclopaedic articles from many brief mentions—i.e. WP:NPROF—could this be the basis of a new consensus on the notability of footballers and other sportspeople? – Joe ( talk) 11:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 18:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
https://grecianarchive.exeter.ac.uk/items/show/1938 | Founded and supported by the Exeter City Football Club Supporters Trust, who own Exeter City | Transfer information, goal count, and game count only - nothing beyond statistics. Coverage is also routine, as the source intends to document all Exeter players | ✘ No | |
https://www.enfa.co.uk/ | ? | ? Source behind a paywall. Probably not, as their FAQ page describes themselves as a database. | ? Unknown | |
https://fchd.info/lghist/fl1900.htm | ? Self published by Richard Rundle | Statistics only database | ✘ No | |
https://fchd.info/lghist/fl1901.htm | ? Self published by Richard Rundle | Statistics only database | ✘ No | |
https://fchd.info/lghist/fl1902.htm | ? Self published by Richard Rundle | Statistics only database | ✘ No | |
https://www.lfchistory.net/Players/Player/Profile/643 | Official statistics site of Liverpool | Minimal information beyond statistics | ✘ No | |
https://fchd.info/lghist/fl1903.htm | ? Self published by Richard Rundle | Statistics only database | ✘ No | |
https://fchd.info/lghist/fl1905.htm | ? Self published by Richard Rundle | Statistics only database | ✘ No | |
https://fchd.info/lghist/fl1906.htm | ? Self published by Richard Rundle | Statistics only database | ✘ No | |
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000377/19060502/098/0004 | ? | ? Unknown | ||
https://fchd.info/lghist/fl1908.htm | ? Self published by Richard Rundle | Statistics only database | ✘ No | |
https://fchd.info/lghist/fl1909.htm | ? Self published by Richard Rundle | Statistics only database | ✘ No | |
https://grecianarchive.exeter.ac.uk/items/show/1662 | Founded and supported by the Exeter City Football Club Supporters Trust, who own Exeter City | Exeter statistics only database | ✘ 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}}. |
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
https://playupliverpool.com/1883/11/25/thomas-green-tommy-green-playupliverpool-com/ | ? | ? | Statistics only | ✘ No |
http://www.swindon-town-fc.co.uk/Results.asp?Season=1903-1904 | ? | Statistics only | ✘ No | |
http://www.swindon-town-fc.co.uk/MatchCentre.asp?MatchID=19040201 | ? | Match positions only | ✘ No | |
http://www.swindon-town-fc.co.uk/MatchCentre.asp?MatchID=19040202 | ? | Match positions only | ✘ No | |
http://www.swindon-town-fc.co.uk/Person.asp?PersonID=GREENTOM | ? | Statistics only | ✘ No | |
http://www.swindon-town-fc.co.uk/PlayingRecord.asp?PersonID=GREENTOM&Season=1903-1904 | ? | Statistics only | ✘ No | |
Non-League Football Tables 1889–2017 | ? Probably not, as it is a book of football tables | ? Unknown | ||
http://www.rsssf.com/tablese/englancacombhist.html | ? | Statistics only | ✘ No | |
http://gogogocounty.org/players/G/GreenTom.html | ? | Primarily statistics, no WP:SIGCOV | ✘ No | |
http://gogogocounty.org/seasons/190405/190405Fdetails.html | ? | Statistics only | ✘ No | |
Exeter City: A Complete Record 1904–1990 | ? Unlikely, based on the size of the book, its scope, and what it is used as a reference for. It is also a source that attempt to cover everyone within a group, and so do not contribute to notability as they are routine coverage for that group. | ? Unknown | ||
Non-League Football Tables 1889–2017 | ? Probably not, as it is a book of football tables | ? Unknown | ||
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}}. |
What began as a hobby in 2002 has evolved into something much more than that proving a valuable resource to Liverpool Football Club culminating in an agreement with the club in 2009 effectively making LFChistory.net‘s stats the official stats of the club, a fact that Arnie and Gudmundur are incredibly proud of.But even if it was independent, it is clearly not WP:SIGCOV and does not contribute to WP:GNG. BilledMammal ( talk) 08:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.You cannot pass GNG without SIGCOV. BilledMammal ( talk) 17:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There has been significant efforts to critique the sources provided in the article. These seem to indicate a lot of statistical sources but only a few which could be significant enough for GNG. Needs more discussion on the keep side of things to help illustrate where significant coverage is being located to help generate consensus that goes beyond simple votes. There is also a concerning lack of understanding of GNG on the keep side of things with at least one editor seeming to state that GNG can be passed without SIGCOV, when GNG and SIGCOV are the same thing with shortcuts for the two leading to the same text and SIGCOV is the first matter discussed as a requirement of GNG . Fundamentally there is nothing presented as yet on the keep side to show GNG bar a lot of statistical / primary sources. Am extending as a courtesy as there is no rush, but not sure how any reasonable closer could articulate a close to keep that was clearly grounded in accepted guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk) 21:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. to preserve history/attribution and so that improvements can be made now that he's made his debut. Star Mississippi 01:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
No evidence found of any notability. Barely anything for "Alex" Cox-Ashwood, a few more hits for "Alexandre" Cox-Ashwood, but nothing substantial from independent reliable sources, just databases. Fram ( talk) 16:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Anderson men's soccer senior Alexandre Cox-Ashwood and volleyball senior Regan Duty have been honored for their impressive weeks on the field and court last week. They were named the Jimmy John’s Male and Female Athletes of the Week on Tuesday. In addition, Cox-Ashwood was named the South Atlantic Conference Astroturf Men’s Soccer Offensive Player of the Week ... Cox-Ashwood led the Trojans with 5 goals and 1 assist in the team’s two wins over Mount Olive and Lander. He recorded a hat trick in the Lander game. His 5 goals currently lead the conference.(with the rest being quotes, so probably not SIGCOV). So I'd say he still fails GNG as multiple pieces of SIGCOV are required. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 21:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus, some coverage clearly exists, needs further discussion to develop consensus as to whether the coverage is sufficiently significant.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk) 21:41, 9 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. Star Mississippi 01:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Non notable actor. No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails every criteria of WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 19:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. with a side of IAR reflective of consensus. It is already the 17th in Australia and she is slated to be elected on the 21st. Given the duration of this AfD, it would be process wonkery to draftify this for four days to enforce consensus on NPOL. Star Mississippi 01:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
This subject currently fails to meet WP:NPOL and WP:GNG the coverage so far has only that she is running to replace a currently serving senator or listings of her on her previous positions. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 00:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need consensus on whether the subject passes the existing policies to secure the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 18:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. with a side of IAR as is reflected in the consensus. The election is this week, draftifying would be process wonkery. If she loses, this can be revisited. Star Mississippi 01:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPOL unelected politician and also fails WP:GNG McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 00:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed - please base your decision on the existing policies.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 18:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. WP:SK1. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 ( talk) 19:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
This article was deleted by AfD two years ago as unsourced then recreated with sources last year. A potential BLP violation, it lists unsourced birthday and marriage date, listing unsourced names of wife and three minor children. None of the sourcing directly details this living subject, but instead details the assertion of micronation status on less than two otherwise non-notable acres in Nevada. A reasonable BEFORE finds nothing independent about this subject which isn't primarily detailing the micronation. This is IMHO a stunt, and Wikipedia is not here to promote your public joke. BusterD ( talk) 18:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was No Consensus/Keep. this could legitimately be closed either way with !votes after the improvement not unanimous. With the outcome the same with either and given the era in which he played and the lack of consensus around sports guidelines, it is unlikely a relist would provide clarity to close this differently. Star Mississippi 01:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Completely unsourced article about a player with a few claimed professional football appearances in the 1930s. The only incoming links are from lists of people by name or nationality so it seems he isn't mentioned on any sports pages. The corresponding article in Italian has links to stats websites whose reliability I can't comment on, but also no GNG sources. This was a PROD, contested as "too controversial for PROD". — Kusma ( talk) 10:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the article is in the process of expansion and there are claims that there are IRS to be added, let's give it a try. We do need more consensus on the subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 18:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. This has run a month, and there is absolutely no consensus to be found. However sources have been confirmed to exist, and they could be added. No policy based reason to move this to draft space, and the improvement could happen in mainspace Star Mississippi 03:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Zero reliable sources in the article, strong doubts in the notability of the subject. Ymblanter ( talk) 07:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 07:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 10:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 18:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to New Madrid, Missouri. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 03:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
List of non notable mayors of tiny town. Dronebogus ( talk) 11:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 13:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still more participation needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 18:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I do not see a consensus forming here. Language, contentious sports guidelines and no input after a relist. Star Mississippi 02:01, 18 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) 16:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more consensus on whether the subject passes
WP:GNG
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 18:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Modussiccandi ( talk) 07:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Impossibly poorly referenced advert for Amazon Prime TV show. Likely Fancruft. WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz
Humbug! 17:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MBisanz
talk 17:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more obvious consensus on whether the subject passes
WP:N
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 17:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. After almost a month on AFD what is clear is that there is no consensus to delete. Whilst there is also no consensus on whether to merge, redirect, cleanup, or any other set of actions, that is an editorial matter which can be hashed out on the article talk page. Stifle ( talk) 08:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Yet another "X in popular culture" article that has ballooned to an ungodly amount of "every single time anyone said the words 'Jeff Gordon' in a work". Far too many of these are unsourced WP:OR or too inconsequential to even mention. While the sourcing is a bit better than most articles of this sort, it's still prone to synthesis -- the Tim Wilson song doesn't mention Jeff Gordon proper, just uses him in a jokey mashup manner. I suspect a great deal of WP:REFBOMBing is also in play, as this is far from the only example where the cited references do not verify this.
The list of works in which Gordon has appeared in cameos can be added as a filmography list in his main article, but everything else is in sheer violation of User:TenPoundHammer/Wikipedia is not TV Tropes. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 16:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
“ | Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist. Rather, all such references should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary or tertiary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article. This source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item. | ” |
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MBisanz
talk 17:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 17:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus which defaults to keep, which is the slightly stronger side of the see saw. There are valid points of view to keep, and to redirect. The tipping factor to keep is the qualifying tournament that begins in July of this year as noted in the penultimate !vote and the nom's willingness to withdraw if the AfD was still running on June 1. We do not need two more weeks when this has already run nearly a month. Star Mississippi 03:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON. 2023 CONCACAF Champions League is still a redirect, and I do not see any evidence that the qualifying for 2024 is started. Can consider a redirect to CONCACAF Champions League or draftify or delete directly Hhkohh ( talk) 12:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk) 22:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 17:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 12:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Does not satisfy GNG. Perhaps worth a mention in a relevant article, but there is not enough to substantiate a separate article. – DarkGlow • 17:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was Deleted under WP:CSD, non-admin closure because of executed CSD Amadeus22 🙋 🔔 19:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Article is not supported by credible sources, with the majority of links being primary sources, such as the subject's own LinkedIn account or website, or broken links to unrelated sites. Dexxtrall ( talk) 16:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus appears clear that offline sources are sufficient. Star Mississippi 03:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Hazlewood was a scouting official. All the sources we have are basically scoting publications, that are not fully indepdent of him. We lack any sources indepdent enough to lead to a passing of GNG John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. Clear consensus that it is too soon for this sort of article and as such there simply is nowhere near the level of coverage of Europa Conference League hat tricks as a subject in and of itself to satisfy WP:LISTN Fenix down ( talk) 22:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
It's far too soon to have a list of Europa Conference League hat-tricks. While I don't oppose the existence of such a list in the future (we have them for the Champions League and Europa League), there are only three UECL hat-tricks at present, which is far too few for its own standalone list. – Pee Jay 16:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Harrogate. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 01:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a directory. Fails WP:NLIST. AusLondonder ( talk) 15:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NLIST. AusLondonder ( talk) 15:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Star Mississippi 03:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Page fails to meet the general notability guidelines for a biolography of a living person. All sources rely on his recent casting on Days of Our Lives, and provide not real-world context for who he is. livelikemusic ( TALK!) 15:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Modussiccandi ( talk) 07:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Soft delete, so no issue with the recreation, however the underlying issues of notability remain. Quantity of sources does not match quality. Star Mississippi 15:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:BASIC as lacking "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" AusLondonder ( talk) 15:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Noting also that the nominator has withdrawn their nomination. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet any of the criteria for WP:BK. Should be deleted. Gabe114 ( talk) 14:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Unsourced since its inception in 2004, a "list" of 2 items for a "country" which hardly existed, and which never created any stamps (they reused stamps from elsewhere with a print on it stating "Bushire under British Occupation"). No evidence that this is a notable subject. Fram ( talk) 13:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like a notable political party. The only coverage I was able to find is from a less-than-reliable source [33]. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Curbon7 ( talk) 05:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Building information modeling. Star Mississippi 02:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
promotion of niche concept advanced by Blaise and Dudek. fgnievinski ( talk) 06:01, 25 April 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) 09:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 11:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Does not pass WP:GNG. Kadı Message 09:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is the volume of work does not meet the requirements for notability. JoeNMLC, if you want to work on this in draft space, let me know and I'm happy to provide. Star Mississippi 02:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable film producer. No significant coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are
JoeNMLC changes enough to keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
Joe (
talk) 09:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Not much input after Cunard identidied sourcing that countered the nom and Sergecross73's !vote, but nor is anyone contending they don't counter. Star Mississippi 02:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable game show. Zero sourcing found. Deprodded because "notability is just your opinion". Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 00:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
The article notes: "Lip Service is karaoke MTV-style. Teams lip-sync and dance to the song of their choice for a cash award or prize. The crew is on the hunt for contestants. Lots of contestants. They plan to shoot 50 shows in the next three weeks. They need 150 amateur acts by the middle of next month. Contestants must perform in groups of three or five and be between the ages of 18 and 25."
The article notes: "This Saturday, MTV introduces a new series designed to ride the crest of this increasingly popular wave of volunteer entertainment. " 'Lip Service' is a talent-driven game show," executive producer Lauren Corrao said. ... "Lip Service" follows in the footsteps of the TV trivia game show, Remote Control," MTV's first game show that ran daily from 1987-90 and continued successfully in repeats."
The article notes: "When MTV host John Ales and scouts Rich Korson and Todd Warner searched Hampton Roads for contestants to perform on their Lip Service show last month, they almost returned empty handed. Almost. ... On MTV's Lip Service contestants lip-sync and dance to the song of their choice for prizes. The three young women landed a spot on the show, so today they begin rehearsal."
The article notes: "On Thursday, look for the University of Kentucky trio to do just that when the women perform on MTV's "Lip Service." The popular game show features contestants who dance and lip sync to popular music. Celebrity judges, like former porn star Tracy Lords, psychologist Ruth Westheimer, singer Little Richard and actor Al Lewis (Grandpa from "The Munsters") rate the groups on their performance, lip-syncing ability and choreography."
The article notes: "During the fast-paced show two teams compete in three different rounds: Contestants lip-sync on the spot with no knowledge of the song list; they sing to a popular song while the stars in their own videos appear to lip-sync to the contestant's voice; and they perform a prepared routine to a song that is manipulated (sped up, slowed down and scratched) at will by T-Money, the show's resident disc jockey. The half-hour game show features a revolving panel of celebrity judges, including Linda Blair, Dr. Joyce Brothers, Tiny Tim and rapper LL Cool J. The final show of the first 26-episode season features the best four teams of the year competing for the opportunity to make their own video for MTV."
The article notes: "I expect to have my hands - and lips - full all day. Big Apple folks from MTV's Lip Service game show will be in town to audition Brevard's best lip-syncers. Among which, I am. ... Problem: MTV folks say the only people who will be allowed to audition are kids 18 to 25. Such nonsense. What kid that age knows the first thing about lip-syncing with real verve?"
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 09:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Boston, Lincolnshire#Education. Whether and how much to merge can be discussed editorially. The history is under the redirect. Star Mississippi 03:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Primary school which fails WP:NSCHOOL, lacking significant coverage in secondary sources. PROD tag placed by MadeYourReadThis in 2009, but removed without comment by article creator who hasn't edited since. AusLondonder ( talk) 23:24, 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 10:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Article makes claims to notability (zzinna awards wins, other awards) but none of these are verifiable, and looking for other sources produced nothing even remotely indicating any actual notability. Fram ( talk) 10:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
•Delete- clearly an autobiography, plus confusing to read and weird idioms? Asparagusus (interaction) 15:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Leinster Rugby#Academy squad. ✗ plicit 11:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet WP:GNG; has made a single appearance for Leinster and in line with recent developing consensus, meeting sport notability guidelines does not justify an article alone. Stifle ( talk) 08:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Sources are routine and/or press release. There does not seem to be significant, in-depth coverage meeting WP:NCORP. MarioGom ( talk) 08:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists. ✗ plicit 11:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Prodded with the justification Violates the general criteria of
WP:NOTDATABASE, and fails
WP:GNG and
WP:SPORTCRIT #5. Also fails
WP:NOLYMPICS, as only two teams participated. An attempt to find additional sources failed, and
WikiProject Cricket was also unable to help.
Pinging Bobo192 who removed the prod for more information. BilledMammal ( talk) 08:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Little is known about George Buckley other than he was a member of the Castle Cary cricket club and also the gold medal winning Devon Wanderers team in 1900.Govvy ( talk) 09:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete per CSD G4: the article's content was basically the same as that discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Barnette, with the new version of the article not making any additional claims of notability. I've also salted the page to prevent this from re-occuring.. Nick-D ( talk) 11:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Consensus was already reached to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Barnette. I don't see anything having changed since then. This person is still not notable. ― Tartan357 Talk 08:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists. ✗ plicit 11:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Prodded with the justification Violates the general criteria of
WP:NOTDATABASE, and fails
WP:GNG and
WP:SPORTCRIT #5. Also fails
WP:NOLYMPICS, as only two teams participated. An attempt to find additional sources failed, and
WikiProject Cricket was also unable to help.
Prod was removed with the comment there could be more info in local sources
BilledMammal (
talk) 08:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists. ✗ plicit 11:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Prodded with the justification Violates the general criteria of
WP:NOTDATABASE, and fails
WP:GNG and
WP:SPORTCRIT #5. Also fails
WP:NOLYMPICS, as only two teams participated. An attempt to find additional sources failed, and
WikiProject Cricket was also unable to help.
Prod removed with the comment maybe local sources in English/Welsh press are available and should be looked into as a first option here
Redirect is not suitable, as a different Harry Corner is mentioned at Savage Sisters. BilledMammal ( talk) 08:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was roundrobin redirect per the below. Star Mississippi 02:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Prodded with the justification Violates the general criteria of
WP:NOTDATABASE, and fails
WP:GNG and
WP:SPORTCRIT #5. An attempt to find additional sources failed, and
WikiProject Cricket was also unable to help.
Prod removed with the comment possibilty of more info about him with his MCC connection, per
https://www.olympedia.org/athletes/17919
Redirect is not suitable, as Frederick Cuming (artist) exists and should be moved here. BilledMammal ( talk) 08:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists. ✗ plicit 11:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Prodded with the justification Violates the general criteria of
WP:NOTDATABASE, and fails
WP:GNG and
WP:SPORTCRIT #5. An attempt to find additional sources failed, and
WikiProject Cricket was also unable to help.
Prod was removed with the comment there could be more info in local sources, based on his bio
https://www.olympedia.org/athletes/17913
Redirect is not suitable as different Arthur Birkett's are mentioned at Jimmy Simpson (motorcyclist) and HM Prison Manchester. BilledMammal ( talk) 07:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
There have been multiple previous AfDs for A-team cricket tours, and they have all ended in delete ( one, two, three, four), as these tours are not at the highest international level. The article creator has had multiple similar pages deleted, so while I'd like to WP:AGF, I think they're just ignoring the consensus here, which could be viewed as disurption or WP:IDHT. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. and I don't think an additional relist will provide one. We have the uncertainty around athletes coupled with a language barrier in source access and established editors looking at it from both sides. Perhaps if his career does not progress and/or guidelines stabilize, this can be revisited down the line but at the moment there is not a consensus to delete or draftify Star Mississippi 02:28, 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) 12:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time. In my opinion the player has only recieved a brief bursts of news coverage and thus fails WP:GNG. He does though have an active career and a decent possibility to gain further coverage so I think the best course of action would be to draftify the article. Alvaldi ( talk) 20:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It has been established that there are several sources in Arabic covering the subject. No detailed argument as to the depth of coverage in each of them has been presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Modussiccandi (
talk) 07:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. and it does not appear further input is forthcoming. The decision to keep or redirect can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 02:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
This office does not exist as set out by the PROD tag placed by Ebonelm in 2016. Appears to be a misunderstanding of the wording used by primary government sources to refer to the Secretary of State for Justice AusLondonder ( talk) 14:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Page 20 of the same report says "For these purposes the Justice Secretary is the relevant Privy Councillor." Historian Charles Crawley agrees:The relationship between us and the Crown Dependencies is a subtle one. They are dependencies of the Crown, they are not part of the United Kingdom, so the responsibilities I have for them are as a privy councillor.
— Crown Dependencies: Eighth Report of Session 2009–10: Report, Together with Formal Minutes, Volume 1, page 6
It's a privy councillor according to the experts, not a minister of the U.K. government. Uncle G ( talk) 21:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)The Privy Counsellor who is the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor is responsible for managing their relationship with the Crown,
— ISBN 9781443881289 page 363
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 10:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 07:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to École normale supérieure de Rennes. ✗ plicit 11:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Article PRODed with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article created WP:TOOSOON" PROD was replaced with a proposal to merge to the publisher's article, but this was rejected without the notability problem being addressed. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 05:58, 9 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 11:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:SERIESA. Non-notable holding company with a couple notable holdings (notability is not inherited). Sources are all routine announcements or to the company's own site. Little to no coverage of this company specifically. FalconK ( talk) 05:17, 9 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 11:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:SERIESA. This article makes no claim to notability at all. No reference is to a reliable source. Internet presence about them is corporate PR, with all mentions in WP:RS being merely routine business announcements or the company being quoted as a source for some data. They might be large, but they don't satisfy the relevant notability criteria and I can't find anything to add to this article that would make it right. COI tag unresolved since 2014. FalconK ( talk) 05:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:RESUME that doesn't seem to meet WP:ANYBIO. Coverage of this person seems very fleeting, and generally routine stuff - winning non-notable awards, announcements of corporate officer appointments, that kind of thing. I looked at the sources noted in the previous AfD - which had extremely minimal participation - and didn't find evidence of notability. FalconK ( talk) 05:10, 9 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 11:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Sources are mainly articles about involvement in committees raised by Donald Trump for his own policy purposes, Lowe's, and JCPenney. The article is a WP:RESUME and I don't see a lot of news that's about just him rather than the companies. There are a few interviews, which are dependent sources and don't establish general notability. FalconK ( talk) 05:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. There is no applicable inherent notability. Consensus is clear among established editors that the sourcing does not back up the claim that he's "quite famous in Bangladesh" and I'm shocked. SHOCKED! at the verbatim !votes. Star Mississippi 02:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Procedural AfD. I've declined both a WP:A7 request on this (there's an obvious CCS) and a WP:G11 request (I don't consider it unambiguous spam). However, the subject is of very marginal notability despite the world records, and there's a legitimate argument that in these circumstances we should default to not covering a subject in the case of BLPs. Procedural nomination so I abstain. ‑ Iridescent 04:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
"Comment" - he has his news covered by large presses starting from prothom alo ( click here) to dhaka tribune ( click here) which passes WP:GNG which proves he has a huge notability in Bangladesh and this page should be kept. Jhohanfreestyle ( talk) 11:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)— Jhohanfreestyle ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
"Ashraful Islam Jhohan" -wikipedia -facebook -instagram -youtube -twittergave me exactly 5 results. However that's just the English google, some of the sourcing looks okay on the article, The Business Standard and Dhaka Tribune have in-depth stories for the guy. So those comments above that say there is no notability really should look at the sources if you ask me. Govvy ( talk) 16:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
[43] - Prothom Alo [44]- Dainik Samakal [45]- Prothom Alo [46]- Sarabangla [47]- Daily Star [48] - Dainik Azadi [49] Dainik Purbokone [50] Daily Star [51]- Dhaka Tribune [52] - Dhaka Tribune
These are just 10 newspaper article sources only. His story was covered by almost all Tv news media's of Bangladesh but I think TV news reports are not independent or reliable so I didn't leave the links here. Attaining world records might not confer automatic notability but if he has significant coverage by reliable sources multiple times about his journey of becoming a freestyler and attaining a world record wouldn't that confer automatic WP:GNG? If there are numerous reliable independent sources covering his story about achieving 4 World Records, wouldn't that be counted as significant coverage? Or just because they cover his achievements Only they are not reliable enough? I don't think there is anywhere written in the GNG guidelines that if the news are about any specific achievements/world records only it wouldn't pass GNG. Please enlighten me if I am wrong. Jhohanfreestyle ( talk) 18:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)— Jhohanfreestyle ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
References
The result was Speedy close. Article was moved to draft space during AFD, meaning AFD rationale is no longer valid. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 17:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
White Men Can't Jump (upcoming film)
Unreleased, and unproduced, film that does not satisfy any version of film notability guidelines or general notability. An article should speak for itself, and this article says nothing about independent significant coverage by reliable sources, because such coverage is not possible, because production has not yet started. This is very much too soon and should be draftified (or deleted). I am not moving it unilaterally to draft space because it was already in draft space and then moved to article space, so the mover evidently wants it in article space (where it doesn't belong yet), so the community should decide. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I attempted to copyedit this article but had to give up because there is almost no useful substance in it. It is a stream-of-consciousness essay possibly intended to promote penny-stocks and definitely in violation of the efficient market hypothesis. While the market capitalization of lithium stocks may be impressive, it pales in comparison with the market capitalization of the article, in that it insists on capitalizing the word market (and every other noun). Uses ampersands instead of and throughout and quickly gets lost in minutia. K. Oblique 03:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. A two year old AfD is not a reason not to revisit this, and precedent in either direction is not binding. However, consensus, especially with the addition of the museum source seems clear that Sharp meets NMUSIC. Whether or not that is sufficient in lieu of GNG is a meta conversation for another venue. Star Mississippi 02:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
As I pointed out in the last AFD, which closed as "no consensus":
The people who said "keep" in the last AFD were either blindly saying "keep because charted single = notable", or "keep because there might possibly maybe be sources we don't know about yet". Neither is a valid argument.
"Charted single = automatically notable" has been contradicted in several AFDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waycross (band), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Born (rapper), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Wolf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Sanz was also deleted despite that artist having three charted singles, simply because the lack of sourcing overrode that. Lisa Shaffer also charted, but her article was recently deleted via PROD due to my thoroughly detailed explanation of the lack of sources.
"There might be sources" is entirely WP:BURDEN. Her singles charted as high as #9 on the RPM charts, yet RPM didn't see fit to mention anything about her. Literally the only info we even have is that she charted and that she was from Fort Worth, both of which are sourced solely to the Joel Whitburn book -- and guess what, Brad Wolf, Victor Sanz, and Waycross are in that book too because that book gathers everyone who ever charted. Worldradiohistory.com is a site full of old music magazines from the time in which she charted, but every result is merely the chart itself, or an individual stations list of songs they added that week. And none of that contributes to WP:GNG. Attempts to poke the "keep" crowd in the last AFD about the lack of sourcing were mostly shrugged off.
(I am curious as to how a song that only got to #67 in the US got to #9 in Canada, especially given that the songs themselves don't seem to meet CanCon laws...)
tl;dr: while she does meet WP:BAND as a charted artist, that is not an ironclad reason to keep the article if the sourcing isn't there (especially given the presence of the AFDs I just cited), and it's patently obvious that the sourcing isn't. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Modussiccandi ( talk) 07:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
dubious notability, virtually no hits on Google Scholar, created by an SPA with an interest in promoting this individual FASTILY 23:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 01:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Modussiccandi ( talk) 19:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
MacOS Mammoth is not announce yet. This is crystal ball article like iOS 16 and iPadOS 16. Hajoon0102 💬 22:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment I've already created Draft:macOS Mammoth. So, I can't move Draft:macOS Mammoth to mainspace because of this article. -- Hajoon0102 💬 23:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 01:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Users are kindly asked to refrain from moving (renaming) articles while they are on AFD as it breaks a number of maintenance scripts. Stifle ( talk) 11:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:CRYSTALBALL. The event that may take place after 4 years from now. Presented sources are basically about the previous election. Entire article is based on speculation. The article was draftified initially so that the creator may take an opportunity to fix references but entire article appears to be based on presumptions. Hitro talk 08:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Note: CiteInformation has been repeatedly removing the AfD notice on this article. -- NotCharizard 🗨 08:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
This election is going to take place after 48 months from now. Just 12 months have passed since last edition of these elections. I do not think referring that AfD to make case for keeping this article has any relevance. Unless WP:GNG is met, this is a case of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Hitro talk 13:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:CHRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." This format of "Next XXXX election" is standard in dealing with regular elections which have a unspecified cycle.There's nothing to suggest the election will not take place. Moreover, at some point we're going to move from "Next Assam election" to "2026 election", which would entail another round of deletes... or just leave this in place as a placeholder and save everyone the bother. FWIW - electoral politics in India is on a scale no where else on earth...there's already sourcing discussing the 2026 Assam election and even 2031. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 02:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MBisanz
talk 19:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 01:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 01:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Speedy was contested, so I removed it. However, I believe that the article should still be deleted. Sources appear to be too close to the subject and would thus fail WP:GNG. I also have concerns about WP:POV and WP:BLP. I think it's worth the discussion to come to a group consensus.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 00:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Wards of Dundee. Or similar, as determined by editorial consensus. Sandstein 19:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
All of these pages fail WP:NOTSTATS. There is no proper prose (the only one which contains anything basically has a textual summary, unsourced, of the stats tables lower below) or other encyclopedic content whatsoever about these electoral wards which are of only very limited significance (i.e. there's not much if anything beyond WP:ROTM: yeah, most cities in Western democracies have electoral wards for local elections, but there's not much to be said about the vast majority of them, and these ones seem like no exception). On top of that many don't seem to cite a single source for the stats results within, so fail WP:V as well. These should all probably be redirected to Dundee City Council; and Template:Wards of Dundee should probably be deleted. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
That an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and listed it for deletion yet.Or, in other words, similarly problematic articles existing is not a reason to keep these ones, it's a reason to remove the others, too... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 14:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
If we applied that same logic to UK or Scottish parliamentary constituencies- if they have the same issues, namely being mere statistical dumps with little to no encyclopedic coverage (as opposed to routine "X and Y were elected in Z ward", which is not significant coverage of either the politicians or of the ward), then, yes, as I was saying, they warrant the same treatment: Wikipedia is not a database and this is probably one of those areas (like with all those thousands upon thousands of sports "biographies") where being a bit more rigourous wouldn't hurt. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 20:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Mirfield. ✗ plicit 12:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Primary school that fails WP:NSCHOOL. Not notable because an actor went there. Kept at 2007 AfD with arguments such as "Being rated 'Outstanding' by Ofsted is a very rare eventuality and shows clear notability". AusLondonder ( talk) 13:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 00:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Subject is a casting director - not an inherently notable position, even in connection with notable films - who happens to have some notable relatives. All working links to sources on the page are to IMDb or the subject's personal webpage or organizational webpage. BD2412 T 18:56, 1 May 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 00:15, 9 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 12:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't believe this meets any MP:MUSIC requirements outside possibly #6, and even that's a stretch. AuroraAlexander77 ( talk) 08:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 19:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 00:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete. After looking them up myself I've found very limited results. Wikipedia Article sources are almost entirely dedicated to just... albums the band made or label deals made, but seemingly absolutely no indication of notability (reviews from third party independent sources, sales data, etc). It seems like ELC was a side project for some of the band members, so a possible Merge into their pages or similar approach would be warranted? A MINOTAUR ( talk) 02:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 12:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Basically a dicdef with a list of examples, rather than an encyclopedic topic. This should be deleted, and all of the incoming links unlinked. BD2412 T 23:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 00:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 04:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Previously prodded in 2010. Current state of article has been unreferenced since 2007 and notability questioned since 2019. Not every show that aired on a network is inherently notable per WP:NTV, and I see no reason that this one is notable if zero sourcing exists anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 00:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)