The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) ZimZalaBim talk 20:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Non notable film, nothing found to help it pass WP:NFILM during a WP:BEFORE. Only things found were film database sites, promotional material and articles about the actresses appearance in the film but nothing about the film itself.
Deleted in PROD, but restored. Nothing new added except a "nowrunning" review, but per this Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_118#Nowrunning, that does not appear notable. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The best policy-based arguments below are for delete, notably JoelleJay's. Daniel ( talk) 07:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha ( talk) 22:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Let's all assume good faith all around. It would be helpful to see some policy-based arguments and a review of the content addition since this nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
governing sports bod[y]and thus is not independent; its interest in a subject does not reflect the interest of the world at large, and it has a vested interest in promoting its participants. We had a global referendum last year that determined our athlete notability guidelines were severely problematic as-is and introduced several measures to ensure article subjects actually met GNG. We've since deleted thousands of athlete bios because yes, many of them are not sufficiently covered by independent, secondary sources in depth. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep and expand from the French and/or Italian versions. clpo13( talk) 19:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I can't find anything that this article meets WP:GNG. A search doesn't reveal much at all. Seawolf35 T-- C 20:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk) 21:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Anyone willing to review the French sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. based on the argument that this is a content fork and duplicates information available elsewhere. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
This article is totally bizarre. All of the sources all come from one source which is the Census. It's probably a content fork of Statistical area (United States) which covers similar territory. Interstellarity ( talk) 23:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
all of the sources all come from one source which is the Censusis not a reason for deletion or even for the article being bad: the Census is the sole source for most of this data, and the data in Statistical area (United States) also comes only from the Census and the OMB. Dan • ✉ 21:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Antonio Ferrante Gonzaga. I know that this closure will please neither those seeking Deletion or those advocating Keep. But I see it as an acceptable resolution that keeps the content of the article available in case any editor wishes to Merge part(s) of it to the target article which is quite short. I couldn't use the target page title proposed in the discussion as that page is a redirect itself, this is the page title of the actual article that exists. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Part-sourced to "royalpedia", which as I've said before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Amélia of Orléans-Braganza is a website wholly-owned and controlled by a known sock master and is used by him to promote fantasies. DrKay ( talk) 19:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk) 21:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: let's have some laundry free analysis
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 23:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final redirect. Socks aside, I still don't see a consensus here. But the discussion did garner a late Redirect argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The footnote is not a mere passing mention. It occupies half the page and does support the stuff about the brother's house. That's one source. And there are others. There are history books with this person in. One can source this person's brief career in opera (sic!) from Talbot 2009, pp. 92–94, 101 for example, although this is not treated in particular depth with respect to the performer, as of course the book is about the music. This person appears to almost make it over the bar.
If I had found a third reasonable source, I'd be convinced. But I have only found a flood of genealogies where this person got born, got married, and died (many in blackletter German, which isn't making things easy), and only Talbot picking up on the opera and only as an aside in talking about Vivaldi and how this person's family performed some operas.
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 22:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Web of Science gives h-index of 2 and Google Scholar gives 4. Being the Principal of the Pedagogical Academy in Belgrade does not satisfy NPROF#6 either: 'Pedagogical academy' is not a major academic institute. The listed educational merits are also not enough to satisfy NPROF. Jähmefyysikko ( talk) 23:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 22:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Me and XOReaster have looked on scholar, and there's just not enough academic sources writing about this topic to write a coherent article about it. The majority of sources on this article are primary sources by theosophical thinkers, like Helena Blavatsky, Alice Bailey, and Benjamin Creme, which isn't really a good basis to construct an article out of. I think that a very selective merge to the main Theosophy article might be worthwhile. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:35, 28 December 2023 (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. Daniel ( talk) 22:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Another TV Red de Puerto Rico LPTV with no notability, or significant coverage to lead to same (and this one is defunct, too — it wasn't around for long). I didn't include this in my concurrent bulk nomination of co-owned stations because of an apparent former MyNetworkTV affiliation (since that is not a 24/7 service, that implies they had to do something else for the other 158 hours each week…), but it's also been tagged as completely unsourced since 2019. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:33, 28 December 2023 (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. Daniel ( talk) 22:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Another TV Red de Puerto Rico LPTV with no notability, or significant coverage to lead to same. I didn't include this in my concurrent bulk nomination of co-owned stations because it was supposedly formerly and briefly a "CBS affiliate", but it appears the station (then W32DZ-D) simply carried "CBS Puerto Rico", the Lilly Broadcasting-owned cable channel that is essentially, if loosely, a localized variation of WSEE-TV, and any explicit sourcing in that realm seems nonexistent. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:27, 28 December 2023 (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 undeletion of these articles. Daniel ( talk) 22:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Low-power television station established within the last decade or so that appears to have only carried national services or other stations. We used to be a lot more lax on notability for broadcast stations, but even when the NMEDIA essay was given more weight than was warranted, many of these low-power facilities probably still didn't even meet that in reality. Suffice it to say, I can't imagine that the significant coverage needed to meet the GNG exists here.
Also being nominated are these commonly-owned stations, under similar circumstances:
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 22:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Poorly sourced football BLP which fails WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found was this. Otherwise, it's all passing mentions ( 2010, 2014, 2023, etc.) JTtheOG ( talk) 21:36, 28 December 2023 (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. Daniel ( talk) 22:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Comments | Source |
---|---|
Primary, promo | Best School in Meerut | DMA". Dayawati Modi Academy, Meerut. Retrieved 2023-11-13. |
Name mention | 2. ^ "CBSE Class X results: Many score perfect 10 in Meerut". The Times of India. 2016-05-28. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2023-11-13. |
Name mentioned in routine news about an academic competion. Not SIGCOV | 3. ^ "दयावती मोदी एकेडमी, मेरठ अव्वल". Amar Ujala (in Hindi). Retrieved 2023-11-13. |
Primary, promo | List of Schools in Meerut". Dayawati Modi Academy, Meerut. Retrieved 2023-11-13. |
Database record | 5. ^ "Best Schools in Meerut 2023 - Govt, Private, Fees & Admissions Process". Careers360. Retrieved 2023-11-13. |
Top ten style promo list | 6. ^ Dewan, Vidisha (2023-09-07). "Top 10 Schools in Meerut 2023: CBSE, ICSE, Admission and Fees". Leverage Edu. Retrieved 2023-11-13. |
Primary, promo | 7. ^ "I_Facilities". Dayawati Modi Academy, Meerut. Retrieved 2023-11-13. |
Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, found database records, routine mill news. // Timothy :: talk 20:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Proper procedure was obviously not followed here, but there is consensus the article subject is notable enough for an article. I will handle moving the page to the correct location shortly. The Wordsmith Talk to me 19:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Artist whose artistic notability has not been shown. This article was declined twice in AFC, and then moved to article space, and moved back to draft space by User:Naraht, and then moved to article space again, so that this is a contested draftification. The title of this article appears to be an unnecessary disambiguation, since there is no Zheng Chongbin, but further review shows that Zheng Chongbin is a protected title due to repeated recreation, so that the addition of the disambiguator is gaming of titles. The article has been reference-bombed, so an assessment of the sources has not been done. If the originator thinks that this is a better and more neutral biography than the deleted pages, the proper procedure should be to discuss with the protecting administrator, User:Jimfbleak, or request unprotection at RFPP, and if that is not successful, request Deletion Review, rather than adding a disambiguator to game the title. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
San Francisco Chronicle | Newpaper is not tied to subject | Reporting appears to be reliable as it's talking about a group exposition. | The article focuses on Zheng Chongbin and his life/work | ✔ Yes |
University of Edinburgh | There does not appear to be a connection between the author and the artist | Although not peer reviewed it was reviewed by a committee | The entire dissertation is about this persons work | ✔ Yes |
San Francisco: Asian Art Museum | Website is talking about the installation of a site specific work of art at the Asian Art Museum | The material does not appear to be biased and is factual | The coverage is only about the artist and the site specific art work they created | ✘ No |
Ink Studio | Art critic is not connected to the artist | Art critic has written about multiple artists | Entire topic is over the artist and their work | ✔ Yes |
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}}. |
As mentioned, I asked the editor who rejected the article most recently to kindly reconsider the decision and explained why I believe the article meets the Wikipedia criteria. Since I haven’t heard back in two months (and it’s already been about a year that I have been working on this article), I found out that there was an option to have the article moved to the Wikipedia space for a swifter review. As someone who is new to writing on Wikipedia, I wasn’t aware of the term ‘game the system’ - when I changed the title, it said that the article would still be linked to the original one so that a search for the original title would be redirected to the updated title of the article. The intention here was to get the swifter review.
I am willing to take feedback on board, that is why it is important for me to understand what exactly needs to be improved about the article as I believe that the general guidelines are already addressed in the article. For example, in regards to the point about ‘such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews’, this criterion is met through a series of reputable references drawn from the impartial academic scholarship - the subject’s artworks have been the focus of articles such as (1) Claypool, Lisa (2019). "Liquid Space: A Conversation with Zheng Chongbin". Yishu. 18: 100–107. Yishu was established in 2002 and is a reputable peer-reviewed authoritative academic source that is in the university libraries worldwide (e.g. SOAS in London). Another example would be (2) Tedford, Matthew Harrison, ed. (2011). Zheng Chongbin: White Ink. San Francisco & Santa Clara: Chinese Culture Foundation of San Francisco & Silicon Valley Asian Art Centre. This scholarly source also meets an additional criterion of notability, namely ‘such work must have been the primary subject of […] an independent and notable work (for example, a book […]’. One more example, among others, would be (3) Chen, Abby; Kovskaya, Maya (2021). Zheng Chongbin: I Look for the Sky. San Francisco: Asian Art Museum. These references exemplify the reliable significant coverage of the subject.
In regards to the criteria ‘The person's work (or works) has […] been a substantial part of a significant exhibition’, this is addressed in the section ‘Exhibitions’. The list there aims to show that the artist’s works have been the focus of a number of solo and group exhibitions at leading non-profit museums worldwide. A recent example would be I Look for the Sky at the Asia Museum of San Francisco (solo exhibition). Another example is Ink Worlds: Contemporary Chinese Painting from the Collection of Akiko Yamazaki and Jerry Yang (2018, Cantor Arts Center, Stanford University). The artist also created an important permanent art installation at the Ryosoku-in Temple, Kennin-ji, Kyoto. This also meets another criterion, i.e. ‘The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument’, in this case, outside more conventional museum and gallery spaces, and in the wider realm of a significant historic Zen Buddhist temple in Kyoto. Additionally, the artist’s illustrated work Wall of Skies was selected by the artist-curators Raqs Media Collective to be part of Why Not Ask Again - the 2016 Eleventh Shanghai Biennale.
Speaking about the criterion ‘been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums’, the artist’s works are in the museum collections worldwide - The Met in New York, LACMA in Los Angeles, British Museum in London, M+ in Hong Kong etc. The artist’s list of awards, which are unpacked as part a separate additional section is also another indicator of the notability - e.g. the recent Asia Game Changer West Award speaks to the fact that the subject ‘won significant critical attention’ and speaks to the critical recognition of his works.
Initially, I was more explicit about the notability and used adjectives like ‘notable’, ‘significant’, ‘worldwide’, but I kept on receiving the feedback that the article needed to be more neutral.
Once again, thank you everyone for your comments and kind feedback. I am happy to take on board any further feedback that would help improve the article on which I have been working for the past year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artbranch ( talk • contribs) 20:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. The article even contains phrases like "It is unknown where he spent his childhood..." and "Little is known about his ... life at the moment" to highlight its triviality and nonsignificance. DrKay ( talk) 18:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to ALZip. The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I do not believe this file format is worth a Wikipedia article. It does not have reliable sources having only a Korean store site and two dead links, violating WP:RS. The file format is not notable, being used for maybe two programs, violating WP:N. Furthermore, the article is just written like an advertisement for the compression program that makes it and it detracts from the more noteworthy Python egg format. StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk) 18:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Stereoscopy as an AtD. Daniel ( talk) 22:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Someone's pet neurological hypothesis... PepperBeast (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Little indication of notability PepperBeast (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Appears to be mostly an autobiography created by a user with the name of this person. Although this person is a performer, there is a lack of notability. No wider impact of significant secondary sources beyond self-promotion and marketing. Seaweed ( talk) 15:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Non notable WP:NFOOTBALL, not mentioned in coverage of one article source, the other is a roster. BEFORE search shows only passing coverage in [8], [9], and [10]. Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. microbiologyMarcus ( petri dish· growths) 15:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
non-notable web series created as part of a sock puppetry spam project, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nutan (actor). microbiologyMarcus ( petri dish· growths) 15:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to 2022 Asian Para Games#Closing ceremony. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Redirect should be restored. Previously PRODed, controversial page (see the edit history) but does not provide any sources. Restore the redirect to 2022 Asian Para Games#Closing ceremony per Special:PermanentLink/1182487023. microbiologyMarcus ( petri dish· growths) 15:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Does not cite any sources, does not appear to be notable, pretty clear violation of WP:NOTINHERITED microbiologyMarcus ( petri dish· growths) 14:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Smells of spam, wonderful spam. Cited sources are prehistoric, nothing not self published floats to the surface. Ihave removed some of the mor ridiculous 'content' from this article, btw. TheLongTone ( talk) 16:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I added some further references on notability.Seeing on the contributions, you haven't edited the nominated article. Toadette ( Happy holiday!) 08:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk! 04:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bungle (
talk •
contribs) 14:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 22:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Unnecessary stub, variant of far more widely known talcum powder DirtyHarry991 ( talk) 08:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 12:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS. scope_creep Talk 11:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
French online payment institution for freelancers and SMEs. Undescribed
product(A vague description of it has been removed because it was promotional.) and a list of amounts of money raised. Janhrach ( talk) 21:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Completely unsourced so it's original research and opinion. I originally moved it to draft space but no real improvements were made. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. This is plainly a WP:NOTESSAY violation. TompaDompa ( talk) 21:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Flutter Entertainment. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS and WP:CORPDEPTH. References are routine business news, many company event listings and non-specific news scope_creep Talk 11:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Got a G4, but some of the same issues as at the August AfD including poor quality copyright infringing sources (on the sources, not the editor) ( admin only). New sources don't adequately add to/address the issues raised at the AfD either, and I can find no evidence he meets N:MUSIC. Star Mississippi 11:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 07:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:Before on Google News has nothing apart from routine coverage and his interviews. Google Scholar and JSTOR have nothing about him.
Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR and WP:NMG. Jeraxmoira ( talk) 08:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Football in the State of Palestine. Liz Read! Talk! 07:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT. I have been unable to find sources related to this league, though may exist in other languages. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 06:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I have been unable to find sources related to this league, though may exist in other languagesdo you mean that you did not check for sources in Arabic? gidonb ( talk) 23:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
An IAS does not automatically make someone notable. More WP:SIGCOV is required to support his notability. Macbeejack ☎ 06:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep considering article improvements. Daniel ( talk) 07:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Topic of the article existed for less than a year, cites only a single source and fails WP:SIGCOV DirtyHarry991 ( talk) 06:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Sentry Insurance as an AtD. Daniel ( talk) 06:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP. BuySomeApples ( talk) 06:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
The subject, a Romanian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions ( 2018, 2019, 2020, etc.) JTtheOG ( talk) 06:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to VK (company). Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
This game doesn't seem to be notable. I searched on Google news and it's all just pages about different games with the same name. Also, this page is written like an advertisement : things like "The most notable difference in Legend: Legacy of the Dragons to most other games of this genre is the fight system which is animated and allows for great tactical depth." - "great tactical depth" is subjective. Finally, most of the article is about game mechanics, not reception or development or anything real-world related. Jannaultheal ( talk) 18:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Seawolf35
T--
C 06:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Poorly sourced BLP of a Puerto Rican footballer which fails WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV of the subject that I found in my searches was this, which is eight sentences of independent coverage (by my count). Other than that, there was this short interview and a couple of other passing mentions. JTtheOG ( talk) 06:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete per criterion G5. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC) ( non-admin closure)
Alot of discussions have been made that un-elected politicians are not notable as per WP:NPOL. This article is also same. — Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk) 05:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Article challenged for notability since 2016. Fails WP:NACTOR. I was unable to find any references that shows that the actor or his films are notable. -- Lenticel ( talk) 05:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Poorly sourced footballer BLP who has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions ( 2015, 2016, 2022, etc.) JTtheOG ( talk) 05:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Run of the mill journalist, WP:GNG not demonstrated. Also is an WP:ORPHAN. Swan505 ( talk) 05:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
there is clearly no notability issue, clearly GNG is met by the significant coverage of this subject provided by the independent publications Crikey and the ABC through MediaWatch. I did not take to AfD because the journalist had a column that appears to have been notorious enough that Mediawatch wrote an article about him on his departure calling him "the notoriously acerbic man-about-town who writes Rear Window for The Australian Financial Review." I disagree that this is sufficient to meet WP:N. It is not clear what we can say in a BLP about the subject from this, and a mention in Australian Financial Review would be more appropriate if the column was so notorious, but a couple of articles expressing relief that he has gone do not show WP:SUSTAINED coverage, and are themselves primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 09:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I did not see significant coverage of him after a Google search so, I vote for delete as a biography is not needed per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 04:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
The subject, a Haitian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions ( 2012, 2014, 2015, 2018, etc.) JTtheOG ( talk) 05:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Secession in the United States#State secession. Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Let's put this to the WP:10YT. This fails WP:NEVENT. I remember it, Obama won reelection, some upset conservatives created petitions on a website that doesn't exist any longer, they received official responses from the White House, and that was that. – Muboshgu ( talk) 05:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 05:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Insignificant presence for this sporting club and appears to fail GNG. Andre 🚐 23:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 03:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. clpo13( talk) 19:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Subjects fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Just another run-of-the-mill video game employee lacking in notability and failing to assert notability. As for reliable sources, he only has one outside this article, but that does not assert notability as well. Article has been created by the subject, a clear-cut COI case. Despite being PROD deleted in 2009, this article has since been recreated in 2011; despite this, issues still remains unaddressed since 2020.
This subject's bio is unsourced, nothing is except credits for his work consisting of those from official websites and IMDB, which is neither a reliable source. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 21:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Wordsmith
Talk to me 23:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 03:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Soundscape R.Ed. This was a toss-up between No consensus and a Merge. Ordinarily, I'd relist a discussion with this level of participation but it's already been relisted three times so that is not an option. If you believe some content should be Merged to additional articles, I say feel free to take that on. Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Unsourced article for 15 years, an excessively detailed history of a sound/recording technology company. I can find a couple of 1990s articles online in a specialist magazine, but this wouldn't be sufficient to pass WP:NCORP these days. Time for this article to go? Sionk ( talk) 22:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Eddie891
Talk
Work 22:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 03:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
There is no source in the article, and no source that meets the notability requirements can be found. The article does not meet Wikipedia notability . 日期20220626 ( talk) 22:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Deleted edits here and at InternetSoft Corporation lead me to think that there was probably a conflict of interest in this article's creation, too, disguised by picking a new username in 2007 and trying again.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 03:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. If editors want to still pursue a possible Redirect of this article, you can start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Factually inaccurate article. Cited sources have no information besides including the word Syrian Hezbollah inside them. There is no group called Syrian Hezbollah. Ecrusized ( talk) 21:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 03:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep per improvements to page. (non-admin closure) Schminnte [ talk to me 04:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Disputed draftification, which is why it is now at AfD. I am not persuaded he passes WP:NACTOR nor WP:NAUTHOR 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 20:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 03:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. clpo13( talk) 19:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
This article is an essay that builds heavily on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The article is about a vague general term that overlaps with Propaganda, Political warfare, Information operations and Soft power. There was a deletion discussion in 2010 that resulted in a "Keep" verdict based primarily on arguments that there are sources out there that use the term "War of ideas". However, it seems pretty clear that while sources use the term, there is no coherent, consistent use of the term. It's also clear that the general ideas associated with the term are already covered in more clearly scoped articles for coherent concepts (such as Propaganda, Political warfare, Information operations and Soft power). Since the 2010 discussion, the fact that the article still looks like an WP:OR essay should make it clear that there is no consistent core concept or idea on which to build a proper encyclopedic article. There are therefore good reasons to reconsider the status of the article and in my view delete it. The mere existence of a general phrase does not mean it merits a Wikipedia article. The phrase "war of ideas" is similar to phrases such as "battle of wits" and "war of the wills", yet we would not accept creating an article for the latter two phrases, even if there are countless sources that use those phrases. Thenightaway ( talk) 14:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 20:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 03:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I don't think that the discussion would change significantly with a final relist so I'm closing this now as No consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 04:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Fails GNG and NBIO. Single source in article is a memorial written by a family member, fails WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth // Timothy :: talk 03:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
* Delete Does not meet
WP:GNG and has no
WP:SIGCOV
Philipnelson99 (
talk) 12:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A lot of editing has happened in this article since its nomination and a review of the article and its sourcing would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 03:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 03:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Again, this article can't be Merged to a nonexistent article. Maybe bring up that possibility should that article ever be created. Liz Read! Talk! 04:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I do not think that his article should remain, seeing as there is no good way to find reliable sources for any of this. I have no records that the company made this product and therefore no way to verify anything. Another thing is that this topic does not warrant it's own article, and should instead lead to the page on general aircraft simulators.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again. If no further comments, I will close this as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 03:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to The Purge (TV series). Content can be Merged if the desired Merge target article is every created. Liz Read! Talk! 03:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Good Leader Tavis is a minor character in the first season of The Purge; while there are technically sources there for the character, I'm not even sure why she has a page to begin with, given this; merging to create a List of The Purge characters page would make more sense. ICOTEYE ( talk) 23:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 02:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Fails NFILM. No reviews found from RS. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙♂️ Let's Talk ! 17:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further review of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 00:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there any more support for the Redirect suggestion? Just want editors to consider ATD if this article isn't Kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Comments | Source |
---|---|
Article about a social media post by actor containing a movie poster used to promote the film. Fails WP:IS, Fails WP:SIGCOV nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth | 1. "9 years of 'Gaiir': Sandeep Kulkarni shares a throwback poster as he reminisces his time on the Marathi film sets". The Times of India. 2018-11-06. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2023-07-10. |
Contributor review | 2. ^ "'Gaiir' is a well presented movie". 2009-11-06. Retrieved 2023-07-10. |
Mention of film a pair of actors previously were in. Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth | 3. ^ "Ankush Choudhari and Satish Rajwade together once again through 'Autograph'". 2016-06-11. Retrieved 2023-07-10. |
Nothing about the film meeting WP:SIGCOV | 4. ^ "Maharashtracha Favourite Kon? 2010 TV Serial - Watch Maharashtracha Favourite Kon? 2010 Online All Episodes (1-1) on ZEE5". ZEE5. Retrieved 2023-12-17. |
Name mention in promo piece, Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth | 5. ^ Editorial, M. M. W. (2010-11-01). "'Zee Talkies-Lux' Maharashtracha favourite Kon". Retrieved 2023-12-17. |
The result was no consensus. clpo13( talk) 19:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV independent of the schools. Per WP:NOPAGE, this can be covered briefly at the articles for the respective schools. Let'srun ( talk) 16:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk) 19:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 00:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We really a few editors reviewing these sources. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Pornographic actress that doesn't pass WP:NENTERTAINER. I've conducted a quick Google search and haven't found any reliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 02:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Event is happening in 2025 as of now it's WP:TOOSOON Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Uhai ( talk) 03:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Fails every point of WP:NACADEMIC along with WP:GNG. Uhai ( talk) 01:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of ships of the Confederate States Navy. Liz Read! Talk! 01:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Transport ship used by the Confederates and captured during the Civil War. From the same sockmaster that brought us CSS Ida ( AfD discussion) and CSS Manassas (clipper) ( AfD discussion). A sock was responsible for CSS Jeff Davis (1863 steamship) ( AfD discussion). As it is, we have no context for this vessel except for the three sentences taken from DANFS. Silverstone's Warships of the Civil War Navies devotes a single sentence to this vessel. Lytle's "Merchant Steam Vessels of the United States 1807-1868" lists 5 White Clouds and a White Cloud No. 2; this is apparently a different White Cloud as that one was in Union service during the 1862 Ft. Donelson campaign but this one was not captured from the CSA until 1863. There's so little to work with her that I think expansion would be almost impossible due to the inability to distinguish this ship from others with the same name. Hog Farm Talk 01:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to CSS Manassas. Liz Read! Talk! 00:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't see how this can be notable. We've got the short DANFS entry, which is what the article consists of (public domain copying). Silverstone's Warships of the Civil War Navies simply repackages the DANFS info into other words. This US gov't public domain source has Former USLHT Minot, now known as CSS Manassas, is placed under the command of Lieutenant William H. Murdaugh, CSN by Flag-Officer Samuel Barron, CSN. Though her final disposition is unknown, she is known to have seen service off North Carolina for the Confederates as Manassas into early 1862. While that source does solve DANFS' confusion about the lack of a revenue cutter named Minot by stating that she was a lighthouse tender, this CS service was either almost entirely undocumented or rather insignificant. Nothing in Trotter's Ironclads and Columbiads; nor in Barrett's Civil War in North Carolina. Aside from the two above, I can only find passing mentions to its seizure. Searching for this vessel as the lighthouse tender Minot also turns up no further in-depth coverage. The fact that I could turn up what I could for CSS Junaluska but almost nothing for this one reinforces my belief that there is simply not enough known about this vessel to indicate notability. Hog Farm Talk 00:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Although the Asian Development Bank in the external links is a reliable source I am not sure that is enough. Article has been tagged as unsourced for over a decade - I did a Google search and the subject does not seem to be notable in itself. I am not an expert but nowadays don’t they talk about individual countries like ‘panda bonds’ and so on? Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 00:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 00:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) ZimZalaBim talk 20:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Non notable film, nothing found to help it pass WP:NFILM during a WP:BEFORE. Only things found were film database sites, promotional material and articles about the actresses appearance in the film but nothing about the film itself.
Deleted in PROD, but restored. Nothing new added except a "nowrunning" review, but per this Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_118#Nowrunning, that does not appear notable. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The best policy-based arguments below are for delete, notably JoelleJay's. Daniel ( talk) 07:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha ( talk) 22:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Let's all assume good faith all around. It would be helpful to see some policy-based arguments and a review of the content addition since this nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
governing sports bod[y]and thus is not independent; its interest in a subject does not reflect the interest of the world at large, and it has a vested interest in promoting its participants. We had a global referendum last year that determined our athlete notability guidelines were severely problematic as-is and introduced several measures to ensure article subjects actually met GNG. We've since deleted thousands of athlete bios because yes, many of them are not sufficiently covered by independent, secondary sources in depth. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep and expand from the French and/or Italian versions. clpo13( talk) 19:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I can't find anything that this article meets WP:GNG. A search doesn't reveal much at all. Seawolf35 T-- C 20:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk) 21:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Anyone willing to review the French sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. based on the argument that this is a content fork and duplicates information available elsewhere. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
This article is totally bizarre. All of the sources all come from one source which is the Census. It's probably a content fork of Statistical area (United States) which covers similar territory. Interstellarity ( talk) 23:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
all of the sources all come from one source which is the Censusis not a reason for deletion or even for the article being bad: the Census is the sole source for most of this data, and the data in Statistical area (United States) also comes only from the Census and the OMB. Dan • ✉ 21:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Antonio Ferrante Gonzaga. I know that this closure will please neither those seeking Deletion or those advocating Keep. But I see it as an acceptable resolution that keeps the content of the article available in case any editor wishes to Merge part(s) of it to the target article which is quite short. I couldn't use the target page title proposed in the discussion as that page is a redirect itself, this is the page title of the actual article that exists. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Part-sourced to "royalpedia", which as I've said before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Amélia of Orléans-Braganza is a website wholly-owned and controlled by a known sock master and is used by him to promote fantasies. DrKay ( talk) 19:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk) 21:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: let's have some laundry free analysis
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 23:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final redirect. Socks aside, I still don't see a consensus here. But the discussion did garner a late Redirect argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The footnote is not a mere passing mention. It occupies half the page and does support the stuff about the brother's house. That's one source. And there are others. There are history books with this person in. One can source this person's brief career in opera (sic!) from Talbot 2009, pp. 92–94, 101 for example, although this is not treated in particular depth with respect to the performer, as of course the book is about the music. This person appears to almost make it over the bar.
If I had found a third reasonable source, I'd be convinced. But I have only found a flood of genealogies where this person got born, got married, and died (many in blackletter German, which isn't making things easy), and only Talbot picking up on the opera and only as an aside in talking about Vivaldi and how this person's family performed some operas.
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 22:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Web of Science gives h-index of 2 and Google Scholar gives 4. Being the Principal of the Pedagogical Academy in Belgrade does not satisfy NPROF#6 either: 'Pedagogical academy' is not a major academic institute. The listed educational merits are also not enough to satisfy NPROF. Jähmefyysikko ( talk) 23:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 22:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Me and XOReaster have looked on scholar, and there's just not enough academic sources writing about this topic to write a coherent article about it. The majority of sources on this article are primary sources by theosophical thinkers, like Helena Blavatsky, Alice Bailey, and Benjamin Creme, which isn't really a good basis to construct an article out of. I think that a very selective merge to the main Theosophy article might be worthwhile. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:35, 28 December 2023 (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. Daniel ( talk) 22:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Another TV Red de Puerto Rico LPTV with no notability, or significant coverage to lead to same (and this one is defunct, too — it wasn't around for long). I didn't include this in my concurrent bulk nomination of co-owned stations because of an apparent former MyNetworkTV affiliation (since that is not a 24/7 service, that implies they had to do something else for the other 158 hours each week…), but it's also been tagged as completely unsourced since 2019. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:33, 28 December 2023 (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. Daniel ( talk) 22:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Another TV Red de Puerto Rico LPTV with no notability, or significant coverage to lead to same. I didn't include this in my concurrent bulk nomination of co-owned stations because it was supposedly formerly and briefly a "CBS affiliate", but it appears the station (then W32DZ-D) simply carried "CBS Puerto Rico", the Lilly Broadcasting-owned cable channel that is essentially, if loosely, a localized variation of WSEE-TV, and any explicit sourcing in that realm seems nonexistent. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:27, 28 December 2023 (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 undeletion of these articles. Daniel ( talk) 22:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Low-power television station established within the last decade or so that appears to have only carried national services or other stations. We used to be a lot more lax on notability for broadcast stations, but even when the NMEDIA essay was given more weight than was warranted, many of these low-power facilities probably still didn't even meet that in reality. Suffice it to say, I can't imagine that the significant coverage needed to meet the GNG exists here.
Also being nominated are these commonly-owned stations, under similar circumstances:
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 22:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Poorly sourced football BLP which fails WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found was this. Otherwise, it's all passing mentions ( 2010, 2014, 2023, etc.) JTtheOG ( talk) 21:36, 28 December 2023 (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. Daniel ( talk) 22:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Comments | Source |
---|---|
Primary, promo | Best School in Meerut | DMA". Dayawati Modi Academy, Meerut. Retrieved 2023-11-13. |
Name mention | 2. ^ "CBSE Class X results: Many score perfect 10 in Meerut". The Times of India. 2016-05-28. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2023-11-13. |
Name mentioned in routine news about an academic competion. Not SIGCOV | 3. ^ "दयावती मोदी एकेडमी, मेरठ अव्वल". Amar Ujala (in Hindi). Retrieved 2023-11-13. |
Primary, promo | List of Schools in Meerut". Dayawati Modi Academy, Meerut. Retrieved 2023-11-13. |
Database record | 5. ^ "Best Schools in Meerut 2023 - Govt, Private, Fees & Admissions Process". Careers360. Retrieved 2023-11-13. |
Top ten style promo list | 6. ^ Dewan, Vidisha (2023-09-07). "Top 10 Schools in Meerut 2023: CBSE, ICSE, Admission and Fees". Leverage Edu. Retrieved 2023-11-13. |
Primary, promo | 7. ^ "I_Facilities". Dayawati Modi Academy, Meerut. Retrieved 2023-11-13. |
Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, found database records, routine mill news. // Timothy :: talk 20:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Proper procedure was obviously not followed here, but there is consensus the article subject is notable enough for an article. I will handle moving the page to the correct location shortly. The Wordsmith Talk to me 19:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Artist whose artistic notability has not been shown. This article was declined twice in AFC, and then moved to article space, and moved back to draft space by User:Naraht, and then moved to article space again, so that this is a contested draftification. The title of this article appears to be an unnecessary disambiguation, since there is no Zheng Chongbin, but further review shows that Zheng Chongbin is a protected title due to repeated recreation, so that the addition of the disambiguator is gaming of titles. The article has been reference-bombed, so an assessment of the sources has not been done. If the originator thinks that this is a better and more neutral biography than the deleted pages, the proper procedure should be to discuss with the protecting administrator, User:Jimfbleak, or request unprotection at RFPP, and if that is not successful, request Deletion Review, rather than adding a disambiguator to game the title. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
San Francisco Chronicle | Newpaper is not tied to subject | Reporting appears to be reliable as it's talking about a group exposition. | The article focuses on Zheng Chongbin and his life/work | ✔ Yes |
University of Edinburgh | There does not appear to be a connection between the author and the artist | Although not peer reviewed it was reviewed by a committee | The entire dissertation is about this persons work | ✔ Yes |
San Francisco: Asian Art Museum | Website is talking about the installation of a site specific work of art at the Asian Art Museum | The material does not appear to be biased and is factual | The coverage is only about the artist and the site specific art work they created | ✘ No |
Ink Studio | Art critic is not connected to the artist | Art critic has written about multiple artists | Entire topic is over the artist and their work | ✔ Yes |
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}}. |
As mentioned, I asked the editor who rejected the article most recently to kindly reconsider the decision and explained why I believe the article meets the Wikipedia criteria. Since I haven’t heard back in two months (and it’s already been about a year that I have been working on this article), I found out that there was an option to have the article moved to the Wikipedia space for a swifter review. As someone who is new to writing on Wikipedia, I wasn’t aware of the term ‘game the system’ - when I changed the title, it said that the article would still be linked to the original one so that a search for the original title would be redirected to the updated title of the article. The intention here was to get the swifter review.
I am willing to take feedback on board, that is why it is important for me to understand what exactly needs to be improved about the article as I believe that the general guidelines are already addressed in the article. For example, in regards to the point about ‘such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews’, this criterion is met through a series of reputable references drawn from the impartial academic scholarship - the subject’s artworks have been the focus of articles such as (1) Claypool, Lisa (2019). "Liquid Space: A Conversation with Zheng Chongbin". Yishu. 18: 100–107. Yishu was established in 2002 and is a reputable peer-reviewed authoritative academic source that is in the university libraries worldwide (e.g. SOAS in London). Another example would be (2) Tedford, Matthew Harrison, ed. (2011). Zheng Chongbin: White Ink. San Francisco & Santa Clara: Chinese Culture Foundation of San Francisco & Silicon Valley Asian Art Centre. This scholarly source also meets an additional criterion of notability, namely ‘such work must have been the primary subject of […] an independent and notable work (for example, a book […]’. One more example, among others, would be (3) Chen, Abby; Kovskaya, Maya (2021). Zheng Chongbin: I Look for the Sky. San Francisco: Asian Art Museum. These references exemplify the reliable significant coverage of the subject.
In regards to the criteria ‘The person's work (or works) has […] been a substantial part of a significant exhibition’, this is addressed in the section ‘Exhibitions’. The list there aims to show that the artist’s works have been the focus of a number of solo and group exhibitions at leading non-profit museums worldwide. A recent example would be I Look for the Sky at the Asia Museum of San Francisco (solo exhibition). Another example is Ink Worlds: Contemporary Chinese Painting from the Collection of Akiko Yamazaki and Jerry Yang (2018, Cantor Arts Center, Stanford University). The artist also created an important permanent art installation at the Ryosoku-in Temple, Kennin-ji, Kyoto. This also meets another criterion, i.e. ‘The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument’, in this case, outside more conventional museum and gallery spaces, and in the wider realm of a significant historic Zen Buddhist temple in Kyoto. Additionally, the artist’s illustrated work Wall of Skies was selected by the artist-curators Raqs Media Collective to be part of Why Not Ask Again - the 2016 Eleventh Shanghai Biennale.
Speaking about the criterion ‘been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums’, the artist’s works are in the museum collections worldwide - The Met in New York, LACMA in Los Angeles, British Museum in London, M+ in Hong Kong etc. The artist’s list of awards, which are unpacked as part a separate additional section is also another indicator of the notability - e.g. the recent Asia Game Changer West Award speaks to the fact that the subject ‘won significant critical attention’ and speaks to the critical recognition of his works.
Initially, I was more explicit about the notability and used adjectives like ‘notable’, ‘significant’, ‘worldwide’, but I kept on receiving the feedback that the article needed to be more neutral.
Once again, thank you everyone for your comments and kind feedback. I am happy to take on board any further feedback that would help improve the article on which I have been working for the past year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artbranch ( talk • contribs) 20:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. The article even contains phrases like "It is unknown where he spent his childhood..." and "Little is known about his ... life at the moment" to highlight its triviality and nonsignificance. DrKay ( talk) 18:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to ALZip. The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I do not believe this file format is worth a Wikipedia article. It does not have reliable sources having only a Korean store site and two dead links, violating WP:RS. The file format is not notable, being used for maybe two programs, violating WP:N. Furthermore, the article is just written like an advertisement for the compression program that makes it and it detracts from the more noteworthy Python egg format. StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk) 18:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Stereoscopy as an AtD. Daniel ( talk) 22:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Someone's pet neurological hypothesis... PepperBeast (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Little indication of notability PepperBeast (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Appears to be mostly an autobiography created by a user with the name of this person. Although this person is a performer, there is a lack of notability. No wider impact of significant secondary sources beyond self-promotion and marketing. Seaweed ( talk) 15:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Non notable WP:NFOOTBALL, not mentioned in coverage of one article source, the other is a roster. BEFORE search shows only passing coverage in [8], [9], and [10]. Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. microbiologyMarcus ( petri dish· growths) 15:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
non-notable web series created as part of a sock puppetry spam project, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nutan (actor). microbiologyMarcus ( petri dish· growths) 15:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to 2022 Asian Para Games#Closing ceremony. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Redirect should be restored. Previously PRODed, controversial page (see the edit history) but does not provide any sources. Restore the redirect to 2022 Asian Para Games#Closing ceremony per Special:PermanentLink/1182487023. microbiologyMarcus ( petri dish· growths) 15:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Does not cite any sources, does not appear to be notable, pretty clear violation of WP:NOTINHERITED microbiologyMarcus ( petri dish· growths) 14:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Smells of spam, wonderful spam. Cited sources are prehistoric, nothing not self published floats to the surface. Ihave removed some of the mor ridiculous 'content' from this article, btw. TheLongTone ( talk) 16:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I added some further references on notability.Seeing on the contributions, you haven't edited the nominated article. Toadette ( Happy holiday!) 08:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk! 04:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bungle (
talk •
contribs) 14:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 22:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Unnecessary stub, variant of far more widely known talcum powder DirtyHarry991 ( talk) 08:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 12:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS. scope_creep Talk 11:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
French online payment institution for freelancers and SMEs. Undescribed
product(A vague description of it has been removed because it was promotional.) and a list of amounts of money raised. Janhrach ( talk) 21:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Completely unsourced so it's original research and opinion. I originally moved it to draft space but no real improvements were made. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. This is plainly a WP:NOTESSAY violation. TompaDompa ( talk) 21:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Flutter Entertainment. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS and WP:CORPDEPTH. References are routine business news, many company event listings and non-specific news scope_creep Talk 11:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Got a G4, but some of the same issues as at the August AfD including poor quality copyright infringing sources (on the sources, not the editor) ( admin only). New sources don't adequately add to/address the issues raised at the AfD either, and I can find no evidence he meets N:MUSIC. Star Mississippi 11:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 07:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:Before on Google News has nothing apart from routine coverage and his interviews. Google Scholar and JSTOR have nothing about him.
Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR and WP:NMG. Jeraxmoira ( talk) 08:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Football in the State of Palestine. Liz Read! Talk! 07:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT. I have been unable to find sources related to this league, though may exist in other languages. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 06:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I have been unable to find sources related to this league, though may exist in other languagesdo you mean that you did not check for sources in Arabic? gidonb ( talk) 23:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
An IAS does not automatically make someone notable. More WP:SIGCOV is required to support his notability. Macbeejack ☎ 06:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep considering article improvements. Daniel ( talk) 07:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Topic of the article existed for less than a year, cites only a single source and fails WP:SIGCOV DirtyHarry991 ( talk) 06:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Sentry Insurance as an AtD. Daniel ( talk) 06:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP. BuySomeApples ( talk) 06:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
The subject, a Romanian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions ( 2018, 2019, 2020, etc.) JTtheOG ( talk) 06:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to VK (company). Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
This game doesn't seem to be notable. I searched on Google news and it's all just pages about different games with the same name. Also, this page is written like an advertisement : things like "The most notable difference in Legend: Legacy of the Dragons to most other games of this genre is the fight system which is animated and allows for great tactical depth." - "great tactical depth" is subjective. Finally, most of the article is about game mechanics, not reception or development or anything real-world related. Jannaultheal ( talk) 18:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Seawolf35
T--
C 06:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Poorly sourced BLP of a Puerto Rican footballer which fails WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV of the subject that I found in my searches was this, which is eight sentences of independent coverage (by my count). Other than that, there was this short interview and a couple of other passing mentions. JTtheOG ( talk) 06:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete per criterion G5. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC) ( non-admin closure)
Alot of discussions have been made that un-elected politicians are not notable as per WP:NPOL. This article is also same. — Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk) 05:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Article challenged for notability since 2016. Fails WP:NACTOR. I was unable to find any references that shows that the actor or his films are notable. -- Lenticel ( talk) 05:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Poorly sourced footballer BLP who has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions ( 2015, 2016, 2022, etc.) JTtheOG ( talk) 05:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Run of the mill journalist, WP:GNG not demonstrated. Also is an WP:ORPHAN. Swan505 ( talk) 05:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
there is clearly no notability issue, clearly GNG is met by the significant coverage of this subject provided by the independent publications Crikey and the ABC through MediaWatch. I did not take to AfD because the journalist had a column that appears to have been notorious enough that Mediawatch wrote an article about him on his departure calling him "the notoriously acerbic man-about-town who writes Rear Window for The Australian Financial Review." I disagree that this is sufficient to meet WP:N. It is not clear what we can say in a BLP about the subject from this, and a mention in Australian Financial Review would be more appropriate if the column was so notorious, but a couple of articles expressing relief that he has gone do not show WP:SUSTAINED coverage, and are themselves primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 09:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I did not see significant coverage of him after a Google search so, I vote for delete as a biography is not needed per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 04:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
The subject, a Haitian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions ( 2012, 2014, 2015, 2018, etc.) JTtheOG ( talk) 05:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Secession in the United States#State secession. Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Let's put this to the WP:10YT. This fails WP:NEVENT. I remember it, Obama won reelection, some upset conservatives created petitions on a website that doesn't exist any longer, they received official responses from the White House, and that was that. – Muboshgu ( talk) 05:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 05:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Insignificant presence for this sporting club and appears to fail GNG. Andre 🚐 23:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 03:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. clpo13( talk) 19:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Subjects fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Just another run-of-the-mill video game employee lacking in notability and failing to assert notability. As for reliable sources, he only has one outside this article, but that does not assert notability as well. Article has been created by the subject, a clear-cut COI case. Despite being PROD deleted in 2009, this article has since been recreated in 2011; despite this, issues still remains unaddressed since 2020.
This subject's bio is unsourced, nothing is except credits for his work consisting of those from official websites and IMDB, which is neither a reliable source. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 21:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Wordsmith
Talk to me 23:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 03:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Soundscape R.Ed. This was a toss-up between No consensus and a Merge. Ordinarily, I'd relist a discussion with this level of participation but it's already been relisted three times so that is not an option. If you believe some content should be Merged to additional articles, I say feel free to take that on. Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Unsourced article for 15 years, an excessively detailed history of a sound/recording technology company. I can find a couple of 1990s articles online in a specialist magazine, but this wouldn't be sufficient to pass WP:NCORP these days. Time for this article to go? Sionk ( talk) 22:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Eddie891
Talk
Work 22:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 03:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
There is no source in the article, and no source that meets the notability requirements can be found. The article does not meet Wikipedia notability . 日期20220626 ( talk) 22:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Deleted edits here and at InternetSoft Corporation lead me to think that there was probably a conflict of interest in this article's creation, too, disguised by picking a new username in 2007 and trying again.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 03:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. If editors want to still pursue a possible Redirect of this article, you can start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Factually inaccurate article. Cited sources have no information besides including the word Syrian Hezbollah inside them. There is no group called Syrian Hezbollah. Ecrusized ( talk) 21:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 03:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep per improvements to page. (non-admin closure) Schminnte [ talk to me 04:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Disputed draftification, which is why it is now at AfD. I am not persuaded he passes WP:NACTOR nor WP:NAUTHOR 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 20:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 03:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. clpo13( talk) 19:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
This article is an essay that builds heavily on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The article is about a vague general term that overlaps with Propaganda, Political warfare, Information operations and Soft power. There was a deletion discussion in 2010 that resulted in a "Keep" verdict based primarily on arguments that there are sources out there that use the term "War of ideas". However, it seems pretty clear that while sources use the term, there is no coherent, consistent use of the term. It's also clear that the general ideas associated with the term are already covered in more clearly scoped articles for coherent concepts (such as Propaganda, Political warfare, Information operations and Soft power). Since the 2010 discussion, the fact that the article still looks like an WP:OR essay should make it clear that there is no consistent core concept or idea on which to build a proper encyclopedic article. There are therefore good reasons to reconsider the status of the article and in my view delete it. The mere existence of a general phrase does not mean it merits a Wikipedia article. The phrase "war of ideas" is similar to phrases such as "battle of wits" and "war of the wills", yet we would not accept creating an article for the latter two phrases, even if there are countless sources that use those phrases. Thenightaway ( talk) 14:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 20:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 03:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I don't think that the discussion would change significantly with a final relist so I'm closing this now as No consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 04:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Fails GNG and NBIO. Single source in article is a memorial written by a family member, fails WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth // Timothy :: talk 03:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
* Delete Does not meet
WP:GNG and has no
WP:SIGCOV
Philipnelson99 (
talk) 12:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A lot of editing has happened in this article since its nomination and a review of the article and its sourcing would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 03:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 03:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Again, this article can't be Merged to a nonexistent article. Maybe bring up that possibility should that article ever be created. Liz Read! Talk! 04:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I do not think that his article should remain, seeing as there is no good way to find reliable sources for any of this. I have no records that the company made this product and therefore no way to verify anything. Another thing is that this topic does not warrant it's own article, and should instead lead to the page on general aircraft simulators.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again. If no further comments, I will close this as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 03:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to The Purge (TV series). Content can be Merged if the desired Merge target article is every created. Liz Read! Talk! 03:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Good Leader Tavis is a minor character in the first season of The Purge; while there are technically sources there for the character, I'm not even sure why she has a page to begin with, given this; merging to create a List of The Purge characters page would make more sense. ICOTEYE ( talk) 23:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 02:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Fails NFILM. No reviews found from RS. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙♂️ Let's Talk ! 17:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further review of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 00:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there any more support for the Redirect suggestion? Just want editors to consider ATD if this article isn't Kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Comments | Source |
---|---|
Article about a social media post by actor containing a movie poster used to promote the film. Fails WP:IS, Fails WP:SIGCOV nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth | 1. "9 years of 'Gaiir': Sandeep Kulkarni shares a throwback poster as he reminisces his time on the Marathi film sets". The Times of India. 2018-11-06. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2023-07-10. |
Contributor review | 2. ^ "'Gaiir' is a well presented movie". 2009-11-06. Retrieved 2023-07-10. |
Mention of film a pair of actors previously were in. Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth | 3. ^ "Ankush Choudhari and Satish Rajwade together once again through 'Autograph'". 2016-06-11. Retrieved 2023-07-10. |
Nothing about the film meeting WP:SIGCOV | 4. ^ "Maharashtracha Favourite Kon? 2010 TV Serial - Watch Maharashtracha Favourite Kon? 2010 Online All Episodes (1-1) on ZEE5". ZEE5. Retrieved 2023-12-17. |
Name mention in promo piece, Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth | 5. ^ Editorial, M. M. W. (2010-11-01). "'Zee Talkies-Lux' Maharashtracha favourite Kon". Retrieved 2023-12-17. |
The result was no consensus. clpo13( talk) 19:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV independent of the schools. Per WP:NOPAGE, this can be covered briefly at the articles for the respective schools. Let'srun ( talk) 16:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk) 19:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 00:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We really a few editors reviewing these sources. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Pornographic actress that doesn't pass WP:NENTERTAINER. I've conducted a quick Google search and haven't found any reliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 02:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Event is happening in 2025 as of now it's WP:TOOSOON Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Uhai ( talk) 03:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Fails every point of WP:NACADEMIC along with WP:GNG. Uhai ( talk) 01:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of ships of the Confederate States Navy. Liz Read! Talk! 01:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Transport ship used by the Confederates and captured during the Civil War. From the same sockmaster that brought us CSS Ida ( AfD discussion) and CSS Manassas (clipper) ( AfD discussion). A sock was responsible for CSS Jeff Davis (1863 steamship) ( AfD discussion). As it is, we have no context for this vessel except for the three sentences taken from DANFS. Silverstone's Warships of the Civil War Navies devotes a single sentence to this vessel. Lytle's "Merchant Steam Vessels of the United States 1807-1868" lists 5 White Clouds and a White Cloud No. 2; this is apparently a different White Cloud as that one was in Union service during the 1862 Ft. Donelson campaign but this one was not captured from the CSA until 1863. There's so little to work with her that I think expansion would be almost impossible due to the inability to distinguish this ship from others with the same name. Hog Farm Talk 01:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to CSS Manassas. Liz Read! Talk! 00:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't see how this can be notable. We've got the short DANFS entry, which is what the article consists of (public domain copying). Silverstone's Warships of the Civil War Navies simply repackages the DANFS info into other words. This US gov't public domain source has Former USLHT Minot, now known as CSS Manassas, is placed under the command of Lieutenant William H. Murdaugh, CSN by Flag-Officer Samuel Barron, CSN. Though her final disposition is unknown, she is known to have seen service off North Carolina for the Confederates as Manassas into early 1862. While that source does solve DANFS' confusion about the lack of a revenue cutter named Minot by stating that she was a lighthouse tender, this CS service was either almost entirely undocumented or rather insignificant. Nothing in Trotter's Ironclads and Columbiads; nor in Barrett's Civil War in North Carolina. Aside from the two above, I can only find passing mentions to its seizure. Searching for this vessel as the lighthouse tender Minot also turns up no further in-depth coverage. The fact that I could turn up what I could for CSS Junaluska but almost nothing for this one reinforces my belief that there is simply not enough known about this vessel to indicate notability. Hog Farm Talk 00:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Although the Asian Development Bank in the external links is a reliable source I am not sure that is enough. Article has been tagged as unsourced for over a decade - I did a Google search and the subject does not seem to be notable in itself. I am not an expert but nowadays don’t they talk about individual countries like ‘panda bonds’ and so on? Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 00:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 00:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)