The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 21:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Complete failure of WP:NCORP Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Jack City. Liz Read! Talk! 07:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Pay TV channel, fails GNG and NCORP. Single source in article is Facebook, BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 14:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Wordsmith Talk to me 19:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Like other articles on this subject matter, there is the possibility that the subject discussed is notable. However, the article fails to establish a strong basis for its periodization, both with its content and with sourcing. Sourcing itself is the largest issue, as only a single reference is present; previously, two blog posts supported some additional material redundant to Castilian War. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 12:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Comments | Source |
---|---|
No pp#. Looking at this on Google books, I failed to see how this could have WP:SIGCOV, addressing the subject directly and indepth. Book desc: "Textiles and Identity in Brunei Darussalam examines the role of traditional textiles played in modern Brunei Darussalam. Hand-woven textiles are an important part of Brunei traditional culture. This book examines the types of textiles and the roles that they have played in different situations, such as serving as signifiers of social status, wealth, and political prominence. The study focuses on how locally woven textiles have been used to express and construct identity, especially Brunei Malay identity and Brunei national identity." | 1. Siti Norkhalbi Haji Wahsalfelah (2007). Textiles and Identity in Brunei Darussalam. White Lotus Press. ISBN 978-974-480-094-7. |
Fails WP:SIGCOV, does not addressing the subject directly and indepth. Page is in section on trade, does not address the subject | 2. ^ Metcalf, Peter (2010). The Life of the Longhouse: An Archaeology of Ethnicity. Cambridge University Press. p. 142. ISBN 978-0-521-11098-3. |
Fails WP:SIGCOV, does not addressing the subject directly and indepth. Book is on trade, page 50 indicated in ref is the opening page of the chapter, the "Golden Age of Brunei", does not address the subject | 3. ^ de Vienne, Marie-Sybille (2015). Brunei. From the Age of Commerce to the 21st Century. NUS Press. p. 50. ISBN 9789971698188. |
(MA thesis) | 4. ^ Jalil, Ahmad Safwan (2012). Southeast Asian Cannon Making in Negara Brunei Darussalam (MA thesis). Flinders University. |
Book overview states, "The Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Brunei presents an overview of significant themes, issues, and challenges pertinent to Brunei Darussalam in the twenty-first century" and the article is about 1368–1888, No SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. | 5. ^ Gin, Ooi Keat; King, Victor T. (2022-07-29). Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Brunei. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-000-56864-6. |
Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth | 6. ^ Yunos, Rozan. "A 16th Century Spanish Account of Brunei". The Brunei Times. Retrieved 2023-10-29. |
Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth | 7. ^ Yunos, Rozan. "The First Dutch Visit to Brunei in 1600". The Brunei Times. Retrieved 2023-10-29. |
Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth | 8. ^ Yunos, Rozan. "Brunei in 1888". The Brunei Times. Retrieved 2023-10-29. |
The result was draftify. ✗ plicit 12:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:ORG. Primary purpose seems to be to promote the article subject and his company. Reads like a resume. Geoff | Who, me? 15:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the Delete opinions are Weak. There is also an ATD mentioned with a possible draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland. The Wordsmith Talk to me 21:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Unnecessary fork from Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, literally repeating what’s there. A couple of us re-directed to that article, but that has been disputed by one editor, thus bringing this to AfD. Bondegezou ( talk) 16:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are several suggested Merge target articles as well as an opinion that this page be transcluded which is an editorial action to take if it's decided to Keep or Merge this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Soom Shale. While it looks like there is a consensus to Delete this article several editors mention a selective Merge as an ATD so I'm closing with that option. Liz Read! Talk! 07:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Species name is not formally published, and therefore fails the "validly published criterion" of WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. There is a lack of coverage otherwise that would indicate a WP:GNG pass. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
[t]his fossil awaits a full description.ChaotıċEnby( t · c) 21:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a possible Merge or if this article should be straight out Deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Wordsmith Talk to me 22:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missouri–South Carolina football rivalry. Not enough has changed since then to establish this match-up as a notable rivalry. Speedy was declined. funplussmart ( talk) 20:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
legit news site. Maybe "fan blog" wasn't the best of words but it is a blog nonetheless and not nearly as reliable as an article produced by a regular media outlet. I'll give you the Rock M Nation one a I overlooked it is from Rivals,, but looking into that reference further, it makes the case for south carolina as one potential option of a permanent rivalry if the SEC were to adopt a 3-6 format for future scheduled (which it did not), but gives just as much reasons that the two should not be rivals as it does that they should. Still a hard no from me. Frank Anchor 14:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Rock M Nation one a I overlooked it is from RivalsPower Mizzou is Rivals, Rock M Nation is SB Nation.
it is a blog nonetheless and not nearly as reliable as an article produced by a regular media outletSB Nation is a regular media outlet, I don't see how it wouldn't pass WP:NEWSORG.
3-6 format for future scheduled (which it did not)Only for 2024 ( source), but that isn't relevant - it is a source talking about the rivalry.
gives just as much reasons that the two should not be rivals as it does that they shouldI don't read the article that way, but I understand why you say that. I read the article as establishing what "normally" makes rivalries, saying Missouri - South Carolina doesn't have those "traditional ingredients", but still making the case as to a rivalry through "competitive games", "position in the division", and "city pride". Esb5415 ( talk) 15:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
mayor of the cityis also the person who purchased the trophy, making him directly involved. Frank Anchor 18:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
“It seemed to be a perfect time to start a new rivalry, and I called the [Columbia, MO] mayor and he told us it was pretty cool, so it’s something fun,” Benjamin said. Mayors of cities don't start rivalries, and the existence of a cup or the idea of a rivalry being
coolor
fundo not make it such. Frank Anchor 17:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as it looks like No consensus right now. As an aside, by its title, it seems like the subject of the article should be the trophy or the games played that resulted in awarding of the trophy. If it is actually about a rivalry, then if the article is Kept, perhaps a rename is in order.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. The article does need a rewrite, but there doesn't seem to be consensus that it is bad enough to warrant WP:TNT or re-draftification. The additional sources provided by DCsansei seem to be enough to answer the GNG concerns. The Wordsmith Talk to me 19:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Article was moved to draft as a result of the previous AfD (that I started), still, the references do not show that this article meets WP:NPERSON or WP:GNG most are just trivial mentions of the subject, most are not that reliable or such. Seawolf35 T-- C 18:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As this was only recently moved from draft-space, do not want to close as soft delete. Relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 22:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep (narrowly, almost no consensus, but they're largely the same result anyways). Daniel ( talk) 16:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Article fails WP:NCORP and it is significantly a prominence building attempt through public relations effort, thus WP:TNT is relevant. 75.5% of authorship can be attributable to blocked sockmaster MusicLover650's sock Earflaps, and WP:SPAsMgretchh Capobw49, Carolinerubin and an IP that links to the same geographical area as the company, 2601:1C2:700:D0E0:7844:583D:4AB7:80AC Graywalls ( talk) 23:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Keep: had AUD meeting coverage in the book Shooting Star: The Definitive Story of Elliott Smith, and a bunch of GNG-qualifying coverage in Portland news. Mach61 ( talk) 06:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Delete I agree with @ Graywalls and the arguments made in support of deletion. Go4thProsper ( talk) 17:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I'm closing this discussion as No consensus because I doubt we will get much more clarity with further relistings. There are editors who want to straight out Keep this article but others who want a Split or Merge. Those two options can be dealt with as editorial decisions with the article and discussions on the article talk page and do not need to occur in the forum of AFD. I encourage you all to pursue shaping this into the article you think is appropriate for the project. But there is enough different opinions and I think initiating a discussion first is the least jarring way for this process to move forward. Good luck. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Bad WP:POVFORK of Koreans in China.
The topic of this article (ethnic Koreans with Chinese nationality) has been the primary topic of the article Koreans in China since 2006 ( initial version, October 2023 version). In October, however, User:Strategicasian inexplicably changed the introduction of the latter article to only "non-Chinese nationalities such as South Korean and North Korean people", the complete opposite of the article's previous main focus, and created this new article.
This new article, despite being titled "Chaoxianzu", the Korean ethnicity in China, is almost entirely an original research assay on political issues surrounding the identity of Chaoxianzu and their emigration to South Korea. It cites 25 sources currently – I've checked all accessible ones, and the vast majority of them are fake citations that do not support the preceding text. (It is also immediately obvious, from the way citations are added here, that they are fake.) The only parts that are actually supported, such as the population in South Korea, are also discussed in the main "Koreans in China" article and it makes little sense to duplicate them there.
In the future, the topic of Koreans in China could still benefit from a split between articles on Korean Chinese citizens (Chaoxianzu) and recent South Korean arrivals in China. However it is now being split in the worst possible way: we are getting a extremely low-quality new article on Chaoxianzu, and another article that claims to be about non-Chinese citizens, but still mainly deals with the chaoxianzu. Splitting content about South Koreans from the main article would be a much better solution. Esiymbro ( talk) 22:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:17, 4 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. ✗ plicit 12:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
There was no such siege; as the sources and even this article state, it was at most a skirmish. The sources do NOT call it even "battle of Bassi Kalan" and do not contain WP:SIGCOV; the event itself, by any name, fails WP:GNG. The relevant information belongs on Bassi Kalan, following the sources; a redirect from "Siege of Bassi Kalan" to Bassi Kalan is not necessary, as the topic is not known by this name. asilvering ( talk) 22:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
WP:SOAPBOX. No non primary sources in article. A search reveals only storefronts, no news results or significant coverage. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 23:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 16:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
The subject, a Macedonian women's footballer, has not received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found in my searches were passing mentions like 1, 2, and 3. JTtheOG ( talk) 22:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete per G3/A7. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Non notable autobiography. Google search found no useful sources. Squeakachu ( talk) 22:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 16:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey all, I've combed through a few pages of Google results and the only potential references I'm seeing are simply citing this Wikipedia article. Of the two references in the article, one is a blog that mentions the Wikipedia article and the other is a business book I cannot access (for what it's worth, the book's cultural impact appears to have been very small). Fails WP:N . Crunchydillpickle🥒 ( talk) 20:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
a modification of remarks attributed originally to Harvey Golub. Adam Sampson ( talk) 00:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
References
The result was keep. The Wordsmith Talk to me 21:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Not notable. Per lack of inclusion @ WP:NSPORT, school records alone are insufficient. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 18:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline ... The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline ... Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted– there are more ways to notability than simply passing that set of criteria; Wikipedia: WP:Athlete is not exclusionary. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 13:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Owns a mark that placed the athlete in the top 12 in the world for that calendar year in a non-relay event contested or admitted to the senior IAAF World Championships or Olympics-- this is referring to the event (i.e. 100 metres) being in the List of athletics events#Olympic and World Championship events, not the athlete w.r.t. Olympic placing. There are no points in WP:NTRACK pertaining to Olympic qualification or placing, both of which Sands has achieved. -- Habst ( talk) 15:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Star Mississippi 16:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
No indication of notability InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 18:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete. Deleted as WP:G11 by Espresso Addict. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex ( talk) 12:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Promotional, borderline G11 bio of streamer fails WP:GNG.
WP:BEFORE: One word mention for being in a tournament [13], various non-RS Sportskeeda coverage [14] [15] A412 ( Talk • C) 17:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Radionuclide identification device. History is under the redirect for a merger. Star Mississippi 16:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
There are no sources that specifically mention this device that are not primary sources from a quick web search, and most of the information here is already on Radionuclide identification device. Reconrabbit ( talk) 16:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 16:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Fails the notability guideline for politicians as a local politician with not much significant press coverage outside her local area with a population of 40,000 (the ABC News story cited is probably a regional one that was barely picked up statewide or nationally ... also see this archived version of it). Could easily turn into a coatrack, if it's not already. I live in Busselton, have written extensively about it for Wikipedia, and and hadn't heard of this person (though I don't follow local politics);. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Stubbs, a similar nomination of an article created by the same user. Graham87 ( talk) 16:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 16:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't meet our notability guideline for politicians as a mayor of a local government area (equivalent to a county in the US) and hasn't received much coverage outside of his local area. In other words, a run-of-the-mill local politician. The first he's attributed with isn't even very significant; he was the first person to become mayor when the Shire of Busselton (established from a merger in 1951) was renamed to the City of Busselton. The Medal of the Order of Australia doesn't assert notability either; all sorts of people get those ... see 2023 Australia Day Honours for a sample. Note that I live in Busselton and have done a lot of work on articles about the local area, but I would never have thought to write an article about this guy. Also see my upcoming nomination at Anne Ryan (Australian politician), which is similar and was written by the same creator. Graham87 ( talk) 15:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was
WP:SNOW delete, on multiple grounds of non-includability in an encyclopedia.
BD2412
T 00:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet notability requirements. It may yet in the future, if this turns out to be a consistent cultural phenomenon, but right now it doesn't look like much more than a week-long Twitter trend. Notably it was also created by a Non-Extended-Confirmed account on a contentious topic subject to active Arbitration Enforcement procedures.
See Talk:Israeled#Deletion of Page. AntiDionysius ( talk) 15:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 16:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
This is a difficult one to deal with on the maps, because it's right in the corner of a topo. I could not find the label until it was entered into GNIS from "U.S. Bureau of Soils. Soil Map, Barbour County, Alabama. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1914", which as we all know is not a good sign. The key to the affair lies on that "Swift Church Road", because Swift Presbyterian Church is still there, and they explain how the chapel was built because there wasn't anything else nearby, built on land donated by Mr. Swift, who owned a logging concern in the area. One presumes the post office got its name in the same manner. Anyway, not a settlement, from what I can see. Mangoe ( talk) 15:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
"Charles A. Swift had a long career as a leading businessman of Baldwin County and has justly earned a reputation for probity and honor in all business relations and was a fine type of Christian gentleman." says another highly partisan book, in quotation marks because it is apparently quoting someone's diary entry. Well none of it got written into the history books that I can see, and now M. Swift is just a namedrop.
Charles A. Swift ran a post office in Baldwin, but its name was Bon Secour according to the directories. Where did you get the name Swift relating to post offices from?
Uncle G ( talk) 19:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
GNG/NARTIST fail. No secondary, in-depth coverage could be found. Fermiboson ( talk) 14:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Hindi films of 1975. Daniel ( talk) 16:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
No sources at all. Film itself not available on YouTube. Possibly lost. Regardless, this fails WP:NFILM and Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of info or a database. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Fails NLIST and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Main article also fails GNG and NCORP, no target for a redirect. // Timothy :: talk 14:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. Clearly there is consensus against. (non-admin closure) Ca talk to me! 16:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I believe that this article is in a poor state, with no foreseeable room for improvement. Much of the cited articles are gaming writers showcasing one of RTGame's stream that they thought was cool; that's not something we can really use in an article. There is a lack of quality commentary of the streams and videos themselves, or his video-making career in general. The plain lack of good sources can be easily seen by looking through the references: most of the article content is sourced to RTGame's own videos or to his Tweets, due to the lack of independent sources addressing his content as a whole. If we cut out all the tweets and videos, all we can mention is that: a) RTGame is a gaming YouTuber, b) existence of 5ish livestreams he did, and c) his rough encounter with the YouTuber moderation system. To be crystal clear: my concern with this article is not of notability, though a case could be made that this person fails notability guidelines(but GNG is not super useful in complex cases like this). I would not be too concerned if this was a random Siberian town that was abandoned in the 16th century. However, this is a Biography of a Living Person. Compounded with the tendency of YouTubers to get themselves into YouTuber dramas, the weak sourcing makes for a real NPOV issue at our hands, even if RTgame manages to stay drama-free. For better or for the worse, readers trust Wikipedia to be a credible source of information. Content like this belong in WikiTubia, where the reader's expectation is much, much lower. A Wikipedia article is more of a burden to the subject than it is a gift, and I believe this article belongs somewhere else than Wikipedia. I am open to draftication too, since there are some useful materials, if more information arises. Disclosure: I am a subscriber to RTGame on YouTube.
A WP:BEFORE search on EBSCOHost, Gscholar, Google, and GNews, didn't really turn up anything that would improve the article. I found some interesting studies that use RTGame as one of the data points, but nothing substantial. Ca talk to me! 13:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
References
Source assessment table: prepared by
User:Davest3r08
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Kotaku | Pre-2023 Kotaku article, reliable per WP:VG/S. | ✔ Yes | ||
Cultured Vultures | User-generated content, accepts paid contributions | Two sentences, passing mention | ✘ No
| |
Polygon | Per WP:RSP | ✔ Yes
| ||
Oceans2vibe | ? No prior discussion about this (you are free to open a WP:RSN thread) | ? Unknown | ||
Per WP:RSP, user generated content | ✘ No | |||
Per WP:RSP, user generated content | ✘ No | |||
YouTube (dead link) | Per WP:RSP, user generated content | ✘ No | ||
GamesRadar | Per WP:VG/S | ✔ 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}}. |
Davest3r08 >:) ( talk) 14:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Economic equilibrium as an AtD. While I acknowledge scope creep's comment around the sourcing not meeting the standard for content in a standalone article, I also agree with Owenx here that given the merge will likely be a simple addition of six words in parenthesis as they proposed, the sourcing is adequate for that purpose. Daniel ( talk) 16:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
WP:DICTDEF. common idiom. Unsoured since it was created. scope_creep Talk 13:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
...(also known as the "sweet spot")...doesn't require more than a single well-cited primary source to support it. Owen× ☎ 13:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic characters. Daniel ( talk) 16:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Not sure if theres any SIGCOV here. I'm also having hard time of finding sources at google search that mainly talks about the character. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 13:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.Nowhere is "in-depth" or "at least 3" policy. Jclemens ( talk) 20:33, 4 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. ✗ plicit 12:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
He is successful, but I wasn't convinced there is enough to show he is notable. Mentions in articles, but not enough in-depth. Has been in CAT:NN for over 13 years. Boleyn ( talk) 11:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 07:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 12:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to IIT Kharagpur. Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
It exists but isn't notable enough for a standalone article. There is the possibility of a merge/redirect to IIT Kharagpur, but I am not sure it merits much mention in that article. Boleyn ( talk) 10:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 07:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging or redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 12:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Any user is free to create a redirect if they see it fit. ✗ plicit 12:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2019.
Previous AfD ended in DELETE. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 07:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 12:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Looks to be either completely non-notable or worse, a hoax. None of the five sources even mentions the organisation (despite one being a press release), and this includes e.g. this Reuters source which has nothing even remotely mentioning this organisation. Searching with the original Korean name gives a whopping 9 results, most of them Wikis or their Facebook page. Looking for "World Talent Exchange and Sharing Organization" isn't any better.
I came across this article when looking at what's going on with (the name of) Park Ho-eon/ Peter Park, who is listed as a Chairperson of this organisation. Perhaps, if this organisation is really as shady or non-existent as it seems to be, a closer look at everything else related to Park needs to be done, preferably by people who can read Korean and can judge whether the sources and claims are legit or not. But this AfD is only for the "World Talent" etcetera. Fram ( talk) 09:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 12:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Universal Health Services. (Similar to a soft-delete, due to low participation this could be considered a soft-redirect.) Daniel ( talk) 16:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
No results on news or google search. Source 5 is the only listed source with independent, reliable significant coverage. It would seem the confidential nature of the complaints has made it hard to get news coverage about the facility. Regarding the other sources: 1 and 2 aren't loading for me and don't seem independent from the titles. 3 is a google search. 4 is not a reliable source as it is a blog/forum. 6 does not mention the facility by name in the abstract or citations, and was published in 2006 when the facility only opened in 2005 so it is unlikely to have significant coverage of this particular facility. Since creation the article has consistently had in-body external links and POV editing, albeit low volume. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 10:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Only one professional fight does not meet boxing notability. Also, notability is not inherited at Wikipedia. Jeanette La gorda Martin ( talk) 10:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Does not seem to meet WP:NSOFT. I cannot find any independent significant coverage. I did find [23], I can't tell if it is paid promotion, but it is not significant coverage. Since creation the article has been unambiguous promotional material and an orphan. Note the issue template mentions WP:NPRODUCT not NSOFT, but I think NSOFT applies. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 09:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SNOW. — Ganesha811 ( talk) 03:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Presented sources are mere routine coverage or directory listings. Google searches do not emit anything significant. Hitro talk 09:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 12:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Nominating on behalf of an IP that I reasonably believe to be the subject, see article talk page. Note that the subject is blocked for sockpuppetry, see User:Jcourt656. Certainly notable per WP:NPROF and possibly WP:NAUTHOR (see previous AfD discussion), so the question is whether the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE trumps that. Note that part of the reason for the request is a Title IX disciplinary action against the subject, which he sued the university over; the lawsuit generated a fair bit of media coverage. I am neutral on the deletion question at this time. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 09:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
is widely used in the field of psychology to measure and study psychological flexibility. They have also mentioned professional awards that could make a case for WP:PROF#C3 as well as national media coverage that (a) could count towards general biographical notability while also (b) undermining the claim that the subject is a low-profile individual in any meaningful sense. Honestly, this looks like an attempt to delete the article because they could not dictate its contents. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to ARIA Charts. Liz Read! Talk! 08:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Not sure if this article meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV; the article contains mostly primary sources with no third-party sources to discuss its significance. I suggest merging/redirecting this to the article ARIA Charts. Ippantekina ( talk) 09:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
— Ippantekina ( talk) 09:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
The concept and theory of these articles together seems to be promoted and discussed only by the original authors (Sharifah Rafidah Wan Alwi, Zainuddin Abdul Manan); eg, [24] and [25] have these authors too. They seem to publish together. Google, scholar and news searches for all three article titles turn up no independent sources or news. It seems like COI self-promoting research by Sharifah81 ( talk · contribs) (read: one of the author names is Sharifah Rafidah Wan Alwi). Darcyisverycute ( talk) 08:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know. Liz Read! Talk! 08:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
A WP:DICDEF. [26] defines the term in table 1 as "the different viewpoints from which health benefits and costs can be assessed (e.g., patient, provider, payer, society in general)". Could be added to wikt:perspective. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 07:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
And this paper is focused on the term. Owen× ☎ 12:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)With any sort of cost analysis, perspective (cost to whom) matters. Perspectives for pharmacoeconomics analyses include the patient, provider, payer, and the broader societal perspective (including all costs) with the payer or societal perspective being the most common in the published literature.
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC. No results for google, news or scholar search on the name with "monash university". Only source is a self-written bio. According to an archive of the external link at [27], "Psychlopedia is a wiki site that presents information about psychology" yet I cannot find any mention of such a site elsewhere. The account which created it was accused of COI editing and only has edits to that page, but it seems notability was not established post-cleanup. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 07:30, 4 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. ✗ plicit 06:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
News and google search for "discourse unit university of manchester" turn up nothing. Cannot find independent sources reporting on the research group. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 07:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Colectivo (Venezuela). Liz Read! Talk! 08:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Based on one report by Spanish newspaper ABC. Looked for other sources in both Spanish and English; none were found. WMrapids ( talk) 03:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An assessment on recently found sources would be very helpful to a closer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 04:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More opinions here would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 07:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:59, 4 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. ✗ plicit 06:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
The archive external link says: 'Maybe "Panic Encyclopaedia" Arthur and Marilouise Kroker or some of their other works or "Death at the Parasite Cafe" Stephen Pfohl"'; it seems like the mailgroup author is speculating two postmodern books produce vertigo? I cannot verify whether the books cover the term in any meaningful amount. I cannot find any mentions of the term online. The article as it is and in all its versions seems like WP:OR. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 06:17, 4 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. ✗ plicit 06:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
The subject, a Dominican Republic women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions such as 1, 2, and 3. JTtheOG ( talk) 05:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
The subject made a couple of appearances for the Mali women's national football team. I am unable to find coverage outside of passing mentions ( 1, 2). Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 04:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
I found no non primary sources on a google scholar search. Original creation is believed COI - I think the main author of concept is Steve G. Carter. See existing talk page discussion - AfD was suggested in 2009 but seems to of not happened. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 04:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. It looks like this AFD has fallen through the cracks. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I checked thoroughly through the 100's of sources and the only one that stood out was:
The others were about routine acquisition, CEO nomination, raising funds. Such statements are also the bulk of this Wikipedia article, so I do not see it fitting on the encyclopedia. It has not received much, if any, significant retrospective in secondary publications besides its support to anti gay company (see above). But this amounts to just a small gossip in the grand scheme of things. That's why I do not see this topic meet the WP:NCORP guideline, (which is more stringent than WP:GNG).
To add, article was created by @ Billhodak, Sr Director of Product Marketing at New Relic. ( https://newrelic.com/pt/blog/authors/bill-hodak) बिनोद थारू ( talk) 04:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Hospital school. ✗ plicit 06:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
It is a WP:DICDEF. According to [43]: "The acronym [HHE] has been introduces by the project LeHo itself. As far as we know, it didn't exist before." Sources 1-2 are primary, and source 3 is not significant coverage. The term appears to only be used by the LeHo organisation. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 04:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
India has a fascination with "IAS" and it's a great personal achievement, but it's still just a civil service job, best I can tell. You pass an exam, you get posted and you get shuffled around. You do not actually set policies. So, WP:NPOL is out the window.
For a civil servant to be notable, I would think they would have to be recognised at the national level for their civil service, with awards comparable to the British knighthood. Or they would have to be known for some major bureaucratic reform. Or if they were at least at the secretarial level in ministries, we could imagine that they're probably notable. The subject of this article is none of those things. There are 800 districts in India and 3500 IAS officers, which makes our subject a sub-district level civil servant who's been shuffled a few times.
So, let's look at the sources for evidence of WP:GNG. The first one is a list of civil servants which he's in because he's a civil servant. The second one says "rank", "marksheet" (no joke), educational qualification and more, and takes you to a photo montage. The third one says that, a son of a truck driver whose hand was damaged in a childhood accident has become an IAS officer. But it also says he's a great archer who's got a bronze for India in Tokyo Paralympics. But wait, we already have an article on the bronze medal winner from Tokyo Paralymics at Harvinder Singh (archer). One of the sources there is this, which says, the Paralympian's legs stopped working properly in childhood because of a botched dengue treatment. It talks about his work and study which do not match this story. The pictures from this don't match the picture at Harvinder Singh (archer). Source #4 again repeats that Singh hurt his hand in childhood and worked very hard despite repeated failures to finally pass the IAS exam. Working hard and landing a cushy job makes for a human interest story; those stories don't count for notability. The last three sources are about him getting transferred from district to district. It is routine filler. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The subject's distinction from other officers lies in the independent media attention he have garnered from reputable publications like News 18, Times Now, Jansatta and more. This external validation strengthens their claim to notability. I welcome the observations and discussions of fellow editors to maintain Wikipedia's credibility and reach a consensus on this matter. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri ( ✍️) 14:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
NCORP fail. All French sources are advertisements and I was unable to find any other sources in English or French. I can't read Arabic, but a cursory google translate of the titles appears to show a similar pattern. Fermiboson ( talk) 03:13, 4 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. ✗ plicit 03:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Locally-produced PASGT or PASGT-like helmets do exist in Brazil, but I have doubts this "Capacete de Combate Balístico" even exists. As an IP has already pointed out in the talk page, none of the sources use this term. This source on Brazilian Army helmets explains the PASGT was introduced in 1993 and Inbrafiltro produces a similar version made of aramid fiber. Inbra's 2018 catalog doesn't mention a "Capacete de Combate Balístico", it offers PASGT helmets and those are plainly named PASGT helmets. Google shows zero results for "Capacete de Combate Balístico" in eb.mil.br - official Army sources don't use this term at all. This Army source also simply claims the military uses PASGT helmets. This thesis on helmets even states the PASGT is the only helmet, citing a 2008 Army document. No "Capacete de Combate Balístico" in sight. It's possible this was military or commercial jargon rather than a specific product, or "invented" in Wikipedia through misguided original research or just plainly made up. Serraria ( talk) 03:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. (sorry that I didn't see this discussion sooner). Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Should this be moved to draft space? Not nearly ready for prime time in the mainspace. Amigao ( talk) 02:28, 4 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. ✗ plicit 00:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Notability disputed since 2016. fgnievinski ( talk) 00:58, 4 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. ✗ plicit 00:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG. I have been unable to find copies of the linked sources (which, regardless, don't appear to be widely cited or in reputable outlets), and a quoted Google search for "Klaiber's law" returns only the Wikipedia page and other pages scrapied from it. 2dot718 ( talk) 00:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS; WP:RECENT; WP:SUSTAINED. JM ( talk) 00:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 21:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Complete failure of WP:NCORP Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Jack City. Liz Read! Talk! 07:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Pay TV channel, fails GNG and NCORP. Single source in article is Facebook, BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 14:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Wordsmith Talk to me 19:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Like other articles on this subject matter, there is the possibility that the subject discussed is notable. However, the article fails to establish a strong basis for its periodization, both with its content and with sourcing. Sourcing itself is the largest issue, as only a single reference is present; previously, two blog posts supported some additional material redundant to Castilian War. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 12:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Comments | Source |
---|---|
No pp#. Looking at this on Google books, I failed to see how this could have WP:SIGCOV, addressing the subject directly and indepth. Book desc: "Textiles and Identity in Brunei Darussalam examines the role of traditional textiles played in modern Brunei Darussalam. Hand-woven textiles are an important part of Brunei traditional culture. This book examines the types of textiles and the roles that they have played in different situations, such as serving as signifiers of social status, wealth, and political prominence. The study focuses on how locally woven textiles have been used to express and construct identity, especially Brunei Malay identity and Brunei national identity." | 1. Siti Norkhalbi Haji Wahsalfelah (2007). Textiles and Identity in Brunei Darussalam. White Lotus Press. ISBN 978-974-480-094-7. |
Fails WP:SIGCOV, does not addressing the subject directly and indepth. Page is in section on trade, does not address the subject | 2. ^ Metcalf, Peter (2010). The Life of the Longhouse: An Archaeology of Ethnicity. Cambridge University Press. p. 142. ISBN 978-0-521-11098-3. |
Fails WP:SIGCOV, does not addressing the subject directly and indepth. Book is on trade, page 50 indicated in ref is the opening page of the chapter, the "Golden Age of Brunei", does not address the subject | 3. ^ de Vienne, Marie-Sybille (2015). Brunei. From the Age of Commerce to the 21st Century. NUS Press. p. 50. ISBN 9789971698188. |
(MA thesis) | 4. ^ Jalil, Ahmad Safwan (2012). Southeast Asian Cannon Making in Negara Brunei Darussalam (MA thesis). Flinders University. |
Book overview states, "The Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Brunei presents an overview of significant themes, issues, and challenges pertinent to Brunei Darussalam in the twenty-first century" and the article is about 1368–1888, No SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. | 5. ^ Gin, Ooi Keat; King, Victor T. (2022-07-29). Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Brunei. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-000-56864-6. |
Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth | 6. ^ Yunos, Rozan. "A 16th Century Spanish Account of Brunei". The Brunei Times. Retrieved 2023-10-29. |
Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth | 7. ^ Yunos, Rozan. "The First Dutch Visit to Brunei in 1600". The Brunei Times. Retrieved 2023-10-29. |
Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth | 8. ^ Yunos, Rozan. "Brunei in 1888". The Brunei Times. Retrieved 2023-10-29. |
The result was draftify. ✗ plicit 12:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:ORG. Primary purpose seems to be to promote the article subject and his company. Reads like a resume. Geoff | Who, me? 15:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the Delete opinions are Weak. There is also an ATD mentioned with a possible draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland. The Wordsmith Talk to me 21:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Unnecessary fork from Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, literally repeating what’s there. A couple of us re-directed to that article, but that has been disputed by one editor, thus bringing this to AfD. Bondegezou ( talk) 16:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are several suggested Merge target articles as well as an opinion that this page be transcluded which is an editorial action to take if it's decided to Keep or Merge this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Soom Shale. While it looks like there is a consensus to Delete this article several editors mention a selective Merge as an ATD so I'm closing with that option. Liz Read! Talk! 07:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Species name is not formally published, and therefore fails the "validly published criterion" of WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. There is a lack of coverage otherwise that would indicate a WP:GNG pass. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
[t]his fossil awaits a full description.ChaotıċEnby( t · c) 21:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a possible Merge or if this article should be straight out Deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Wordsmith Talk to me 22:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missouri–South Carolina football rivalry. Not enough has changed since then to establish this match-up as a notable rivalry. Speedy was declined. funplussmart ( talk) 20:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
legit news site. Maybe "fan blog" wasn't the best of words but it is a blog nonetheless and not nearly as reliable as an article produced by a regular media outlet. I'll give you the Rock M Nation one a I overlooked it is from Rivals,, but looking into that reference further, it makes the case for south carolina as one potential option of a permanent rivalry if the SEC were to adopt a 3-6 format for future scheduled (which it did not), but gives just as much reasons that the two should not be rivals as it does that they should. Still a hard no from me. Frank Anchor 14:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Rock M Nation one a I overlooked it is from RivalsPower Mizzou is Rivals, Rock M Nation is SB Nation.
it is a blog nonetheless and not nearly as reliable as an article produced by a regular media outletSB Nation is a regular media outlet, I don't see how it wouldn't pass WP:NEWSORG.
3-6 format for future scheduled (which it did not)Only for 2024 ( source), but that isn't relevant - it is a source talking about the rivalry.
gives just as much reasons that the two should not be rivals as it does that they shouldI don't read the article that way, but I understand why you say that. I read the article as establishing what "normally" makes rivalries, saying Missouri - South Carolina doesn't have those "traditional ingredients", but still making the case as to a rivalry through "competitive games", "position in the division", and "city pride". Esb5415 ( talk) 15:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
mayor of the cityis also the person who purchased the trophy, making him directly involved. Frank Anchor 18:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
“It seemed to be a perfect time to start a new rivalry, and I called the [Columbia, MO] mayor and he told us it was pretty cool, so it’s something fun,” Benjamin said. Mayors of cities don't start rivalries, and the existence of a cup or the idea of a rivalry being
coolor
fundo not make it such. Frank Anchor 17:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as it looks like No consensus right now. As an aside, by its title, it seems like the subject of the article should be the trophy or the games played that resulted in awarding of the trophy. If it is actually about a rivalry, then if the article is Kept, perhaps a rename is in order.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. The article does need a rewrite, but there doesn't seem to be consensus that it is bad enough to warrant WP:TNT or re-draftification. The additional sources provided by DCsansei seem to be enough to answer the GNG concerns. The Wordsmith Talk to me 19:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Article was moved to draft as a result of the previous AfD (that I started), still, the references do not show that this article meets WP:NPERSON or WP:GNG most are just trivial mentions of the subject, most are not that reliable or such. Seawolf35 T-- C 18:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As this was only recently moved from draft-space, do not want to close as soft delete. Relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 22:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep (narrowly, almost no consensus, but they're largely the same result anyways). Daniel ( talk) 16:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Article fails WP:NCORP and it is significantly a prominence building attempt through public relations effort, thus WP:TNT is relevant. 75.5% of authorship can be attributable to blocked sockmaster MusicLover650's sock Earflaps, and WP:SPAsMgretchh Capobw49, Carolinerubin and an IP that links to the same geographical area as the company, 2601:1C2:700:D0E0:7844:583D:4AB7:80AC Graywalls ( talk) 23:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Keep: had AUD meeting coverage in the book Shooting Star: The Definitive Story of Elliott Smith, and a bunch of GNG-qualifying coverage in Portland news. Mach61 ( talk) 06:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Delete I agree with @ Graywalls and the arguments made in support of deletion. Go4thProsper ( talk) 17:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I'm closing this discussion as No consensus because I doubt we will get much more clarity with further relistings. There are editors who want to straight out Keep this article but others who want a Split or Merge. Those two options can be dealt with as editorial decisions with the article and discussions on the article talk page and do not need to occur in the forum of AFD. I encourage you all to pursue shaping this into the article you think is appropriate for the project. But there is enough different opinions and I think initiating a discussion first is the least jarring way for this process to move forward. Good luck. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Bad WP:POVFORK of Koreans in China.
The topic of this article (ethnic Koreans with Chinese nationality) has been the primary topic of the article Koreans in China since 2006 ( initial version, October 2023 version). In October, however, User:Strategicasian inexplicably changed the introduction of the latter article to only "non-Chinese nationalities such as South Korean and North Korean people", the complete opposite of the article's previous main focus, and created this new article.
This new article, despite being titled "Chaoxianzu", the Korean ethnicity in China, is almost entirely an original research assay on political issues surrounding the identity of Chaoxianzu and their emigration to South Korea. It cites 25 sources currently – I've checked all accessible ones, and the vast majority of them are fake citations that do not support the preceding text. (It is also immediately obvious, from the way citations are added here, that they are fake.) The only parts that are actually supported, such as the population in South Korea, are also discussed in the main "Koreans in China" article and it makes little sense to duplicate them there.
In the future, the topic of Koreans in China could still benefit from a split between articles on Korean Chinese citizens (Chaoxianzu) and recent South Korean arrivals in China. However it is now being split in the worst possible way: we are getting a extremely low-quality new article on Chaoxianzu, and another article that claims to be about non-Chinese citizens, but still mainly deals with the chaoxianzu. Splitting content about South Koreans from the main article would be a much better solution. Esiymbro ( talk) 22:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:17, 4 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. ✗ plicit 12:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
There was no such siege; as the sources and even this article state, it was at most a skirmish. The sources do NOT call it even "battle of Bassi Kalan" and do not contain WP:SIGCOV; the event itself, by any name, fails WP:GNG. The relevant information belongs on Bassi Kalan, following the sources; a redirect from "Siege of Bassi Kalan" to Bassi Kalan is not necessary, as the topic is not known by this name. asilvering ( talk) 22:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
WP:SOAPBOX. No non primary sources in article. A search reveals only storefronts, no news results or significant coverage. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 23:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 16:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
The subject, a Macedonian women's footballer, has not received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found in my searches were passing mentions like 1, 2, and 3. JTtheOG ( talk) 22:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete per G3/A7. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Non notable autobiography. Google search found no useful sources. Squeakachu ( talk) 22:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 16:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey all, I've combed through a few pages of Google results and the only potential references I'm seeing are simply citing this Wikipedia article. Of the two references in the article, one is a blog that mentions the Wikipedia article and the other is a business book I cannot access (for what it's worth, the book's cultural impact appears to have been very small). Fails WP:N . Crunchydillpickle🥒 ( talk) 20:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
a modification of remarks attributed originally to Harvey Golub. Adam Sampson ( talk) 00:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
References
The result was keep. The Wordsmith Talk to me 21:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Not notable. Per lack of inclusion @ WP:NSPORT, school records alone are insufficient. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 18:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline ... The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline ... Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted– there are more ways to notability than simply passing that set of criteria; Wikipedia: WP:Athlete is not exclusionary. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 13:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Owns a mark that placed the athlete in the top 12 in the world for that calendar year in a non-relay event contested or admitted to the senior IAAF World Championships or Olympics-- this is referring to the event (i.e. 100 metres) being in the List of athletics events#Olympic and World Championship events, not the athlete w.r.t. Olympic placing. There are no points in WP:NTRACK pertaining to Olympic qualification or placing, both of which Sands has achieved. -- Habst ( talk) 15:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Star Mississippi 16:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
No indication of notability InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 18:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete. Deleted as WP:G11 by Espresso Addict. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex ( talk) 12:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Promotional, borderline G11 bio of streamer fails WP:GNG.
WP:BEFORE: One word mention for being in a tournament [13], various non-RS Sportskeeda coverage [14] [15] A412 ( Talk • C) 17:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Radionuclide identification device. History is under the redirect for a merger. Star Mississippi 16:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
There are no sources that specifically mention this device that are not primary sources from a quick web search, and most of the information here is already on Radionuclide identification device. Reconrabbit ( talk) 16:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 16:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Fails the notability guideline for politicians as a local politician with not much significant press coverage outside her local area with a population of 40,000 (the ABC News story cited is probably a regional one that was barely picked up statewide or nationally ... also see this archived version of it). Could easily turn into a coatrack, if it's not already. I live in Busselton, have written extensively about it for Wikipedia, and and hadn't heard of this person (though I don't follow local politics);. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Stubbs, a similar nomination of an article created by the same user. Graham87 ( talk) 16:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 16:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't meet our notability guideline for politicians as a mayor of a local government area (equivalent to a county in the US) and hasn't received much coverage outside of his local area. In other words, a run-of-the-mill local politician. The first he's attributed with isn't even very significant; he was the first person to become mayor when the Shire of Busselton (established from a merger in 1951) was renamed to the City of Busselton. The Medal of the Order of Australia doesn't assert notability either; all sorts of people get those ... see 2023 Australia Day Honours for a sample. Note that I live in Busselton and have done a lot of work on articles about the local area, but I would never have thought to write an article about this guy. Also see my upcoming nomination at Anne Ryan (Australian politician), which is similar and was written by the same creator. Graham87 ( talk) 15:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was
WP:SNOW delete, on multiple grounds of non-includability in an encyclopedia.
BD2412
T 00:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet notability requirements. It may yet in the future, if this turns out to be a consistent cultural phenomenon, but right now it doesn't look like much more than a week-long Twitter trend. Notably it was also created by a Non-Extended-Confirmed account on a contentious topic subject to active Arbitration Enforcement procedures.
See Talk:Israeled#Deletion of Page. AntiDionysius ( talk) 15:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 16:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
This is a difficult one to deal with on the maps, because it's right in the corner of a topo. I could not find the label until it was entered into GNIS from "U.S. Bureau of Soils. Soil Map, Barbour County, Alabama. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1914", which as we all know is not a good sign. The key to the affair lies on that "Swift Church Road", because Swift Presbyterian Church is still there, and they explain how the chapel was built because there wasn't anything else nearby, built on land donated by Mr. Swift, who owned a logging concern in the area. One presumes the post office got its name in the same manner. Anyway, not a settlement, from what I can see. Mangoe ( talk) 15:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
"Charles A. Swift had a long career as a leading businessman of Baldwin County and has justly earned a reputation for probity and honor in all business relations and was a fine type of Christian gentleman." says another highly partisan book, in quotation marks because it is apparently quoting someone's diary entry. Well none of it got written into the history books that I can see, and now M. Swift is just a namedrop.
Charles A. Swift ran a post office in Baldwin, but its name was Bon Secour according to the directories. Where did you get the name Swift relating to post offices from?
Uncle G ( talk) 19:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
GNG/NARTIST fail. No secondary, in-depth coverage could be found. Fermiboson ( talk) 14:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Hindi films of 1975. Daniel ( talk) 16:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
No sources at all. Film itself not available on YouTube. Possibly lost. Regardless, this fails WP:NFILM and Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of info or a database. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Fails NLIST and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Main article also fails GNG and NCORP, no target for a redirect. // Timothy :: talk 14:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. Clearly there is consensus against. (non-admin closure) Ca talk to me! 16:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I believe that this article is in a poor state, with no foreseeable room for improvement. Much of the cited articles are gaming writers showcasing one of RTGame's stream that they thought was cool; that's not something we can really use in an article. There is a lack of quality commentary of the streams and videos themselves, or his video-making career in general. The plain lack of good sources can be easily seen by looking through the references: most of the article content is sourced to RTGame's own videos or to his Tweets, due to the lack of independent sources addressing his content as a whole. If we cut out all the tweets and videos, all we can mention is that: a) RTGame is a gaming YouTuber, b) existence of 5ish livestreams he did, and c) his rough encounter with the YouTuber moderation system. To be crystal clear: my concern with this article is not of notability, though a case could be made that this person fails notability guidelines(but GNG is not super useful in complex cases like this). I would not be too concerned if this was a random Siberian town that was abandoned in the 16th century. However, this is a Biography of a Living Person. Compounded with the tendency of YouTubers to get themselves into YouTuber dramas, the weak sourcing makes for a real NPOV issue at our hands, even if RTgame manages to stay drama-free. For better or for the worse, readers trust Wikipedia to be a credible source of information. Content like this belong in WikiTubia, where the reader's expectation is much, much lower. A Wikipedia article is more of a burden to the subject than it is a gift, and I believe this article belongs somewhere else than Wikipedia. I am open to draftication too, since there are some useful materials, if more information arises. Disclosure: I am a subscriber to RTGame on YouTube.
A WP:BEFORE search on EBSCOHost, Gscholar, Google, and GNews, didn't really turn up anything that would improve the article. I found some interesting studies that use RTGame as one of the data points, but nothing substantial. Ca talk to me! 13:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
References
Source assessment table: prepared by
User:Davest3r08
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Kotaku | Pre-2023 Kotaku article, reliable per WP:VG/S. | ✔ Yes | ||
Cultured Vultures | User-generated content, accepts paid contributions | Two sentences, passing mention | ✘ No
| |
Polygon | Per WP:RSP | ✔ Yes
| ||
Oceans2vibe | ? No prior discussion about this (you are free to open a WP:RSN thread) | ? Unknown | ||
Per WP:RSP, user generated content | ✘ No | |||
Per WP:RSP, user generated content | ✘ No | |||
YouTube (dead link) | Per WP:RSP, user generated content | ✘ No | ||
GamesRadar | Per WP:VG/S | ✔ 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}}. |
Davest3r08 >:) ( talk) 14:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Economic equilibrium as an AtD. While I acknowledge scope creep's comment around the sourcing not meeting the standard for content in a standalone article, I also agree with Owenx here that given the merge will likely be a simple addition of six words in parenthesis as they proposed, the sourcing is adequate for that purpose. Daniel ( talk) 16:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
WP:DICTDEF. common idiom. Unsoured since it was created. scope_creep Talk 13:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
...(also known as the "sweet spot")...doesn't require more than a single well-cited primary source to support it. Owen× ☎ 13:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic characters. Daniel ( talk) 16:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Not sure if theres any SIGCOV here. I'm also having hard time of finding sources at google search that mainly talks about the character. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 13:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.Nowhere is "in-depth" or "at least 3" policy. Jclemens ( talk) 20:33, 4 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. ✗ plicit 12:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
He is successful, but I wasn't convinced there is enough to show he is notable. Mentions in articles, but not enough in-depth. Has been in CAT:NN for over 13 years. Boleyn ( talk) 11:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 07:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 12:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to IIT Kharagpur. Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
It exists but isn't notable enough for a standalone article. There is the possibility of a merge/redirect to IIT Kharagpur, but I am not sure it merits much mention in that article. Boleyn ( talk) 10:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 07:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging or redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 12:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Any user is free to create a redirect if they see it fit. ✗ plicit 12:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2019.
Previous AfD ended in DELETE. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 07:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 12:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Looks to be either completely non-notable or worse, a hoax. None of the five sources even mentions the organisation (despite one being a press release), and this includes e.g. this Reuters source which has nothing even remotely mentioning this organisation. Searching with the original Korean name gives a whopping 9 results, most of them Wikis or their Facebook page. Looking for "World Talent Exchange and Sharing Organization" isn't any better.
I came across this article when looking at what's going on with (the name of) Park Ho-eon/ Peter Park, who is listed as a Chairperson of this organisation. Perhaps, if this organisation is really as shady or non-existent as it seems to be, a closer look at everything else related to Park needs to be done, preferably by people who can read Korean and can judge whether the sources and claims are legit or not. But this AfD is only for the "World Talent" etcetera. Fram ( talk) 09:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 12:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Universal Health Services. (Similar to a soft-delete, due to low participation this could be considered a soft-redirect.) Daniel ( talk) 16:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
No results on news or google search. Source 5 is the only listed source with independent, reliable significant coverage. It would seem the confidential nature of the complaints has made it hard to get news coverage about the facility. Regarding the other sources: 1 and 2 aren't loading for me and don't seem independent from the titles. 3 is a google search. 4 is not a reliable source as it is a blog/forum. 6 does not mention the facility by name in the abstract or citations, and was published in 2006 when the facility only opened in 2005 so it is unlikely to have significant coverage of this particular facility. Since creation the article has consistently had in-body external links and POV editing, albeit low volume. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 10:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Only one professional fight does not meet boxing notability. Also, notability is not inherited at Wikipedia. Jeanette La gorda Martin ( talk) 10:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Does not seem to meet WP:NSOFT. I cannot find any independent significant coverage. I did find [23], I can't tell if it is paid promotion, but it is not significant coverage. Since creation the article has been unambiguous promotional material and an orphan. Note the issue template mentions WP:NPRODUCT not NSOFT, but I think NSOFT applies. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 09:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SNOW. — Ganesha811 ( talk) 03:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Presented sources are mere routine coverage or directory listings. Google searches do not emit anything significant. Hitro talk 09:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 12:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Nominating on behalf of an IP that I reasonably believe to be the subject, see article talk page. Note that the subject is blocked for sockpuppetry, see User:Jcourt656. Certainly notable per WP:NPROF and possibly WP:NAUTHOR (see previous AfD discussion), so the question is whether the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE trumps that. Note that part of the reason for the request is a Title IX disciplinary action against the subject, which he sued the university over; the lawsuit generated a fair bit of media coverage. I am neutral on the deletion question at this time. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 09:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
is widely used in the field of psychology to measure and study psychological flexibility. They have also mentioned professional awards that could make a case for WP:PROF#C3 as well as national media coverage that (a) could count towards general biographical notability while also (b) undermining the claim that the subject is a low-profile individual in any meaningful sense. Honestly, this looks like an attempt to delete the article because they could not dictate its contents. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to ARIA Charts. Liz Read! Talk! 08:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Not sure if this article meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV; the article contains mostly primary sources with no third-party sources to discuss its significance. I suggest merging/redirecting this to the article ARIA Charts. Ippantekina ( talk) 09:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
— Ippantekina ( talk) 09:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
The concept and theory of these articles together seems to be promoted and discussed only by the original authors (Sharifah Rafidah Wan Alwi, Zainuddin Abdul Manan); eg, [24] and [25] have these authors too. They seem to publish together. Google, scholar and news searches for all three article titles turn up no independent sources or news. It seems like COI self-promoting research by Sharifah81 ( talk · contribs) (read: one of the author names is Sharifah Rafidah Wan Alwi). Darcyisverycute ( talk) 08:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know. Liz Read! Talk! 08:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
A WP:DICDEF. [26] defines the term in table 1 as "the different viewpoints from which health benefits and costs can be assessed (e.g., patient, provider, payer, society in general)". Could be added to wikt:perspective. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 07:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
And this paper is focused on the term. Owen× ☎ 12:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)With any sort of cost analysis, perspective (cost to whom) matters. Perspectives for pharmacoeconomics analyses include the patient, provider, payer, and the broader societal perspective (including all costs) with the payer or societal perspective being the most common in the published literature.
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC. No results for google, news or scholar search on the name with "monash university". Only source is a self-written bio. According to an archive of the external link at [27], "Psychlopedia is a wiki site that presents information about psychology" yet I cannot find any mention of such a site elsewhere. The account which created it was accused of COI editing and only has edits to that page, but it seems notability was not established post-cleanup. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 07:30, 4 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. ✗ plicit 06:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
News and google search for "discourse unit university of manchester" turn up nothing. Cannot find independent sources reporting on the research group. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 07:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Colectivo (Venezuela). Liz Read! Talk! 08:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Based on one report by Spanish newspaper ABC. Looked for other sources in both Spanish and English; none were found. WMrapids ( talk) 03:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An assessment on recently found sources would be very helpful to a closer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 04:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More opinions here would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 07:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:59, 4 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. ✗ plicit 06:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
The archive external link says: 'Maybe "Panic Encyclopaedia" Arthur and Marilouise Kroker or some of their other works or "Death at the Parasite Cafe" Stephen Pfohl"'; it seems like the mailgroup author is speculating two postmodern books produce vertigo? I cannot verify whether the books cover the term in any meaningful amount. I cannot find any mentions of the term online. The article as it is and in all its versions seems like WP:OR. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 06:17, 4 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. ✗ plicit 06:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
The subject, a Dominican Republic women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions such as 1, 2, and 3. JTtheOG ( talk) 05:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
The subject made a couple of appearances for the Mali women's national football team. I am unable to find coverage outside of passing mentions ( 1, 2). Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 04:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
I found no non primary sources on a google scholar search. Original creation is believed COI - I think the main author of concept is Steve G. Carter. See existing talk page discussion - AfD was suggested in 2009 but seems to of not happened. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 04:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. It looks like this AFD has fallen through the cracks. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I checked thoroughly through the 100's of sources and the only one that stood out was:
The others were about routine acquisition, CEO nomination, raising funds. Such statements are also the bulk of this Wikipedia article, so I do not see it fitting on the encyclopedia. It has not received much, if any, significant retrospective in secondary publications besides its support to anti gay company (see above). But this amounts to just a small gossip in the grand scheme of things. That's why I do not see this topic meet the WP:NCORP guideline, (which is more stringent than WP:GNG).
To add, article was created by @ Billhodak, Sr Director of Product Marketing at New Relic. ( https://newrelic.com/pt/blog/authors/bill-hodak) बिनोद थारू ( talk) 04:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Hospital school. ✗ plicit 06:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
It is a WP:DICDEF. According to [43]: "The acronym [HHE] has been introduces by the project LeHo itself. As far as we know, it didn't exist before." Sources 1-2 are primary, and source 3 is not significant coverage. The term appears to only be used by the LeHo organisation. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 04:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
India has a fascination with "IAS" and it's a great personal achievement, but it's still just a civil service job, best I can tell. You pass an exam, you get posted and you get shuffled around. You do not actually set policies. So, WP:NPOL is out the window.
For a civil servant to be notable, I would think they would have to be recognised at the national level for their civil service, with awards comparable to the British knighthood. Or they would have to be known for some major bureaucratic reform. Or if they were at least at the secretarial level in ministries, we could imagine that they're probably notable. The subject of this article is none of those things. There are 800 districts in India and 3500 IAS officers, which makes our subject a sub-district level civil servant who's been shuffled a few times.
So, let's look at the sources for evidence of WP:GNG. The first one is a list of civil servants which he's in because he's a civil servant. The second one says "rank", "marksheet" (no joke), educational qualification and more, and takes you to a photo montage. The third one says that, a son of a truck driver whose hand was damaged in a childhood accident has become an IAS officer. But it also says he's a great archer who's got a bronze for India in Tokyo Paralympics. But wait, we already have an article on the bronze medal winner from Tokyo Paralymics at Harvinder Singh (archer). One of the sources there is this, which says, the Paralympian's legs stopped working properly in childhood because of a botched dengue treatment. It talks about his work and study which do not match this story. The pictures from this don't match the picture at Harvinder Singh (archer). Source #4 again repeats that Singh hurt his hand in childhood and worked very hard despite repeated failures to finally pass the IAS exam. Working hard and landing a cushy job makes for a human interest story; those stories don't count for notability. The last three sources are about him getting transferred from district to district. It is routine filler. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The subject's distinction from other officers lies in the independent media attention he have garnered from reputable publications like News 18, Times Now, Jansatta and more. This external validation strengthens their claim to notability. I welcome the observations and discussions of fellow editors to maintain Wikipedia's credibility and reach a consensus on this matter. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri ( ✍️) 14:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
NCORP fail. All French sources are advertisements and I was unable to find any other sources in English or French. I can't read Arabic, but a cursory google translate of the titles appears to show a similar pattern. Fermiboson ( talk) 03:13, 4 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. ✗ plicit 03:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Locally-produced PASGT or PASGT-like helmets do exist in Brazil, but I have doubts this "Capacete de Combate Balístico" even exists. As an IP has already pointed out in the talk page, none of the sources use this term. This source on Brazilian Army helmets explains the PASGT was introduced in 1993 and Inbrafiltro produces a similar version made of aramid fiber. Inbra's 2018 catalog doesn't mention a "Capacete de Combate Balístico", it offers PASGT helmets and those are plainly named PASGT helmets. Google shows zero results for "Capacete de Combate Balístico" in eb.mil.br - official Army sources don't use this term at all. This Army source also simply claims the military uses PASGT helmets. This thesis on helmets even states the PASGT is the only helmet, citing a 2008 Army document. No "Capacete de Combate Balístico" in sight. It's possible this was military or commercial jargon rather than a specific product, or "invented" in Wikipedia through misguided original research or just plainly made up. Serraria ( talk) 03:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. (sorry that I didn't see this discussion sooner). Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Should this be moved to draft space? Not nearly ready for prime time in the mainspace. Amigao ( talk) 02:28, 4 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. ✗ plicit 00:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Notability disputed since 2016. fgnievinski ( talk) 00:58, 4 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. ✗ plicit 00:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG. I have been unable to find copies of the linked sources (which, regardless, don't appear to be widely cited or in reputable outlets), and a quoted Google search for "Klaiber's law" returns only the Wikipedia page and other pages scrapied from it. 2dot718 ( talk) 00:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS; WP:RECENT; WP:SUSTAINED. JM ( talk) 00:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)