The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
What with the citation from the dude ranch association, one might have expected someone to have noticed that the narrative in question describes a pair of ranches, not a town. The version of the same story on the ranch's website is essentially the same. The "Espero" post office was on the other ranch and seems likely to have been a 4th class PO. As it stands, there is no evidence that there was a settlement here beyond the ranches, and I do not see the present facility as notable in its own right. Mangoe ( talk) 00:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
A group of vacation homes/cabins/fishing resort that got entered into GNIS and then made it into Wikipedia. Much like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macks Camp, Missouri and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pom-o-sa Heights, Missouri, this is another one of those neighborhoods that have sprung up in the Warsaw area around Truman Lake/Lake of the Ozarks that don't meet WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm Talk 19:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Salvio
giuliano 23:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Could not find any evidence of an actual settlement here. Maps show only a few buildings. – dlthewave ☎ 19:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Salvio
giuliano 23:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
No evidence of a settlement; maps show a few buildings and corrals next to a spring. – dlthewave ☎ 19:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Salvio
giuliano 23:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Routine coverage here doesn't pass WP:GNG. Uhooep ( talk) 22:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Salvio
giuliano 23:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Routine coverage here doesn't pass WP:GNG. Uhooep ( talk) 22:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Salvio
giuliano 23:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete unless further sourcing appears. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 15:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Recently created cross-wiki by new users. I admit I'm not familiar with Russian sources, but none of these seem particularly reliable to me (nonamer sites without a ruwiki article).
Ref 1 is the list of "Top 100 most influential Muslims in Russia", where Davlatov is featured in 2 sentences, nowhere near significant coverage. Refs 2 and 3 are from Eksmo, a publishing house he works with. Ref 4 is an interview with the entry piece being overly promotional. Ref 5 is another interview. This one has "Партнерский материал" at the bottom, meaning affiliated material. Likely another promo piece. Ref 6 is from SAMO which he founded. Ref 7 is from a magazine, which you have to subscribe to if you want to read. This brochure is available on their website, which is the film poster of a movie about himself, so probably just advertising given the logos on it. Ref 8 is about the aforementioned film, which he is greatly involved in. Likely promo as well given everything. The entire thing is on YouTube with 500 views btw. Refs 9 and 10 are from a book selling site that sells his two books. Refs 11 and 12 are about a school he funded, nothing about him in particular so not SIGCOV.
Given that there are no reliable, independent and significant sources about the subject, and that this is likely self-promotion just like the sources, I believe this person does not pass the GNG and is not notable. ~Styyx Talk? 22:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
I find no sources beyond spam-bait sites. No coverage in RS for this lawyer. Oaktree b ( talk) 22:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Community Unit School District 300. Liz Read! Talk! 21:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
This was originally deleted in 2007 as having no evidence of notability. At that time it was over 6000 characters in length. The present article could not be said to be a 're-creation' of the original as it is a small snippet with a single school district reference. As there has been no advance in the support for notability, suggesting this be deleted once more. I did try to redirect to the village article where the school appears in a list; this has been reverted. The article isn't really suitable to speedy deletion, nor would PROD be useful as that would plainly be rejected quickly. Thank you. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 19:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Salvio
giuliano 19:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. No case was made for keeping the article. The argument of Joyous! seems decisive. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 16:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Small subdivision outside of Prescott. Sources do not treat this as a distinct community. – dlthewave ☎ 19:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Salvio
giuliano 19:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The only recommendation for keeping the article was based on sources that turned out not to demonstrate notability of this particular island. Joyous! | Talk 21:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
BEFORE searches did not return any significant coverage for this tiny island; it is only mentioned briefly in passing. Does not seem to be a likely search target for a redirect. – dlthewave ☎ 17:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Salvio
giuliano 19:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Poole. (now that there is a mention at the target article). Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
It's a roundabout. The only references I can find are about road accidents that have happened on it - that can't be enough for the GNG can it? JMWt ( talk) 19:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn, citing WP:HEY. Separate discussions can now take place as to whether the article should be moved to 'Death of Trisha Cee'. (non-admin closure) Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO. WP:NMUSICIAN. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 19:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Seems to be s defunct and non-notable music label. The page hasn't had any references for many years, I can't find anything that would count towards the GNG JMWt ( talk) 19:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
it serves a useful interlinking function between bands– wouldn't a category be able to serve this purpose? small jars
t
c
21:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
t
c
16:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The single "keep" !vote argues rather eloquently that sources will most likely never be found. Randykitty ( talk) 18:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 17:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 18:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
A BLP, supported by database entries (caution when reviewing - NSFW) unreliable sources. Doing a BEFORE was complicated by the existence of a number of famous people of this name, but I didn't find any reliable, independent sources giving significant coverage. Girth Summit (blether) 17:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
All references used in this article are reliable (or at-least have at one point been considered reliable) it firstly uses an article from AVN themselves and the remainder are from the same website used in the Manuel Ferrara page (the internet adult film database) (LaVOZSA)
The result was
WP:SNOW delete. The snow has fallen here.
BD2412
T 06:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Unsuccessful political candidate, notable only as an unsuccessful political candidate. Mccapra ( talk) 16:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 18:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Promotional BLP with inadequate sourcing, moved to draft for improvement but moved back into mainspace without improvement. I don’t think the subject is notable. Mccapra ( talk) 16:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to SV40. Per WP:ATD. Randykitty ( talk) 18:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTDATABASE - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
WP:NOTTEXTBOOK - Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal Hongsy ( talk) 14:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Salvio
giuliano 16:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 16:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 15:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Lack of notabilitywithout even stating what you believe the relevant notability guideline(s) to be is not very helpful. - Ljleppan ( talk) 16:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 15:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Private university with nothing approaching N:ORG level of coverage. Note, besides the usual Times of India concerns, they are the founder of this university, so the coverage therein is also not independent. Star Mississippi 15:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 15:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
No indication this group of private schools is notable. Sourcing is limited to press releases about the parent group and their work, and non reliable directories. Nothing even approaching N:ORG requirements. Star Mississippi 15:02, 19 February 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. Randykitty ( talk) 18:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
I originally started this article, however I now do not believe the depth of coverage here constitutes a "level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements" as required to meet WP:CORP. Uhooep ( talk) 12:47, 19 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 15:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
No independently verifiable references, no search results for any claims made (i.e. winning three awards in 2000), no sources that Ravi Shankar was involved with this. Kazamzam ( talk) 12:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 15:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
PRODded twice, with the second rationale reading:
A completely speculative article predicting a collapse based on cherrypicked sources from over the years and equating a price decline to a bubble. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SYNTH.
— User:2405:201:d002:31a1:b8da:f290:3597:3ba7
The first rationale was:
Article lacks timeline and its references date from 2005 to 2019 - does not meet definition of bubble
— User:Vnomad
There was (and still is) a timeline in the article, but most of the sources that are still accessible do not mention a property bubble or even a collapse in Indian real estate prices, and are instead about random events that "look like" speculation about a property bubble. One source from 2013 discusses a "marginal" decrease — never exceedind 6% on a quarterly basis — in real estate prices in 22 cities in India, whereas there was an increase in 4 others. There is an outdated statement about a predicted collapse in "the next three months" sourced to a 2015 article and another article from 2017. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Salvio
giuliano 10:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:BAND does not work at all, an unremarkable band, from a country where metal is not common at all. There are no sources and references. Crystallizedh, 14:00, ( Talk) — Preceding undated comment added 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was not properly transcluded to the log until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
* Pppery *
it has begun... 05:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Salvio
giuliano 10:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. While there are acknowledged issues with this article, there is a clear consensus to Keep this article and improvements have been made to the article during its nomination period. I realize that it might make a reappearance at a future AFD, but please do not renominate it tomorrow or next week or next month or we will just be closing it with the same result. Liz Read! Talk! 18:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
This list of living people has been unsourced since it was created. When sources are provided, they're to Instagram and other primary and unreliable sources. Lists like these have been swept out of their 'parent' articles, albeit with people complaining that they can can source the list by asking the presenters on Twitter(!), but nobody has ever been able to provide an actual source for the lists. Instead this list is just a weird mix of what people believe to be true, what people would like to be true and whatever vandals would like to insert whenever they feel like.
WP:LISTPEOPLE is clear: Because the subject of many lists is broad, a person is typically included in a list of people only if both of the following requirements are met:
This list contains people who have no article and no claim to notability beyond perhaps (there's no way of knowing, the list is unsourced and apparently unsourceable) having briefly presented at some point; and it fails the second point hard. — Trey Maturin™ 19:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Although there seems to be a consensus to Keep this article, the nominator brings up some valid concerns with this article. While it has been improved over the course of the past week, I want to allow for more discussion on its future. I realize this decision might be questioned but know that a uninvolved admin or editor can close this discussion at any time. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk) 10:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 09:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 09:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Shawn Teller ( talk) 17:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Article is esentially just a list of popculture references. Any actually noteworthy influences or parodies can be discussed on the main franchise article. ★Trekker ( talk) 22:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC) Possibly worth mentioning that the article was created with the comment "Hopefully this will clear the main articles of this rubbish". ★Trekker ( talk) 23:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Regarding a possible Merge, it's worth reading the nominator's second comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 09:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The "delete" opinions are more persuasive. They note that while the peculiar pronouncements of Donald Trump certainly have received ample coverage, the difference between this article and Bushism and Bidenisms is that the latter consist of encyclopedic discussion of these presidents' linguistic foibles, whereas the present article is merely a collection of quotations, which fails WP:NOT. This argument is not substantively addressed by the "keep" side. This outcome does not preclude a recreation of this article in an encyclopedic form. Sandstein 08:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm no fan of Donald Trump, let's be clear about this. But this page is a mish-mash of Trump quotes that are supposed to make him look bad. The lead calls them "unconventional statements" that "may be regarded as unusual" but that's way too vague and subjective to form a list. (The lead also says that "Trumpism" is a play on the word "euphemism" which it clearly is not). In the end, it's OR meant to disparage Trump. Let's take a few examples that show why the list is problematic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 09:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was Consolidate with Dorcopsis (genus). There is consensus that this is redundant to Dorcopsis (genus), but no clear consensus how to resolve this redundancy. I suggest that Elmidae and Plantdrew, who have each proposed methods, come to an agreement with each other on how to proceed. Sandstein 08:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Grouping seems unnecessary. It's not a subfamily or a distinct genus, it's just a way of lumping two related genera together. Does not serve a purpose. Would delete and move the genus Dorcopsis from 'Dorcopsis (genus)' to Dorcopsis. Kazamzam ( talk) 21:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 17:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯
Raydann
(Talk) 22:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No participation since last two relists. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯
Raydann
(Talk) 08:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Future plc. Any sourceable content can be merged from the history. Sandstein 08:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
This (barely) survived AfD back in 2008, but it's had 15 years to improve since then and hasn't; it's still sourced entirely to itself. This wouldn't be a routine deletion—because a lot of Wikipedia articles reference it, outright deletion would leave a huge trail of redlinks—but IMO it should be redirected to Future plc. (This is a topic on which it's very hard to do a viable WP:BEFORE, as any search on it brings up a zillion Wikipedia mirrors, but I can't find any significant coverage of this specific website as opposed to coverage of content hosted on it.) ‑ Iridescent 06:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 07:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Shudder to Think. Liz Read! Talk! 07:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Appears to lack independent notability. I was about ready to bold redirect to Jawbox assuming that to be his most prominent musical role, but after looking closer that isn't quite as clear as I thought. Obviously redirecting is usually preferred (assuming there isn't a keep here that I somehow missed) but I'm not sure any of the potential targets necessarily outweigh each other and so I suspect deletion might be the better option. QuietHere ( talk) 07:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Notable only for the reason for her death, falls under WP:1E. Tube· of· Light 07:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Allegedly an alternative health care practice in Russia. The cited news articles basically say "Putin does it" and do not adequately prove its notability as an established practice. I suggest we merge it to antler perhaps. BorgQueen ( talk) 07:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS. Not a very notable shooting with only three deaths. With the shooter also dead, there is no real possibility of the case being significantly revisited by way of something like a trial. Love of Corey ( talk) 04:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
News of only local note.
I will continue to argue NOTNEWS for editors just here to alarm by clogging en.wiki with every crime with death they find just to claim article creation milestones nobody else cares about and just to be WP:POINTyWP:NOTBATTLEGROUND is that way. I didn't create this article, and your !vote just to spite the people you apparently detest is noted. As to your earlier comments, WP:NTEMP is right there: notability is not temporary. You might want to give WP:GNG another read, because this article easily ticks off every single box there, and we don't delete articles on the basis of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. — Locke Cole • t • c 03:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTPROMOTION MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 02:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
non-notable business, with hardly any coverage in RS. Appears promotional Oaktree b ( talk) 02:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 02:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable businessman. Public speaker, coverage is trivial or mentions of where he's spoken. Non-notable as a musician or any other thing listed. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. Randykitty ( talk) 11:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Zero sources for a person, not even sure what he does. He takes showers and met a girl? Almost appears to be a vanity page. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable streamer with no coverage in RS. No sources used in the article and all I find are blog posts. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable light aircraft accident. This was a light aircraft that departed and disappeared 26 days ago, presumably crashed into the water, with six people on board, all presumed dead by now. There were no notable people on board (ie people with a biography article already on Wikipedia) and there is no indication that this was anything other than just another routine,
WP:RUNOFTHEMILL light aircraft accident, one of thousands of similar accidents that happen globally each year. There is no indication of any
WP:LASTING effects, no likelihood of any fleet grounding,
airworthiness directives, changes to ATC or SAR procedures, or anything else. Just to preemptively address editors who will claim that it is "rare or unusual" because the aircraft has not been found - this is also quite common. Globally tens of thousands of light aircraft have crashed over time and not yet been found. Some will be found in time, many never will, but this does not confer any sort of notability by itself. Fundamentally this article this is just a simple newspaper story and falls afoul of our Wikipedia policy
WP:NOTNEWS, which says Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion
.
Ahunt (
talk) 01:20, 19 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Yet another searching hell, though I did find two different guidebooks referring to it as "a place on the map, not a town". Moving on to the maps and aerials, though, there is a store and a drive-in theater and nothing else. Maps and topos only go back to the fifties, and these are all that are there on the oldest pictures and editions, though of late there is a sprinkling of other business and the like. I can find no evidence for a town, however, at any age. Mangoe ( talk) 00:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
The references here are mostly very poor. Many of them are primary sources or regulatory filings and license approvals related to the company. I do not believe the depth of coverage constitutes a "level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements" as required to meet WP:CORP. Uhooep ( talk) 00:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails notability J2m5 ( talk) 00:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
What with the citation from the dude ranch association, one might have expected someone to have noticed that the narrative in question describes a pair of ranches, not a town. The version of the same story on the ranch's website is essentially the same. The "Espero" post office was on the other ranch and seems likely to have been a 4th class PO. As it stands, there is no evidence that there was a settlement here beyond the ranches, and I do not see the present facility as notable in its own right. Mangoe ( talk) 00:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
A group of vacation homes/cabins/fishing resort that got entered into GNIS and then made it into Wikipedia. Much like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macks Camp, Missouri and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pom-o-sa Heights, Missouri, this is another one of those neighborhoods that have sprung up in the Warsaw area around Truman Lake/Lake of the Ozarks that don't meet WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm Talk 19:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Salvio
giuliano 23:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Could not find any evidence of an actual settlement here. Maps show only a few buildings. – dlthewave ☎ 19:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Salvio
giuliano 23:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
No evidence of a settlement; maps show a few buildings and corrals next to a spring. – dlthewave ☎ 19:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Salvio
giuliano 23:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Routine coverage here doesn't pass WP:GNG. Uhooep ( talk) 22:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Salvio
giuliano 23:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Routine coverage here doesn't pass WP:GNG. Uhooep ( talk) 22:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Salvio
giuliano 23:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete unless further sourcing appears. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 15:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Recently created cross-wiki by new users. I admit I'm not familiar with Russian sources, but none of these seem particularly reliable to me (nonamer sites without a ruwiki article).
Ref 1 is the list of "Top 100 most influential Muslims in Russia", where Davlatov is featured in 2 sentences, nowhere near significant coverage. Refs 2 and 3 are from Eksmo, a publishing house he works with. Ref 4 is an interview with the entry piece being overly promotional. Ref 5 is another interview. This one has "Партнерский материал" at the bottom, meaning affiliated material. Likely another promo piece. Ref 6 is from SAMO which he founded. Ref 7 is from a magazine, which you have to subscribe to if you want to read. This brochure is available on their website, which is the film poster of a movie about himself, so probably just advertising given the logos on it. Ref 8 is about the aforementioned film, which he is greatly involved in. Likely promo as well given everything. The entire thing is on YouTube with 500 views btw. Refs 9 and 10 are from a book selling site that sells his two books. Refs 11 and 12 are about a school he funded, nothing about him in particular so not SIGCOV.
Given that there are no reliable, independent and significant sources about the subject, and that this is likely self-promotion just like the sources, I believe this person does not pass the GNG and is not notable. ~Styyx Talk? 22:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
I find no sources beyond spam-bait sites. No coverage in RS for this lawyer. Oaktree b ( talk) 22:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Community Unit School District 300. Liz Read! Talk! 21:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
This was originally deleted in 2007 as having no evidence of notability. At that time it was over 6000 characters in length. The present article could not be said to be a 're-creation' of the original as it is a small snippet with a single school district reference. As there has been no advance in the support for notability, suggesting this be deleted once more. I did try to redirect to the village article where the school appears in a list; this has been reverted. The article isn't really suitable to speedy deletion, nor would PROD be useful as that would plainly be rejected quickly. Thank you. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 19:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Salvio
giuliano 19:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. No case was made for keeping the article. The argument of Joyous! seems decisive. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 16:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Small subdivision outside of Prescott. Sources do not treat this as a distinct community. – dlthewave ☎ 19:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Salvio
giuliano 19:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The only recommendation for keeping the article was based on sources that turned out not to demonstrate notability of this particular island. Joyous! | Talk 21:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
BEFORE searches did not return any significant coverage for this tiny island; it is only mentioned briefly in passing. Does not seem to be a likely search target for a redirect. – dlthewave ☎ 17:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Salvio
giuliano 19:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Poole. (now that there is a mention at the target article). Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
It's a roundabout. The only references I can find are about road accidents that have happened on it - that can't be enough for the GNG can it? JMWt ( talk) 19:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn, citing WP:HEY. Separate discussions can now take place as to whether the article should be moved to 'Death of Trisha Cee'. (non-admin closure) Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO. WP:NMUSICIAN. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 19:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Seems to be s defunct and non-notable music label. The page hasn't had any references for many years, I can't find anything that would count towards the GNG JMWt ( talk) 19:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
it serves a useful interlinking function between bands– wouldn't a category be able to serve this purpose? small jars
t
c
21:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
t
c
16:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The single "keep" !vote argues rather eloquently that sources will most likely never be found. Randykitty ( talk) 18:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 17:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 18:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
A BLP, supported by database entries (caution when reviewing - NSFW) unreliable sources. Doing a BEFORE was complicated by the existence of a number of famous people of this name, but I didn't find any reliable, independent sources giving significant coverage. Girth Summit (blether) 17:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
All references used in this article are reliable (or at-least have at one point been considered reliable) it firstly uses an article from AVN themselves and the remainder are from the same website used in the Manuel Ferrara page (the internet adult film database) (LaVOZSA)
The result was
WP:SNOW delete. The snow has fallen here.
BD2412
T 06:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Unsuccessful political candidate, notable only as an unsuccessful political candidate. Mccapra ( talk) 16:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 18:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Promotional BLP with inadequate sourcing, moved to draft for improvement but moved back into mainspace without improvement. I don’t think the subject is notable. Mccapra ( talk) 16:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to SV40. Per WP:ATD. Randykitty ( talk) 18:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTDATABASE - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
WP:NOTTEXTBOOK - Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal Hongsy ( talk) 14:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Salvio
giuliano 16:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 16:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 15:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Lack of notabilitywithout even stating what you believe the relevant notability guideline(s) to be is not very helpful. - Ljleppan ( talk) 16:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 15:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Private university with nothing approaching N:ORG level of coverage. Note, besides the usual Times of India concerns, they are the founder of this university, so the coverage therein is also not independent. Star Mississippi 15:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 15:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
No indication this group of private schools is notable. Sourcing is limited to press releases about the parent group and their work, and non reliable directories. Nothing even approaching N:ORG requirements. Star Mississippi 15:02, 19 February 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. Randykitty ( talk) 18:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
I originally started this article, however I now do not believe the depth of coverage here constitutes a "level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements" as required to meet WP:CORP. Uhooep ( talk) 12:47, 19 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 15:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
No independently verifiable references, no search results for any claims made (i.e. winning three awards in 2000), no sources that Ravi Shankar was involved with this. Kazamzam ( talk) 12:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 15:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
PRODded twice, with the second rationale reading:
A completely speculative article predicting a collapse based on cherrypicked sources from over the years and equating a price decline to a bubble. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SYNTH.
— User:2405:201:d002:31a1:b8da:f290:3597:3ba7
The first rationale was:
Article lacks timeline and its references date from 2005 to 2019 - does not meet definition of bubble
— User:Vnomad
There was (and still is) a timeline in the article, but most of the sources that are still accessible do not mention a property bubble or even a collapse in Indian real estate prices, and are instead about random events that "look like" speculation about a property bubble. One source from 2013 discusses a "marginal" decrease — never exceedind 6% on a quarterly basis — in real estate prices in 22 cities in India, whereas there was an increase in 4 others. There is an outdated statement about a predicted collapse in "the next three months" sourced to a 2015 article and another article from 2017. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Salvio
giuliano 10:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:BAND does not work at all, an unremarkable band, from a country where metal is not common at all. There are no sources and references. Crystallizedh, 14:00, ( Talk) — Preceding undated comment added 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was not properly transcluded to the log until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
* Pppery *
it has begun... 05:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Salvio
giuliano 10:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. While there are acknowledged issues with this article, there is a clear consensus to Keep this article and improvements have been made to the article during its nomination period. I realize that it might make a reappearance at a future AFD, but please do not renominate it tomorrow or next week or next month or we will just be closing it with the same result. Liz Read! Talk! 18:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
This list of living people has been unsourced since it was created. When sources are provided, they're to Instagram and other primary and unreliable sources. Lists like these have been swept out of their 'parent' articles, albeit with people complaining that they can can source the list by asking the presenters on Twitter(!), but nobody has ever been able to provide an actual source for the lists. Instead this list is just a weird mix of what people believe to be true, what people would like to be true and whatever vandals would like to insert whenever they feel like.
WP:LISTPEOPLE is clear: Because the subject of many lists is broad, a person is typically included in a list of people only if both of the following requirements are met:
This list contains people who have no article and no claim to notability beyond perhaps (there's no way of knowing, the list is unsourced and apparently unsourceable) having briefly presented at some point; and it fails the second point hard. — Trey Maturin™ 19:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Although there seems to be a consensus to Keep this article, the nominator brings up some valid concerns with this article. While it has been improved over the course of the past week, I want to allow for more discussion on its future. I realize this decision might be questioned but know that a uninvolved admin or editor can close this discussion at any time. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk) 10:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 09:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 09:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Shawn Teller ( talk) 17:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Article is esentially just a list of popculture references. Any actually noteworthy influences or parodies can be discussed on the main franchise article. ★Trekker ( talk) 22:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC) Possibly worth mentioning that the article was created with the comment "Hopefully this will clear the main articles of this rubbish". ★Trekker ( talk) 23:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Regarding a possible Merge, it's worth reading the nominator's second comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 09:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The "delete" opinions are more persuasive. They note that while the peculiar pronouncements of Donald Trump certainly have received ample coverage, the difference between this article and Bushism and Bidenisms is that the latter consist of encyclopedic discussion of these presidents' linguistic foibles, whereas the present article is merely a collection of quotations, which fails WP:NOT. This argument is not substantively addressed by the "keep" side. This outcome does not preclude a recreation of this article in an encyclopedic form. Sandstein 08:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm no fan of Donald Trump, let's be clear about this. But this page is a mish-mash of Trump quotes that are supposed to make him look bad. The lead calls them "unconventional statements" that "may be regarded as unusual" but that's way too vague and subjective to form a list. (The lead also says that "Trumpism" is a play on the word "euphemism" which it clearly is not). In the end, it's OR meant to disparage Trump. Let's take a few examples that show why the list is problematic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 09:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was Consolidate with Dorcopsis (genus). There is consensus that this is redundant to Dorcopsis (genus), but no clear consensus how to resolve this redundancy. I suggest that Elmidae and Plantdrew, who have each proposed methods, come to an agreement with each other on how to proceed. Sandstein 08:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Grouping seems unnecessary. It's not a subfamily or a distinct genus, it's just a way of lumping two related genera together. Does not serve a purpose. Would delete and move the genus Dorcopsis from 'Dorcopsis (genus)' to Dorcopsis. Kazamzam ( talk) 21:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 17:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯
Raydann
(Talk) 22:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No participation since last two relists. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯
Raydann
(Talk) 08:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Future plc. Any sourceable content can be merged from the history. Sandstein 08:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
This (barely) survived AfD back in 2008, but it's had 15 years to improve since then and hasn't; it's still sourced entirely to itself. This wouldn't be a routine deletion—because a lot of Wikipedia articles reference it, outright deletion would leave a huge trail of redlinks—but IMO it should be redirected to Future plc. (This is a topic on which it's very hard to do a viable WP:BEFORE, as any search on it brings up a zillion Wikipedia mirrors, but I can't find any significant coverage of this specific website as opposed to coverage of content hosted on it.) ‑ Iridescent 06:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 07:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Shudder to Think. Liz Read! Talk! 07:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Appears to lack independent notability. I was about ready to bold redirect to Jawbox assuming that to be his most prominent musical role, but after looking closer that isn't quite as clear as I thought. Obviously redirecting is usually preferred (assuming there isn't a keep here that I somehow missed) but I'm not sure any of the potential targets necessarily outweigh each other and so I suspect deletion might be the better option. QuietHere ( talk) 07:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Notable only for the reason for her death, falls under WP:1E. Tube· of· Light 07:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Allegedly an alternative health care practice in Russia. The cited news articles basically say "Putin does it" and do not adequately prove its notability as an established practice. I suggest we merge it to antler perhaps. BorgQueen ( talk) 07:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS. Not a very notable shooting with only three deaths. With the shooter also dead, there is no real possibility of the case being significantly revisited by way of something like a trial. Love of Corey ( talk) 04:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
News of only local note.
I will continue to argue NOTNEWS for editors just here to alarm by clogging en.wiki with every crime with death they find just to claim article creation milestones nobody else cares about and just to be WP:POINTyWP:NOTBATTLEGROUND is that way. I didn't create this article, and your !vote just to spite the people you apparently detest is noted. As to your earlier comments, WP:NTEMP is right there: notability is not temporary. You might want to give WP:GNG another read, because this article easily ticks off every single box there, and we don't delete articles on the basis of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. — Locke Cole • t • c 03:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTPROMOTION MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 02:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
non-notable business, with hardly any coverage in RS. Appears promotional Oaktree b ( talk) 02:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 02:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable businessman. Public speaker, coverage is trivial or mentions of where he's spoken. Non-notable as a musician or any other thing listed. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. Randykitty ( talk) 11:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Zero sources for a person, not even sure what he does. He takes showers and met a girl? Almost appears to be a vanity page. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable streamer with no coverage in RS. No sources used in the article and all I find are blog posts. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable light aircraft accident. This was a light aircraft that departed and disappeared 26 days ago, presumably crashed into the water, with six people on board, all presumed dead by now. There were no notable people on board (ie people with a biography article already on Wikipedia) and there is no indication that this was anything other than just another routine,
WP:RUNOFTHEMILL light aircraft accident, one of thousands of similar accidents that happen globally each year. There is no indication of any
WP:LASTING effects, no likelihood of any fleet grounding,
airworthiness directives, changes to ATC or SAR procedures, or anything else. Just to preemptively address editors who will claim that it is "rare or unusual" because the aircraft has not been found - this is also quite common. Globally tens of thousands of light aircraft have crashed over time and not yet been found. Some will be found in time, many never will, but this does not confer any sort of notability by itself. Fundamentally this article this is just a simple newspaper story and falls afoul of our Wikipedia policy
WP:NOTNEWS, which says Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion
.
Ahunt (
talk) 01:20, 19 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Yet another searching hell, though I did find two different guidebooks referring to it as "a place on the map, not a town". Moving on to the maps and aerials, though, there is a store and a drive-in theater and nothing else. Maps and topos only go back to the fifties, and these are all that are there on the oldest pictures and editions, though of late there is a sprinkling of other business and the like. I can find no evidence for a town, however, at any age. Mangoe ( talk) 00:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
The references here are mostly very poor. Many of them are primary sources or regulatory filings and license approvals related to the company. I do not believe the depth of coverage constitutes a "level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements" as required to meet WP:CORP. Uhooep ( talk) 00:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails notability J2m5 ( talk) 00:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)