The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Came across this article, at first it boggled me as to what it is about. I *think* it is a list of French-only leaders of the Tour de France segment/day which happens to occur on 14 July. If so, it would be an WP:INDISCRIMINATE unsourced list article. I do not easily see any other lists of segment winners of other nationalities/dates. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I *think* it is a list of French-only leaders of the Tour de France segment/day which happens to occur on 14 July.FYI, this is incorrect, as it's a list of French people who win the stage of the Tour de France held on 14 July (not who are in race lead/yellow jersey that day). Warren Barguil winning on 14 July 2017 is definitely mentioned every Bastille Day since on commentary, and will look for sources about the list of people as a whole. The stats up until 2008 are verifiable [1] (though this source doesn't really prove notability, as it's a stats site). One paragraph about last 2 French winners on Bastille: [2]. Will keep looking when I get more time, but leaning towards delete. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:01, 3 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! 22:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable author and roller blader. Seems like he has a few published books, and may have some influence in the inline skating industry, but nothing notable. Article was created by an SPA. Natg 19 ( talk) 23:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Comcast#Sky Group. You might also consider Sky Group as a Merge target. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Unlaunched network, not enough detail to provide lasting notability. Can be covered on articles of related divisions instead. ViperSnake151 Talk 23:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. I couldn't find any coverage of him in secondary sources. The article only cites a few interviews (which are primary sources), IMDB (not a reliable source) and a couple of dead links. Since it is impossible to write a quality article without secondary sources, and Wikipedia's guidelines require significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to be considered notable, the article should be deleted. Baronet13 ( talk) 22:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 21:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Reads like a CV; no evidence of meeting WP:PROF, no WP:SIGCOV about the subject, mostly just a bibliography. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 22:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to elict a little more examination of this article and article subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Editors free to redirect if desired. Daniel ( talk) 21:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND UPE. Routine funding, investment news, PR, press-releases. Fails WP:SIRS scope_creep Talk 20:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
source review
|
---|
|
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I proposed this article for deletion with the reason "The only article about Murad Jah says nothing about his princely role or his family. And in articles about the family, he is mentioned just once. He isn't notable, and hasn't received attention as the heir to a long-abolished state.". Since then, two articles about the succession were added as sources: [4] and [5]. Neither of them even mentions Murad Jah, making the case for deletion only stronger. Fram ( talk) 13:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk) 14:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 20:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Shoaib Mansoor. Liz Read! Talk! 07:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable production company, fails WP:COMPANY, WP:ORGDEPTH. Just a directory of films produced by the company, wouldn't make it notable. Since its 1st nomination (in 2018, result was no consensus) no significant history is showing in refs rather than addition of film in the list. M.Ashraf333 ( talk) 15:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 20:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. If there's a bigger conversation desired about this type of article, it should be had in a centralised location. Daniel ( talk) 21:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
In my opinion this is simply repeating content on Republic of the Congo and Index of Republic of the Congo–related articles and appears to be a form of WP:CONTENTFORK. Whilst I can see the value in having various ways to navigate content, I'm struggling to see why this particular type of content needs to be kept. It seems to me that this page could be deleted without any resulting loss of content or reduced navigability through relevant pages. JMWt ( talk) 19:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 20:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 21:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Any Sport in a Storm is not a notable The Owl House episode. If this exists, you can claim that every episode that can be backed up by 4 sources should have an article. 🍁🏳️🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️🌈 🍁 ( talk) 00:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 00:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱 20:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 20:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NOTESAL. Wikipedia not a listing of (current) compatible devices with a streaming service.
I am also nominating the below two articles for the same reason and notifying their creators manually.
The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 20:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Can't find anything towards WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I searched in Google News and did a Bulgarian source search too. Cherno More is a match report mention, stating that he scored from a free kick and nothing more. Sportal has a very brief transfer announcement. Varna24 mentions him getting an assist and Dsport mentions him as one of 3 players getting released. All of this is trivial coverage. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:44, 2 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. Daniel ( talk) 21:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
fails WP:SIGCOV. When I created this article I thought that describing a new taxon to the world, makes you automatically notable for Wikipedia (for Wikispecies it makes you automatically notable). But I was wrong. Estopedist1 ( talk) 19:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 20:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I can't see any evidence of WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Previously deleted at Umanath Singh and this is now the 2nd AfD under this title. Article creator contested the WP:G4 speedy delete.
The only source on him is Indian Rajputs, which states that he was born, went to university, got married and then later died. No indication of notability. I've searched Google Books and ProQuest and can't find anything. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:33, 2 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. Daniel ( talk) 21:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
This article only really exists because an article about the more famous GRO J1719-24 was mistakenly created with this name. Other than the flurry of discovery reports, there is virtually no research dedicated to this object and it seems destined to be forever a tiny stub. Lithopsian ( talk) 18:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 20:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Unnotable subject, mostly primary sources and original research. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 13:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the "keep" argument is particularly weak here, the presence of it means we need more input to establish a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 17:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
*Keep I think we should keep it. As I said before about leaving it unconditionally.
QRNKS (
talk) 18:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment. Little coverage of the English language, today prolonged not a lot of time searching for sources, on the remark, dalneesh should finalize this article. Preferably mine will be so although I am a newbie, admin leave this article. PeterHaris ( talk) 18:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 04:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
No WP:SIGCOV could be found; fails WP:GNG. Appears to lack legal recognition, fails WP:GEOLAND.
Standalone article not warranted under WP:PAGEDECIDE; duplicates content at Petrich Municipality. I propose redirecting to that article. BilledMammal ( talk) 17:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
What indicates it lacks legal recognition?We don't have a source showing that it has legal recognition - and even if we did, WP:GEOLAND only grants a presumption of notability, not a guarantee of it, and WP:PAGEDECIDE can mean we shouldn't have an article even if the topic is notable. BilledMammal ( talk) 11:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
duplicates content at Petrich Municipality: that was true for only a few hours yesterday, and only because you had just coped that content there [6]. – Uanfala ( talk) 11:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
The source you have provided is a census report: this is incorrect.
[I]f you want to restore yours please remove the information from both articles: I would love to be able to update all village articles in this province, but I don't have the time. And I don't think my improvement in one article should be made conditional on making the same improvement in another. – Uanfala ( talk) 11:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
this is incorrectIt is from the national statistics units, and is a register of populations. I believe I am incorrect about it being from the census - it is from 2003, and there was no census conducted in that year - but it still appears to be statistical information and not an indication of legal recognition.
And I don't think my improvement in one article should be made conditional on making the same improvement in another.It isn't. But you cannot use your failure to argue that because Dolene contains the information that you removed as unreliable from Petrich Municipality it cannot be deleted under WP:PAGEDECIDE. BilledMammal ( talk) 12:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 19:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
No WP:SIGCOV could be found; fails WP:GNG. Appears to lack legal recognition, fails WP:GEOLAND.
Standalone article not warranted under WP:PAGEDECIDE; duplicates content at Petrich Municipality. I propose redirecting to that article. BilledMammal ( talk) 17:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment:I agree with you because there is not much written on it, and I am not in the mood in expanding it myself as well, but I found this rather official looking source of the National Register of Populated places from Bulgaria. I believe then the Wikipedia rules say it should be kept. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 01:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 20:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:NOTNEWS. Per the WP:EVENT guideline, notability for this event is not supported by the sensational coverage. Per WP:EVENTCRIT, there appears to be no in-depth support for an effect and significant or widespread impact to support notability. There are also WP:BLP policy issues, including WP:BLPCRIME, that appear to add further support for deletion. Beccaynr ( talk) 17:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 21:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
This is one of several AfDs I have now read where virtually identical !votes have been posted by multiple parties that leave the discussion evenly divided. Those advocating deletion correctly argue that NLIST needs to be met; those arguing to keep correctly argue that discographies of notable artists have generally been treated as notable, and that individual items don't have to be notable for a list to have a Wikipedia article, so NMUSIC is generally not relevant. I don't see how repeating this discussion any number of times is a productive exercise; we clearly need to have a wider discussion about what criteria we use to evaluate the notability of such discographies, and probably use a few bundled nominations to make the discussion more efficient. As such I'm closing those nominations in today's log that are clearly divided on this basis with this identical statement, which seems fitting given the identical discussions. Vanamonde ( Talk) 22:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Vanamonde (
Talk) 16:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 21:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
This is one of several AfDs I have now read where virtually identical !votes have been posted by multiple parties that leave the discussion evenly divided. Those advocating deletion correctly argue that NLIST needs to be met; those arguing to keep correctly argue that discographies of notable artists have generally been treated as notable, and that individual items don't have to be notable for a list to have a Wikipedia article, so NMUSIC is generally not relevant. I don't see how repeating this discussion any number of times is a productive exercise; we clearly need to have a wider discussion about what criteria we use to evaluate the notability of such discographies, and probably use a few bundled nominations to make the discussion more efficient. As such I'm closing those nominations in today's log that are clearly divided on this basis with this identical statement, which seems fitting given the identical discussions. Vanamonde ( Talk) 22:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See comment above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Vanamonde (
Talk) 16:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
This is one of several AfDs I have now read where virtually identical !votes have been posted by multiple parties that leave the discussion evenly divided. Those advocating deletion correctly argue that NLIST needs to be met; those arguing to keep correctly argue that discographies of notable artists have generally been treated as notable, and that individual items don't have to be notable for a list to have a Wikipedia article, so NMUSIC is generally not relevant. I don't see how repeating this discussion any number of times is a productive exercise; we clearly need to have a wider discussion about what criteria we use to evaluate the notability of such discographies, and probably use a few bundled nominations to make the discussion more efficient. As such I'm closing those nominations in today's log that are clearly divided on this basis with this identical statement, which seems fitting given the identical discussions. Vanamonde ( Talk) 22:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See statement above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Vanamonde (
Talk) 16:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Mussoorie. Joyous! | Talk 16:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:Notability. Usually, only the articles of large cities with a Municipal Corporation are created. There are hundreds of Municipal Councils of small towns which are too small to be notable enough to have an exclusive Wikipedia article. — Hemant Dabral ( 📞 • ✒) 16:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 15:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Article about former footballer who played just one match in the Mexican top division, and which comprehensively fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. The only online coverage is entries in statistical databases; there is no significant coverage available at all. Jogurney ( talk) 15:43, 2 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) 16:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Kadı Message 15:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 15:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Sources are all non WP:RS. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 15:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Article about former footballer who played just two matches in the Mexican top division, and which comprehensively fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. The only online coverage is entries in statistical databases; there is no significant coverage available at all. Jogurney ( talk) 14:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 15:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
The problem is notability (tagged since 2011). The refs in the article are WP:ROUTINE coverage, and so is most of what can be found online.
I could find this seemingly-usable source. It has "opinion" in the URL, but it is a news piece with a byline; there is nothing egregious in the site’s "about" page and it is not listed at WP:RSP. Notwithstanding that, WP:GNG requires multiple sources, so one will not cut it. Tigraan Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 12:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
There are no evidence of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. R E A D I N G Talk to the Beans? 08:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously closed by
Liz as "delete". Reopening per
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 January 24 in order to gather more opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
King of ♥
♦
♣
♠ 10:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 15:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I found no reliable secondary source about this person. The subjects clearly does not meet WP:GNG. Therefore, I propose deletion. Veverve ( talk) 10:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
an Australian newspaper, which is odd for an American cleric and suggests greater notability than the article currently shows: this is pure speculation; the person can have moved to Australia, and you have no source stating he was American or a cleric. Wikipedia operates with actual nnotability, not potential
suggest[ed] greater notability; if a subject is notable then you should be able to prove it is by showing centered reliable independent sources on said subject ( WP:BIO, WP:GNG). Feel free to WP:HEYMANN things if you can. Veverve ( talk) 03:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
This was prodded last year for "Fails WP:NSEASONS. Also per WP:NOTDATABASE.", but deprodded without explanation or improvements. The article is in a sorry state since its creation in 2011, created by a long-blocked sockpuppeteer, sourced to a generic page for the league (so basically unsourced), for a second division team without anything tremarkable in this season. Even if we would want an article for this club season, very little is lost by getting rid of this version. Fram ( talk) 09:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. References fail verification and are all fraudulent copyright violations. For example, The First Magazine is a copyvio of a Fab World Today article (blacklisted) and The Guardian Fox is a copyvio of an Open The News article (blacklisted as well). Also, all of these sites with the poorly written copied and pasted content seem to be all Wordpress blogs with either missing or blank About Us sections, which is a huge red flag. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. It also looks like there has been a lot of improvement to the article over this AFD discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Pay-TV show doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - lacks in-depth coverage in non- WP:ROUTINE sources MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 07:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Cheesecake. Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Lack of notability - this article mentions a cake that combines two flavors, and notes barely more than its existence. This would make an alright redirect/section on Cheesecake, but it is not necessary to have a separate article. Cf. discussion on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pineapple_cheesecake. RudolfSchreier ( talk) 15:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Linguist111 (
talk) 05:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is further support for a Merge or Redirect of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Of note is that two of the delete !votes come across as based solely upon personal opinion, as the topic being too trivial in nature. However, notability guidelines do not extend to cover such subjective opinions. Some sources were presented, but afterward, not much analysis occurred here about them other than some minor commentary. North America 1000 07:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I do not believe this organization has received significant coverage from independent sources. I found some websites that make a trivial mention about some of the history. EvilxFish ( talk) 07:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 07:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Delete. As said above, this is way too trivial. I'm amazed that it has been on Wikipedia since 2009. Athel cb ( talk) 09:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26 (
spin me /
revolutions) 04:18, 2 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! 05:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't seem notable. While the company he worked for is notable, there is nearly no coverage about him from secondary, reliable sources. OceanHok ( talk) 03:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 04:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. I could not find a single independent source that mentions this program. Novemberjazz 03:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep (non-admin closure) Frank Anchor 03:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Obscure college arena, no controversy or scandal; "article" is mostly a listing of who had a concert there or every time the Globetrotters' game is announced in the local newspaper (I already took out the item-by-item fancruft about pro wrestling, with what "star" appeared which time). I would say the same if my college's arena didn't have any substantial sources in the article about it. Orange Mike | Talk 02:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:BLP with no effective reference. UPE article. What refs are there are interviews+lots company stuff. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO scope_creep Talk 00:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 04:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
This article can not possibly have reliable sources, as it is a scorecard for whether a religion is right or not. Currently all sources are primary sources, with their authors creating new claims for why a prophecy was or was not fulfilled. One man, Richard Abanes, is cited for most of the prophecies as the only 'against' voice, while one group (FAIRMormon) is most of the 'for' voices.
This is not an appropriate topic for Wikipedia. It would be like having an article called Catholicism vs Protestantism that was just a list of issues with a checkmark on which group was right. Brirush ( talk) 00:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 00:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Was previous deleted as failing WP:SIGCOV. I denied G4 because it is significantly changed since the deleted version. UtherSRG (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Came across this article, at first it boggled me as to what it is about. I *think* it is a list of French-only leaders of the Tour de France segment/day which happens to occur on 14 July. If so, it would be an WP:INDISCRIMINATE unsourced list article. I do not easily see any other lists of segment winners of other nationalities/dates. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I *think* it is a list of French-only leaders of the Tour de France segment/day which happens to occur on 14 July.FYI, this is incorrect, as it's a list of French people who win the stage of the Tour de France held on 14 July (not who are in race lead/yellow jersey that day). Warren Barguil winning on 14 July 2017 is definitely mentioned every Bastille Day since on commentary, and will look for sources about the list of people as a whole. The stats up until 2008 are verifiable [1] (though this source doesn't really prove notability, as it's a stats site). One paragraph about last 2 French winners on Bastille: [2]. Will keep looking when I get more time, but leaning towards delete. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:01, 3 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! 22:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable author and roller blader. Seems like he has a few published books, and may have some influence in the inline skating industry, but nothing notable. Article was created by an SPA. Natg 19 ( talk) 23:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Comcast#Sky Group. You might also consider Sky Group as a Merge target. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Unlaunched network, not enough detail to provide lasting notability. Can be covered on articles of related divisions instead. ViperSnake151 Talk 23:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. I couldn't find any coverage of him in secondary sources. The article only cites a few interviews (which are primary sources), IMDB (not a reliable source) and a couple of dead links. Since it is impossible to write a quality article without secondary sources, and Wikipedia's guidelines require significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to be considered notable, the article should be deleted. Baronet13 ( talk) 22:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 21:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Reads like a CV; no evidence of meeting WP:PROF, no WP:SIGCOV about the subject, mostly just a bibliography. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 22:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to elict a little more examination of this article and article subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Editors free to redirect if desired. Daniel ( talk) 21:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND UPE. Routine funding, investment news, PR, press-releases. Fails WP:SIRS scope_creep Talk 20:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
source review
|
---|
|
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I proposed this article for deletion with the reason "The only article about Murad Jah says nothing about his princely role or his family. And in articles about the family, he is mentioned just once. He isn't notable, and hasn't received attention as the heir to a long-abolished state.". Since then, two articles about the succession were added as sources: [4] and [5]. Neither of them even mentions Murad Jah, making the case for deletion only stronger. Fram ( talk) 13:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk) 14:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 20:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Shoaib Mansoor. Liz Read! Talk! 07:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable production company, fails WP:COMPANY, WP:ORGDEPTH. Just a directory of films produced by the company, wouldn't make it notable. Since its 1st nomination (in 2018, result was no consensus) no significant history is showing in refs rather than addition of film in the list. M.Ashraf333 ( talk) 15:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 20:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. If there's a bigger conversation desired about this type of article, it should be had in a centralised location. Daniel ( talk) 21:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
In my opinion this is simply repeating content on Republic of the Congo and Index of Republic of the Congo–related articles and appears to be a form of WP:CONTENTFORK. Whilst I can see the value in having various ways to navigate content, I'm struggling to see why this particular type of content needs to be kept. It seems to me that this page could be deleted without any resulting loss of content or reduced navigability through relevant pages. JMWt ( talk) 19:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 20:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 21:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Any Sport in a Storm is not a notable The Owl House episode. If this exists, you can claim that every episode that can be backed up by 4 sources should have an article. 🍁🏳️🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️🌈 🍁 ( talk) 00:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 00:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱 20:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 20:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NOTESAL. Wikipedia not a listing of (current) compatible devices with a streaming service.
I am also nominating the below two articles for the same reason and notifying their creators manually.
The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 20:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Can't find anything towards WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I searched in Google News and did a Bulgarian source search too. Cherno More is a match report mention, stating that he scored from a free kick and nothing more. Sportal has a very brief transfer announcement. Varna24 mentions him getting an assist and Dsport mentions him as one of 3 players getting released. All of this is trivial coverage. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:44, 2 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. Daniel ( talk) 21:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
fails WP:SIGCOV. When I created this article I thought that describing a new taxon to the world, makes you automatically notable for Wikipedia (for Wikispecies it makes you automatically notable). But I was wrong. Estopedist1 ( talk) 19:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 20:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I can't see any evidence of WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Previously deleted at Umanath Singh and this is now the 2nd AfD under this title. Article creator contested the WP:G4 speedy delete.
The only source on him is Indian Rajputs, which states that he was born, went to university, got married and then later died. No indication of notability. I've searched Google Books and ProQuest and can't find anything. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:33, 2 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. Daniel ( talk) 21:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
This article only really exists because an article about the more famous GRO J1719-24 was mistakenly created with this name. Other than the flurry of discovery reports, there is virtually no research dedicated to this object and it seems destined to be forever a tiny stub. Lithopsian ( talk) 18:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 20:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Unnotable subject, mostly primary sources and original research. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 13:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the "keep" argument is particularly weak here, the presence of it means we need more input to establish a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 17:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
*Keep I think we should keep it. As I said before about leaving it unconditionally.
QRNKS (
talk) 18:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment. Little coverage of the English language, today prolonged not a lot of time searching for sources, on the remark, dalneesh should finalize this article. Preferably mine will be so although I am a newbie, admin leave this article. PeterHaris ( talk) 18:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 04:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
No WP:SIGCOV could be found; fails WP:GNG. Appears to lack legal recognition, fails WP:GEOLAND.
Standalone article not warranted under WP:PAGEDECIDE; duplicates content at Petrich Municipality. I propose redirecting to that article. BilledMammal ( talk) 17:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
What indicates it lacks legal recognition?We don't have a source showing that it has legal recognition - and even if we did, WP:GEOLAND only grants a presumption of notability, not a guarantee of it, and WP:PAGEDECIDE can mean we shouldn't have an article even if the topic is notable. BilledMammal ( talk) 11:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
duplicates content at Petrich Municipality: that was true for only a few hours yesterday, and only because you had just coped that content there [6]. – Uanfala ( talk) 11:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
The source you have provided is a census report: this is incorrect.
[I]f you want to restore yours please remove the information from both articles: I would love to be able to update all village articles in this province, but I don't have the time. And I don't think my improvement in one article should be made conditional on making the same improvement in another. – Uanfala ( talk) 11:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
this is incorrectIt is from the national statistics units, and is a register of populations. I believe I am incorrect about it being from the census - it is from 2003, and there was no census conducted in that year - but it still appears to be statistical information and not an indication of legal recognition.
And I don't think my improvement in one article should be made conditional on making the same improvement in another.It isn't. But you cannot use your failure to argue that because Dolene contains the information that you removed as unreliable from Petrich Municipality it cannot be deleted under WP:PAGEDECIDE. BilledMammal ( talk) 12:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 19:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
No WP:SIGCOV could be found; fails WP:GNG. Appears to lack legal recognition, fails WP:GEOLAND.
Standalone article not warranted under WP:PAGEDECIDE; duplicates content at Petrich Municipality. I propose redirecting to that article. BilledMammal ( talk) 17:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment:I agree with you because there is not much written on it, and I am not in the mood in expanding it myself as well, but I found this rather official looking source of the National Register of Populated places from Bulgaria. I believe then the Wikipedia rules say it should be kept. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 01:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 20:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:NOTNEWS. Per the WP:EVENT guideline, notability for this event is not supported by the sensational coverage. Per WP:EVENTCRIT, there appears to be no in-depth support for an effect and significant or widespread impact to support notability. There are also WP:BLP policy issues, including WP:BLPCRIME, that appear to add further support for deletion. Beccaynr ( talk) 17:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 21:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
This is one of several AfDs I have now read where virtually identical !votes have been posted by multiple parties that leave the discussion evenly divided. Those advocating deletion correctly argue that NLIST needs to be met; those arguing to keep correctly argue that discographies of notable artists have generally been treated as notable, and that individual items don't have to be notable for a list to have a Wikipedia article, so NMUSIC is generally not relevant. I don't see how repeating this discussion any number of times is a productive exercise; we clearly need to have a wider discussion about what criteria we use to evaluate the notability of such discographies, and probably use a few bundled nominations to make the discussion more efficient. As such I'm closing those nominations in today's log that are clearly divided on this basis with this identical statement, which seems fitting given the identical discussions. Vanamonde ( Talk) 22:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Vanamonde (
Talk) 16:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 21:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
This is one of several AfDs I have now read where virtually identical !votes have been posted by multiple parties that leave the discussion evenly divided. Those advocating deletion correctly argue that NLIST needs to be met; those arguing to keep correctly argue that discographies of notable artists have generally been treated as notable, and that individual items don't have to be notable for a list to have a Wikipedia article, so NMUSIC is generally not relevant. I don't see how repeating this discussion any number of times is a productive exercise; we clearly need to have a wider discussion about what criteria we use to evaluate the notability of such discographies, and probably use a few bundled nominations to make the discussion more efficient. As such I'm closing those nominations in today's log that are clearly divided on this basis with this identical statement, which seems fitting given the identical discussions. Vanamonde ( Talk) 22:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See comment above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Vanamonde (
Talk) 16:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
This is one of several AfDs I have now read where virtually identical !votes have been posted by multiple parties that leave the discussion evenly divided. Those advocating deletion correctly argue that NLIST needs to be met; those arguing to keep correctly argue that discographies of notable artists have generally been treated as notable, and that individual items don't have to be notable for a list to have a Wikipedia article, so NMUSIC is generally not relevant. I don't see how repeating this discussion any number of times is a productive exercise; we clearly need to have a wider discussion about what criteria we use to evaluate the notability of such discographies, and probably use a few bundled nominations to make the discussion more efficient. As such I'm closing those nominations in today's log that are clearly divided on this basis with this identical statement, which seems fitting given the identical discussions. Vanamonde ( Talk) 22:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See statement above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Vanamonde (
Talk) 16:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Mussoorie. Joyous! | Talk 16:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:Notability. Usually, only the articles of large cities with a Municipal Corporation are created. There are hundreds of Municipal Councils of small towns which are too small to be notable enough to have an exclusive Wikipedia article. — Hemant Dabral ( 📞 • ✒) 16:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 15:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Article about former footballer who played just one match in the Mexican top division, and which comprehensively fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. The only online coverage is entries in statistical databases; there is no significant coverage available at all. Jogurney ( talk) 15:43, 2 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) 16:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Kadı Message 15:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 15:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Sources are all non WP:RS. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 15:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Article about former footballer who played just two matches in the Mexican top division, and which comprehensively fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. The only online coverage is entries in statistical databases; there is no significant coverage available at all. Jogurney ( talk) 14:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 15:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
The problem is notability (tagged since 2011). The refs in the article are WP:ROUTINE coverage, and so is most of what can be found online.
I could find this seemingly-usable source. It has "opinion" in the URL, but it is a news piece with a byline; there is nothing egregious in the site’s "about" page and it is not listed at WP:RSP. Notwithstanding that, WP:GNG requires multiple sources, so one will not cut it. Tigraan Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 12:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
There are no evidence of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. R E A D I N G Talk to the Beans? 08:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously closed by
Liz as "delete". Reopening per
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 January 24 in order to gather more opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
King of ♥
♦
♣
♠ 10:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 15:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I found no reliable secondary source about this person. The subjects clearly does not meet WP:GNG. Therefore, I propose deletion. Veverve ( talk) 10:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
an Australian newspaper, which is odd for an American cleric and suggests greater notability than the article currently shows: this is pure speculation; the person can have moved to Australia, and you have no source stating he was American or a cleric. Wikipedia operates with actual nnotability, not potential
suggest[ed] greater notability; if a subject is notable then you should be able to prove it is by showing centered reliable independent sources on said subject ( WP:BIO, WP:GNG). Feel free to WP:HEYMANN things if you can. Veverve ( talk) 03:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
This was prodded last year for "Fails WP:NSEASONS. Also per WP:NOTDATABASE.", but deprodded without explanation or improvements. The article is in a sorry state since its creation in 2011, created by a long-blocked sockpuppeteer, sourced to a generic page for the league (so basically unsourced), for a second division team without anything tremarkable in this season. Even if we would want an article for this club season, very little is lost by getting rid of this version. Fram ( talk) 09:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. References fail verification and are all fraudulent copyright violations. For example, The First Magazine is a copyvio of a Fab World Today article (blacklisted) and The Guardian Fox is a copyvio of an Open The News article (blacklisted as well). Also, all of these sites with the poorly written copied and pasted content seem to be all Wordpress blogs with either missing or blank About Us sections, which is a huge red flag. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. It also looks like there has been a lot of improvement to the article over this AFD discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Pay-TV show doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - lacks in-depth coverage in non- WP:ROUTINE sources MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 07:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Cheesecake. Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Lack of notability - this article mentions a cake that combines two flavors, and notes barely more than its existence. This would make an alright redirect/section on Cheesecake, but it is not necessary to have a separate article. Cf. discussion on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pineapple_cheesecake. RudolfSchreier ( talk) 15:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Linguist111 (
talk) 05:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is further support for a Merge or Redirect of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Of note is that two of the delete !votes come across as based solely upon personal opinion, as the topic being too trivial in nature. However, notability guidelines do not extend to cover such subjective opinions. Some sources were presented, but afterward, not much analysis occurred here about them other than some minor commentary. North America 1000 07:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I do not believe this organization has received significant coverage from independent sources. I found some websites that make a trivial mention about some of the history. EvilxFish ( talk) 07:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 07:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Delete. As said above, this is way too trivial. I'm amazed that it has been on Wikipedia since 2009. Athel cb ( talk) 09:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26 (
spin me /
revolutions) 04:18, 2 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! 05:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't seem notable. While the company he worked for is notable, there is nearly no coverage about him from secondary, reliable sources. OceanHok ( talk) 03:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 04:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. I could not find a single independent source that mentions this program. Novemberjazz 03:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep (non-admin closure) Frank Anchor 03:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Obscure college arena, no controversy or scandal; "article" is mostly a listing of who had a concert there or every time the Globetrotters' game is announced in the local newspaper (I already took out the item-by-item fancruft about pro wrestling, with what "star" appeared which time). I would say the same if my college's arena didn't have any substantial sources in the article about it. Orange Mike | Talk 02:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:BLP with no effective reference. UPE article. What refs are there are interviews+lots company stuff. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO scope_creep Talk 00:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 04:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
This article can not possibly have reliable sources, as it is a scorecard for whether a religion is right or not. Currently all sources are primary sources, with their authors creating new claims for why a prophecy was or was not fulfilled. One man, Richard Abanes, is cited for most of the prophecies as the only 'against' voice, while one group (FAIRMormon) is most of the 'for' voices.
This is not an appropriate topic for Wikipedia. It would be like having an article called Catholicism vs Protestantism that was just a list of issues with a checkmark on which group was right. Brirush ( talk) 00:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 00:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Was previous deleted as failing WP:SIGCOV. I denied G4 because it is significantly changed since the deleted version. UtherSRG (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)