The result was keep. I'm closing this bundled nomination as Keep. You can seek draftification on individual articles as you see fit. Liz Read! Talk! 03:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a federal district court judge. Per the WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges, "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable. In practice, most such nominees will be confirmed by the Senate, at which point their notability will become inherent" Let'srun ( talk) 02:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because [all do not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominees have not been confirmed as a federal district court judge to date. Per the WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges, "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable. In practice, most such nominees will be confirmed by the Senate, at which point their notability will become inherent" ]:
MIAJudges ( talk) 20:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Since the last AfD, we are a lot stricter on school notability. This one is unreferenced and fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar ( talk) 23:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Delete, I couldn't find sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 ( talk) 11:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Article about an entrepreneur that fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. The sources are mostly passing mentions of the subject. The position he holds does not confer notability on the subject. Possibly WP:TOOSOON or WP:PROMO. Jamiebuba ( talk) 23:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
A person who is the head of the Minifootball Association of Nigeria isn’t notable enough because he’s head of a Nigerian Association? You’re expecting me to put ESPN and Goal.com links for a Nigerian football administrator instead of that from the local media? OR aren’t Nigerians allowed to have stubs?
Why are Nigerian pages such easy targets to pull down? Bob Lord (football chairman) is just a football chairman, so why is his page still standing?
I réalisé that most new Wikipedia editors don’t know what they are doing as regards inclusivity and equity in handling different pages from different background.
This reminds me of the time when someone went through all the pages I created and nominated for deletion all the Nigerian pages but left any page that I created of subjects of European or American descent.
I am a big supporter of sticking to the path of Wikipedia that you are familiar with. They are so many things to do on Wikipedia to help the community, scoring cheap points by pulling down pages of an already vulnerable demographic reeks of weakness and sycophancy. Don’t just meander into facets you aren’t familiar with. And y’all need to do better Amaekuma ( talk) 23:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
TVC News | ✘ No | |||
Daily Post (Nigeria) | ~ | ~ Partial | ||
The Guardian (Nigeria) | per WP:RS/P | ✘ No | ||
Independent Nigeria | ✘ No | |||
The Authority | ✘ No | |||
This Day | ✘ No | |||
City People Magazine | ✘ No | |||
Media Trust | ✘ No | |||
Media Trust | ✘ No | |||
The Nation (Nigeria) | ✘ No | |||
The Sun Nigeria | ✘ No | |||
National Waves | ✘ No | |||
The Punch | ✘ No | |||
TVC News | ✘ No | |||
The Sun Nigeria | ~ | ~ Partial | ||
Daily Trust | ✘ No | |||
Independent Nigeria | ✘ No | |||
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Routine mentions, coverage, fails WP:NCORP. User:Shahidm, the founder of this company, created this. US-Verified ( talk) 23:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Article about semi-pro/amateur journeyman footballer which doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Fataki has never played football at a high-level; stints in the Belgian Second Division and Albanian Kategoria Superiore represent the "peaks" of his career. As a journeyman who has played for many clubs throughout Europe and Africa, there is a lot of routine coverage available (almost all of it consisting of match reports and transfer news/speculation). However, I cannot locate in-depth coverage in reliable sources that is independent of the subject; the best source I could find is an ADIAC transfer news piece that contains a paragraph recap of his career. Unfortunately, none of the sources included in the article now or that I found in my WP:BEFORE search could be paired with it to satisfy the GNG. References 1-13 are either not independent (his employers Balma SC, MDA Foot, FC Rouen), not reliable (Walfoot, Footpy) or routine (Le Foot, Gazeta Panorama x2, ADIAC, Gazeta Gerçek). External links 1, 2, 4 and 5 are not independent (Balma SC and FC Rouen again), not reliable (Walfoot again) or are interviews that contain almost zero secondary coverage (Actufoot). External link 3 (Paris-Normandie) is an interview with some secondary coverage but no byline. It mentions his performance in a trial friendly match (hardly notable) and the briefest of mentions of his footballing origins. I found plenty of other match reports, transfer news and interviews (Sud-Ouest, Footdrc.com) that are not SIGCOV, so I just can't see how this article meets our guidelines. If we think this sort of low-quality coverage is sufficient, the result will be that almost every semi-pro or amateur footballer with a lengthy or journeyman career can have an article. Jogurney ( talk) 17:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. Star Mississippi 02:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Unreleased films and Production are not notable and contains peacock prose. Monhiroe ( talk) 18:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
films that . . . have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable. -- Visviva ( talk) 02:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 14:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:PERP. All I could find is a passing mention in a Time article about something completely unrelated. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment Maybe merge into Art forgery? I don't find any online RS, But see these [2] [3] [4] It looks like he was included in The Art Game by Robert Wraight (1966). Anyone have access to the print copy of this book? WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 00:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 21:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Database reports. Fails WP:NCORP. US-Verified ( talk) 23:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Unreferenced for 13 years. No significant coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar ( talk) 23:47, 22 June 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! 23:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. May have qualified for CSD A7 (no indication of importance) except the YT channel has 184k subs and might satisfy that requirement on its own, however I am not finding suitable coverage for inclusion. ASUKITE 23:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. The sources provided by ExRat are uncontested, which means that we need not discuss the questionable arguments about inherent notability of cabinets. Sandstein 14:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
This article contains 2 sentences and one table, it has one reference which seems to be user-generated content and is unreliable. It Fails WP:NOTABILITY PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk) 21:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence that the subject passes WP:NPROF or GNG. Assistant professors are rarely notable and this doesn't seem to be an exception - his most highly cited paper has 65 citations, which is far from satisfying WP:NPROF#C1, especially in a high-citation field. The citations in the article comprise primary sources, his own works, and news items in which he provides a quote in passing - there's no independent biographical coverage of the subject himself. The article appears to have been the subject of extensive COI/UPE editing, which wouldn't be a reason to delete it if it were actually notable, but which furthers the impression that the topic doesn't meet our standards for inclusion. Spicy ( talk) 21:33, 29 June 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! 23:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
This article is about a company that does not satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG. The sources are not infact WP:RS, ref 3 links to its testimonial page. The sources I actually found are from search of "Greenfly Networks Inc" but again are just regular seed funding news. Jamiebuba ( talk) 20:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Adjunct professors are rarely notable. Fails WP:NPROF. US-Verified ( talk) 20:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Most of the coverage is based on press releases/guest posts. Fails WP:SIGCOV. US-Verified ( talk) 20:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
This article has existed for years and has a complicated history with a lot of deleted revisions (COPYVIO problems? Maybe an admin can check). In any case, all previous versions have the same problem: a complete lack of references. Google finds nothing other than job openings at the school and Wikipedia mirrors. The general notability criterion is not met. Pichpich ( talk) 20:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The article notes: "県内唯一、英語に特化 SES周南英会話 周南市桜木1丁目のSES周南英会話(小林弘幸社長)が創立50周年を迎えた。社会人向けのビジネス英会話、英検受験対策な..."
From Google Translate: "SES Shunan Eikaiwa (President: Hiroyuki Kobayashi) in 1-chome Sakuragi, Shunan City, SES Shunan Eikaiwa, the only company in the prefecture that specializes in English, celebrated its 50th anniversary. Business English conversation for adults, measures for Eiken exams..."
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! 23:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
A quick check shows no indication of passing WP:NCORP. Insufficient in depth, intellectually independent, reliable coverage in multiple sources of adequate broad circulation. Most of existing sourcing is based on primary sources, their own websites and UGC like Musicbrainz. Graywalls ( talk) 19:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Companion (Doctor Who). Star Mississippi 15:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Despite being some of the earliest spin-off companions for Doctor Who, I cannot find any sources for these two. The article right now is just plot summary and does not meet GNG nor SIGCOV. Pokelego999 ( talk) 19:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 15:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a federal district court judge. Let'srun ( talk) 19:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
And that is it. I've told you a couple of times over that there are no other pertinent, explicit criteria. I have challenged you a couple times over to demonstrate that there is pertinent, explicit criteria such as you describe. We do not make determinations based on what you think should be in the criteria were you the one making the rules here. We make them based on the notability criteria already in place. Period. Ravenswing 10:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawing AfD now that the distinction has been clarified between established chairs and personal ones. (non-admin closure) - car chasm ( talk) 02:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
No indication of meeting WP:PROF. Article was deprodded with the claim that this professor seems to hold a named chair, which I can find no evidence of on the university website. - car chasm ( talk) 19:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
deprod; appears to hold an established chair.I didn't mention a named chair, as I am misquoted as doing. An established chair, as David Eppstein points out, is one that always exists, is only held by one individual at a time, and to which one is appointed, as opposed to a personal chair, which is merely an academic promotion to professorial rank (usually for long service) with no actual established chair attached. Named chairs (which are just established chairs that have the name of an individual or organisation attached, either because they funded the chair or in their honour) are relatively rare outside North America, where they seem to be the norm for established chairs. But he does hold an established chair (the Chair of Logic and Philosophy of Language). These are equivalent to named chairs and therefore meet WP:PROF #5. Many professors who already hold personal chairs are later appointed to established chairs, which are most definitely more prestigious. Wikipedia does not revolve around the American way of doing things, which is why PROF #5 quite clearly states "or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon". -- Necrothesp ( talk) 07:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
One official appearance with the Suriname national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. No indication of notability. Fails WP:NARTIST. UtherSRG (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Mount Everest#Selected climbing records. Star Mississippi 15:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
A declined PROD. Should never really have been a BLP as the subject's notability is tied to a climbing record that was never in itself notable. Coverage is limited to the recording of him holding the time record at a given moment, but nothing else beyond that. No SIGCOV of coverage on the person as a notable individual in any quality RS. Could also redirect to Mount Everest#Selected climbing records. Aszx5000 ( talk) 18:47, 29 June 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! 22:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 18:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
i dont believe this article is notable. the real "notable" thing that she did is "talking in congress"? ---- modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 17:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Nominating on behalf of an IP. Rationale is as follows: Article fails
WP:BIO and
WP:SIGCOV. If you look at the sources you can see there's barely any actual coverage on the person himself. There seems to be more on promoting dao5 which isn't even notable enough to have it own article. And that's assuming you can even use such sources which I don't think is possible since they seem to not be independent. A few are flat out interviews which cannot be considered independent. I'm also getting some
WP:PROMO vibes from the article.
Qwaiiplayer (
talk) 17:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Scream of the Shalka. (non-admin closure) WJ94 ( talk) 16:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
While an incarnation of The Doctor, the Shalka Doctor currently displays no individual notability. I took a look, and while some potential sources exist, they don't seem to be enough to establish this incarnation as a separate article. Thus, this article currently does not meet the GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 ( talk) 15:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Doctor Who villains. Star Mississippi 13:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Article displays no individual notability. A search for sources yields nothing, and the article currently functions off of one primary source. Article currently does not meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 ( talk) 15:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Doctor Who supporting characters. Star Mississippi 13:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
While notable in the series itself, article does not display individual notability. A search for sources yields little to no results outside of passing mentions and references. Article currently does not meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 ( talk) 15:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Faction Paradox. Star Mississippi 13:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Fictional location that displays no individual relevance or notability. No sources seem to exist outside of primary ones, and thus the article doesn't meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 ( talk) 15:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Faction Paradox. (non-admin closure) WJ94 ( talk) 16:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
While an incarnation of The Doctor, Grandfather Paradox displays little individual notability from The Doctor, and a search shows no sources that display that, either. The article currently does not meet GNG nor SIGCOV. Pokelego999 ( talk) 15:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Cartmel Masterplan. Viable AtD Star Mississippi 13:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
While an incarnation of The Doctor, The Other displays no individual notability from the character. All information related to him is already covered by the Cartmel Masterplan article, as well as The Doctor's main article, and no sources I can find demonstrate individual notability. As it stands, the article fails both GNG and SIGCOV. Pokelego999 ( talk) 15:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to The Sarah Jane Adventures. (non-admin closure) WJ94 ( talk) 16:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
While a decently notable recurring character in the series itself, the article does not currently demonstrate GNG or SIGCOV. I did a search, but outside of one book reference, I don't see enough potential sources for this article to meet either GNG or SIGCOV, and is currently functioning off of one review as its entire reception section. Pokelego999 ( talk) 15:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to The Web Planet. Star Mississippi 13:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
2nd AfD. Only survived the first one due to having some encyclopedic citations, but all of them are primary sources related to the franchise itself. A search shows no other sources related to the planet. As it stands, the article does not meet GNG or SIGCOV. Given no article for the Planets in Doctor Who exists, its contents should most likely be merged into The Web Planet and the List of Aliens in the series. Pokelego999 ( talk) 15:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Promotional piece with a history of COI editors. Google News does not show any real secondary sourcing, besides the usual mentions in rankings and business listings. No secondary sources are supplied, so that's not helpful. Drmies ( talk) 14:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Triboelectric effect — as an editorial decision, this may be reversed at will, though it is preferable to seek consensus on the talk page beforehand. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 ( t • c) 07:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
This article currently consists of material all found in Triboelectric effect, after @ Ldm1954:'s overhauls to the pages. The previous material is at [7], and I don't think there's enough material not covered by Triboelectric effect that we can source and salvage. Save for 1 and 2 all sources of that version are primary sources by a small group of people. Aaron Liu ( talk) 14:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
17:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
18:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Merge as Talk said MICHAEL 942006 ( talk) 18:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens#Thal. ✗ plicit 23:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Generally not notable fictional species. While they are recurring and factor into the Daleks' history, they are not notable by themselves, with the article being entirely primary sources and not meeting GNG or SIGCOV. Its contents are honestly better off being merged into either the List of Aliens from Doctor Who, or into the article for Skaro. Pokelego999 ( talk) 14:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens#Ogron. ✗ plicit 14:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Generally not notable antagonists. I can't find any sources outside of primary ones and a listicle, and the article already doesn't meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 ( talk) 14:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Does not pass GNG or SIGCOV. Article discusses two minor and mostly unrelated one off characters, and cites no sources, and it doesn't seem like there are sufficient sources to establish either GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 ( talk) 14:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Non notable tech entrepreneur. All three sources cited appeared to be a distributed paid content and an independent search to determine the subject's notability returned negative Noneate ( talk) 13:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 18:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a judge on the Court of International Trade. Also no secondary sources Let'srun ( talk) 12:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Delete Agree with Nominator according to WP:NPOL if this individual doesn't meet the WP:GNG they shouldn't be included. I don't see how they meet General Notability. ---- VViking Talk Edits 13:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal bench & announced on the White House official home page are notable for that reason alone. Most nominees have numerous other reasons they are notable without the announcement, otherwise they wouldn't make it to that point. Even if the nomination fails it receives numerous headlines & therefore the person is still notable.
MIAJudges ( talk) 21:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Lack of valid sources. Fails WP:AUTHOR. UtherSRG (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 15:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is wp:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a federal district court judge. Also no secondary sources Let'srun ( talk) 12:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Delete Agree with Nominator and Kablammo, according to WP:NPOL if this individual doesn't meet the WP:GNG they shouldn't be included. I don't see how they meet General Notability. As for "Prior to 6/28/2023 there were already 22 district court nominees..." this is an example of other things exist which is not an argument for keeping the article.-- VViking Talk Edits 13:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal bench & announced on the White House official home page are notable for that reason alone. Most nominees have numerous other reasons they are notable without the announcement, otherwise they wouldn't make it to that point. Even if the nomination fails it receives numerous headlines & therefore the person is still notable.
MIAJudges ( talk) 20:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Justinw303
This is -- me not being afraid of answering questions -- why I took time to look at your page. It is common practice at ANI to survey the records of involved parties, especially when they're making extraordinary claims. I am not the first, nor the first hundredth, editor to do so. That record was what led some of us to conclude that you were tossing out spurious notability grounds and making wild claims out of inexperience. Your assertion that you are using an alternate account, and that you are actually a veteran editor, takes that excuse out of play. There are few other reasons for your repeated refusal to answer those questions. I struck that because it's gotten a whole lot more serious. You making up headlines to mislead participants in the Garnett AfD
[11] is not only reprehensible, that sort of shenanigans is the reason why some of us are careful about checking evidence. You want to explain yourself, and you want to do it fast.
Ravenswing 06:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 15:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a federal district court judge. Let'srun ( talk) 12:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Delete Agree with Nominator according to WP:NPOL if this individual doesn't meet the WP:GNG they shouldn't be included. I don't see how they meet General Notability. As for "Prior to 6/28/2023 there were already 22 district court nominees..." this is an example of other things exist which is not an argument for keeping the article.-- VViking Talk Edits 13:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
MIAJudges ( talk) 20:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
This Assistant United States Attorney and fellow presidential nominee Judge Jennifer L. Hall are both women who have advance degrees in engineering or science, a masters in Industrial Engineering and a Ph.D in Biochemistry, respectively.
Both have published statements in patent law either as having written an article or a court judgement, respectively. Their nominations by the president give insight for historians on how the president in deciding on judge candidates. EDIT of Edit: I noticed the comments below so I want to add Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and judges
Politicians and judges who have held...sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature
She is a an assistant US Attorney for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, so this should apply.
I do want to add that she is with a degree in industrial engineering who was contributed to intellectual property law scholarship, albeit in a small way. All in all, it is a uniqueness for an assistance US attorney. Starlighsky ( talk)
You will note, as I assume the closing admin will, that having an engineering or a science degree is not listed. You will also note that having a law degree is not listed. You will further note that having published statements in patent law is not listed, and I assure you that there are hundreds and thousands of patent law attorneys that can claim that much. The applicable notability criterion that McMillion would need to meet is having been a judge at the statewide level or higher. As it happens, McMillion is not, and has never been, a judge. I stand on my statement above: that you need to advocate based on the notability criteria in place, not on what you wish the criteria would read if you were the one making the rules. I recognize that you are new on Wikipedia, and invite you to better inform yourself on notability policy and guidelines. Ravenswing 22:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 14:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. No sources provided. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Completely unsourced article and it appears that no such band has existed. Only a discogs entry exists with a 1959 similar band's name. https://www.discogs.com/artist/5161139-Band-O-Gypsys aggarwala2727 ( talk) 12:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Courcelles ( talk) 15:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a federal district court judge Let'srun ( talk) 12:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Delete Agree with Nominator according to WP:NPOL if this individual doesn't meet the WP:GNG they shouldn't be included. I don't see how they meet General Notability. As for "Prior to 6/28/2023 there were already 22 district court nominees..." this is an example of other things exist which is not an argument for keeping the article.-- VViking Talk Edits 13:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal bench & announced on the White House official home page are notable for that reason alone. Most nominees have numerous other reasons they are notable without the announcement, otherwise they wouldn't make it to that point. Even if the nomination fails it receives numerous headlines & therefore the person is still notable.
MIAJudges ( talk) 20:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleting Federal judicial nominees makes no sense. There is widespread interest in the Federal judiciary because it affects so many lives with its rulings. A large number of people are interested in this topic and removing this page and others like it needlessly alienate them and benefit no one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:CC4:20F0:6475:DA5A:C113:E6F4 ( talk) 23:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I want to add that in terms of her adjunct professorship, Wiikipedia: Notability for Academic Professionals should likely be a part of the notability: "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." Starlighsky ( talk) 13:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Starlighsky
The result was Draftify. I participated in the ANI, but the consensus here is clear and I feel comfortable closing it without being "involved". Draftification preserves the history for interested editors to work on this until Hurson is confirmed. Star Mississippi 13:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a federal district court judge Let'srun ( talk) 12:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Keep per WP:Some stuff exists for a reason Snickers2686 ( talk) 14:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Keep The WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges directive states a nomination doesn't mean they are inherently notable but that does not mean the nominees aren't notable. A person is never nominated to an equal branch of government for a lifetime appointment by the leader of the executive branch without having a lengthy career & background. All of the nominees have references to their careers in the press. The president's own announcement details each of their bios. MIAJudges ( talk) 00:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Unreferenced for 9 years. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar ( talk) 10:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous
WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
No significant coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Only primary sources provided. LibStar ( talk) 10:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 11:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSOFT Mfixerer ( talk) 09:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 11:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
per WP:NOTNEWS. Alleged crime which has achieved some short-lived media attention but doesn't presently have lasting notability. Doesn't seem to have anything to indicate it's more notable than numerous other alleged criminal acts. Neiltonks ( talk) 10:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
The article IPv10 should be deleted for the follow reasons:
-- Zac67 ( talk) 08:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
IPv6 has serious drawbacks and is not capable of routing the available Range blocks sizes and most IP addresses are un routable/manageable.
real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event- "web content" would be dubious since at its core it is a software/protocol proposal). That being said, there are no sources, hence no notability, hence zap it.
The result was keep. Star Mississippi 02:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
This article had tons of puffery in it, and it just feels like it's a corporate profile that was written with significant COI problems. The sources are VERY weak, and these are not within the standards expected to Wiki. As such, this should be deleted in accordance with Wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpkinspyce ( talk • contribs) 20:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Redirect Probably redirect to Hachette UK, seems to be a sub-unit of that company now. [33] Oaktree b ( talk) 14:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Redirecting is an editorial decision that can happen outside of AFD. It’s clear there’s no consensus to use the delete button. Courcelles ( talk) 15:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Article about a mayor, not
reliably sourced as the subject of sufficient coverage to pass
WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not all "inherently" notable just because they exist -- the notability test for a mayor requires significant coverage that enables us to write a substantive article about her political impact: specific things she did, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects her mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But all that's here is two footnotes verifying her declaration of her candidacy and her swearing-in as mayor, which is not enough.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when a stronger, more informative and better-referenced article can be written, but just stating and minimally sourcing that she exists as a mayor is not enough in and of itself.
Bearcat (
talk) 00:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 04:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
"For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage."
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability."
"Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline."
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. The Keeps are fairly Weak but there is not strong support for Deletion. This article might make a return visit to AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't meet notability, despite a plethora of sources, most of which aren't RS. Nswix ( talk) 04:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. NYC Guru ( talk) 21:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG -- FMSky ( talk) 06:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 07:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
probably not a good idea to have an article only sourced to the subject's promotional materials. lettherebedarklight 晚安 10:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
SWinxy (
talk) 01:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 04:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: FInal relist. Also, please check out the sources that have been added since the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) LibStar ( talk) 23:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Last AfD had minimal participation. A search in gnews for name in English and Norwegian yielded nothing. The last AfD pointed to a library search that yielded hits in Norwegian newspapers which may or may not be reliable sources. If not, this fails WP:ORG. LibStar ( talk) 00:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 04:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Sam Hyde. While there was good-faith support for keep among some less policy-based arguments, a thorough analysis of sources undemined the independence of some sources with extensive coverage. Several !votes were phrased as "delete" rather than "redirect, but beyond bare statements of preference (and some of the delete !votes don't even do that much with respect to redirection), but no argument was given for why a redirect to the target, which already briefly mentions Fishtank, would not be valid. signed, Rosguill talk 03:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
BLARed this a bit ago as it didn't appear notable to me. Still doesn't. One source has been added since from Sports Keeda which is regarded as unreliable per its entry at WP:RSP. As I had it before, I still believe this should be redirected to Sam Hyde. Also, it's worth noting that some Sam Hyde fans know about the BLAR and are not happy about it, so that may be an issue to watch out for during these proceedings. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 13:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more policy-backed comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
SWinxy (
talk) 02:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I still am not seeing any policy-based arguments from those advocating Keep who seem to rely on unverified viewer numbers which are not important for notability on Wikipedia. These personal attacks are unacceptable and if they continue, there will be blocks. Right now, I'm leaning towards a Redirect. By the way, I am not familiar with this series creator and whatever views he might have. If you are new to AFDs, what matters is
reliable, independent, secondary sources that establish notability, that's the only "agenda" here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 01:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Almost all of the prior arguments are clear as a bell canvassed, and don't really address the question of whether there is or is not sufficient material about this subject in reliable and independent sources to sustain an article on this subject. Comments which directly address this would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Seraphimblade
Talk to me 06:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Source assessment table: prepared by
User:siroxo
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
KOB.com | interview with contestant | ~ local news | ✘ No | |
WIN.gg | ? Tied to promotion of esports (see above), unsure how it impacts this discussion at this time. | "WIN.gg is a proud part of Final Boss Entertainment." Can't find anything beyond a defunct game studio. Not enough on team members [38]. Very little discussion on wikipedia [39]. edit to add: Seem to be tied to esports betting and promotion via WIN group (see discussion above) | ✘ No | |
Passionfruit | ~ founded by daily dot, no consensus per WP:RSP | ~ Partial | ||
POPTOPIC | ? | cited two times across Wikipedia including this article | ✘ No | |
whynow | platform for telling artists stories, advertises itself as not independent | ? | ✘ No | |
D Magazine | ? | ? | not about article subject | ✘ No |
Jewish Journal | ? | ? | not about article subject | ✘ No |
Know Your Meme via MSN | ~ KYM staff writer | current consensus is to avoid in BLP, at best "no consensus" for their produced videos. As this article has a lot in the way of living people, seems risky | ✘ No | |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
One appearance for the Central African Republic national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 05:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
One appearance for the Central African Republic national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 05:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
List of night vision devices
This list article has a few problems, the most serious of which is that it has no sources. It also does not indicate what the criterion is for inclusion, and so does not satisfy list notability. The criterion isn't having a Wikipedia article, since some of the entries are not linked to articles. This list was moved to draft space by User:BoyTheKingCanDance with the statement that it has no sources (because it has no sources). It was then moved back to article space by its creator without adding sources. This is a contested draftification and so is being sent to AFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment the lack of sourcing is a red-herring. Our List of botanists, for example, has no sources, and rightly so: it's a navigational aid to find articles on notable botanists, and all the sourcing required to establish that they are botanists and notable is to be found in the articles on each botanist. The question is whether we really need a navigational aid to find articles on individual night-vision devices. Lists can also be useful to keep articles on the general topic more concise, but since our article on night-vision devices already lists everything, mixed up with the text, this stand-alone list isn't achieving anything particularly useful. Also stand-alone navigational lists shouldn't contain items that don't have a corresponding article. Elemimele ( talk) 06:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Puffery galore, doesn’t look to be notable? Cornmazes ( talk) 04:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 05:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Couldn't find enough coverage or verify sales/charting mentioned on the artist's page. I guess I can't definitely call this non-notable, but it's at least gonna need some work to meet that burden of proof, and if it can't do that then it should be redirected to G.NA. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 02:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 03:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk! 04:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. A couple handwave keep comments, but the detailed, NCORP arguments are all on the delete side. Courcelles ( talk) 15:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Completely unsourced. UtherSRG (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 02:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 03:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk! 04:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 06:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails RS, N ( NSOFT), V. Not a notable element of the Linux kernel. It has existed since 2005, and has had a sourcing issue since 2009. No reliable significant sources have been found in 18 years, and I doubt any will turn up soon. Some sources do exist that mention xconfig, but it is a passing mention that confirm it exists ( EXIST), and it is certainly not the focus of them. WhoAteMyButter ( 🌴talk│ ☀️contribs) 04:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
.bashrc
,
init.el
, and
.vimrc
don't have their own own articles despite being some of the most edited config files in Linux is telling. 〜
Festucalex •
talk 05:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)The result was redirect to 2022 United States House of Representatives election in Alaska#Republican Party. This seemed like the more preferred redirect target. If you disagree, you can make your argument at WP:RFD. Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Article about a political candidate, not
properly sourced as having a strong notability claim. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they didn't win -- the notability test at
WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. To qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia rather, a candidate must show that either (a) he already has preexisting notability for some other reasons (e.g. having held a different notable office, having established notability in another career independently of politics) that would already have secured inclusion in Wikipedia anyway, or (b) he has a credible claim to being a special case whose candidacy should be seen as uniquely more notable than other people's candidacies, in some way that would pass the
ten year test for enduring significance.
But neither of those things is in evidence here: there's no serious claim that he was notable for other reasons besides an unsuccessful election campaign, the writing shades into "campaign brochure" territory by spending entirely too much time on his political opinions, and the referencing consists of a small smattering of the purely
run of the mill campaign coverage that every candidate in every election can always show, which hardly constitutes evidence that he's more notable than other candidates.
This previously existed as a redirect to the election he ran in, before being converted into this yesterday -- so no prejudice against restoration of the redirect, but this should be stricken from the edit history first. There's just nothing here that's "inherently" notable at all.
Bearcat (
talk) 02:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NEVENT, little to no significant coverage in reliable sources Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 12:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥
𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆
(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist since a lot of work has been done to this article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable business executive. Sources are all about the company raising money, or primary sources. Nothing additional found, beyond linked in and the like. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥
𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆
(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Remember, each participant can only offer one bolded "vote".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There seems to be equal support for Delete, Keep and Merge/Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Doctor Who supporting characters. Liz Read! Talk! 05:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Minor recurring character, who, despite some potential notability, does not currently meet the GNG nor SIGCOV in the article. Pokelego999 ( talk) 02:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Highly promotional tone, and only one source. I found only one other reliable source, from Mayo County Council https://www.mayo.ie/en-ie/home-to-mayo-2022/ambassadors/adrian-flannelly -- but that doesn't seem independent. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk! 10:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 02:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
There are no sources.. there are dead links.. one of which is archived but it leads to some archive of a personal page that has nothing of substance. This person is not mentioned anywhere. The template for needing more sourced was added 16 years ago.. I think there has been plenty of time to fix the article. There is no fixing it. Nominating for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireandflames2 ( talk • contribs) 01:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 01:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
"fred bronson" + billboardon newspapers.com alone, which vary between in-depth reviews of his book, quotes from or discussions of his Billboard column, and stories about his short-lived radio show. Overall this fellow does not seem to have suffered from a shortage of influentiality. -- Visviva ( talk) 03:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Batman family enemies#Enemies of lesser renown. There were a couple of suggested redirect targets but this one seemed to come up more frequently. If you have a different opinion, you can bring it to WP:RFD or start a discussion on the redirect talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Very minor antagonist in the franchise who has barely shown up past his initial appearance. The previous deletion discussion allowed it to stay due to a few encyclopedic sources, but outside of those few sources, I don't believe it meets GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 ( talk) 00:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. I'm closing this bundled nomination as Keep. You can seek draftification on individual articles as you see fit. Liz Read! Talk! 03:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a federal district court judge. Per the WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges, "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable. In practice, most such nominees will be confirmed by the Senate, at which point their notability will become inherent" Let'srun ( talk) 02:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because [all do not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominees have not been confirmed as a federal district court judge to date. Per the WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges, "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable. In practice, most such nominees will be confirmed by the Senate, at which point their notability will become inherent" ]:
MIAJudges ( talk) 20:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Since the last AfD, we are a lot stricter on school notability. This one is unreferenced and fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar ( talk) 23:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Delete, I couldn't find sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 ( talk) 11:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Article about an entrepreneur that fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. The sources are mostly passing mentions of the subject. The position he holds does not confer notability on the subject. Possibly WP:TOOSOON or WP:PROMO. Jamiebuba ( talk) 23:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
A person who is the head of the Minifootball Association of Nigeria isn’t notable enough because he’s head of a Nigerian Association? You’re expecting me to put ESPN and Goal.com links for a Nigerian football administrator instead of that from the local media? OR aren’t Nigerians allowed to have stubs?
Why are Nigerian pages such easy targets to pull down? Bob Lord (football chairman) is just a football chairman, so why is his page still standing?
I réalisé that most new Wikipedia editors don’t know what they are doing as regards inclusivity and equity in handling different pages from different background.
This reminds me of the time when someone went through all the pages I created and nominated for deletion all the Nigerian pages but left any page that I created of subjects of European or American descent.
I am a big supporter of sticking to the path of Wikipedia that you are familiar with. They are so many things to do on Wikipedia to help the community, scoring cheap points by pulling down pages of an already vulnerable demographic reeks of weakness and sycophancy. Don’t just meander into facets you aren’t familiar with. And y’all need to do better Amaekuma ( talk) 23:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
TVC News | ✘ No | |||
Daily Post (Nigeria) | ~ | ~ Partial | ||
The Guardian (Nigeria) | per WP:RS/P | ✘ No | ||
Independent Nigeria | ✘ No | |||
The Authority | ✘ No | |||
This Day | ✘ No | |||
City People Magazine | ✘ No | |||
Media Trust | ✘ No | |||
Media Trust | ✘ No | |||
The Nation (Nigeria) | ✘ No | |||
The Sun Nigeria | ✘ No | |||
National Waves | ✘ No | |||
The Punch | ✘ No | |||
TVC News | ✘ No | |||
The Sun Nigeria | ~ | ~ Partial | ||
Daily Trust | ✘ No | |||
Independent Nigeria | ✘ No | |||
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Routine mentions, coverage, fails WP:NCORP. User:Shahidm, the founder of this company, created this. US-Verified ( talk) 23:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Article about semi-pro/amateur journeyman footballer which doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Fataki has never played football at a high-level; stints in the Belgian Second Division and Albanian Kategoria Superiore represent the "peaks" of his career. As a journeyman who has played for many clubs throughout Europe and Africa, there is a lot of routine coverage available (almost all of it consisting of match reports and transfer news/speculation). However, I cannot locate in-depth coverage in reliable sources that is independent of the subject; the best source I could find is an ADIAC transfer news piece that contains a paragraph recap of his career. Unfortunately, none of the sources included in the article now or that I found in my WP:BEFORE search could be paired with it to satisfy the GNG. References 1-13 are either not independent (his employers Balma SC, MDA Foot, FC Rouen), not reliable (Walfoot, Footpy) or routine (Le Foot, Gazeta Panorama x2, ADIAC, Gazeta Gerçek). External links 1, 2, 4 and 5 are not independent (Balma SC and FC Rouen again), not reliable (Walfoot again) or are interviews that contain almost zero secondary coverage (Actufoot). External link 3 (Paris-Normandie) is an interview with some secondary coverage but no byline. It mentions his performance in a trial friendly match (hardly notable) and the briefest of mentions of his footballing origins. I found plenty of other match reports, transfer news and interviews (Sud-Ouest, Footdrc.com) that are not SIGCOV, so I just can't see how this article meets our guidelines. If we think this sort of low-quality coverage is sufficient, the result will be that almost every semi-pro or amateur footballer with a lengthy or journeyman career can have an article. Jogurney ( talk) 17:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. Star Mississippi 02:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Unreleased films and Production are not notable and contains peacock prose. Monhiroe ( talk) 18:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
films that . . . have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable. -- Visviva ( talk) 02:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 14:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:PERP. All I could find is a passing mention in a Time article about something completely unrelated. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment Maybe merge into Art forgery? I don't find any online RS, But see these [2] [3] [4] It looks like he was included in The Art Game by Robert Wraight (1966). Anyone have access to the print copy of this book? WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 00:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 21:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Database reports. Fails WP:NCORP. US-Verified ( talk) 23:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Unreferenced for 13 years. No significant coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar ( talk) 23:47, 22 June 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! 23:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. May have qualified for CSD A7 (no indication of importance) except the YT channel has 184k subs and might satisfy that requirement on its own, however I am not finding suitable coverage for inclusion. ASUKITE 23:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. The sources provided by ExRat are uncontested, which means that we need not discuss the questionable arguments about inherent notability of cabinets. Sandstein 14:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
This article contains 2 sentences and one table, it has one reference which seems to be user-generated content and is unreliable. It Fails WP:NOTABILITY PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk) 21:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence that the subject passes WP:NPROF or GNG. Assistant professors are rarely notable and this doesn't seem to be an exception - his most highly cited paper has 65 citations, which is far from satisfying WP:NPROF#C1, especially in a high-citation field. The citations in the article comprise primary sources, his own works, and news items in which he provides a quote in passing - there's no independent biographical coverage of the subject himself. The article appears to have been the subject of extensive COI/UPE editing, which wouldn't be a reason to delete it if it were actually notable, but which furthers the impression that the topic doesn't meet our standards for inclusion. Spicy ( talk) 21:33, 29 June 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! 23:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
This article is about a company that does not satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG. The sources are not infact WP:RS, ref 3 links to its testimonial page. The sources I actually found are from search of "Greenfly Networks Inc" but again are just regular seed funding news. Jamiebuba ( talk) 20:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Adjunct professors are rarely notable. Fails WP:NPROF. US-Verified ( talk) 20:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Most of the coverage is based on press releases/guest posts. Fails WP:SIGCOV. US-Verified ( talk) 20:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
This article has existed for years and has a complicated history with a lot of deleted revisions (COPYVIO problems? Maybe an admin can check). In any case, all previous versions have the same problem: a complete lack of references. Google finds nothing other than job openings at the school and Wikipedia mirrors. The general notability criterion is not met. Pichpich ( talk) 20:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The article notes: "県内唯一、英語に特化 SES周南英会話 周南市桜木1丁目のSES周南英会話(小林弘幸社長)が創立50周年を迎えた。社会人向けのビジネス英会話、英検受験対策な..."
From Google Translate: "SES Shunan Eikaiwa (President: Hiroyuki Kobayashi) in 1-chome Sakuragi, Shunan City, SES Shunan Eikaiwa, the only company in the prefecture that specializes in English, celebrated its 50th anniversary. Business English conversation for adults, measures for Eiken exams..."
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! 23:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
A quick check shows no indication of passing WP:NCORP. Insufficient in depth, intellectually independent, reliable coverage in multiple sources of adequate broad circulation. Most of existing sourcing is based on primary sources, their own websites and UGC like Musicbrainz. Graywalls ( talk) 19:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Companion (Doctor Who). Star Mississippi 15:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Despite being some of the earliest spin-off companions for Doctor Who, I cannot find any sources for these two. The article right now is just plot summary and does not meet GNG nor SIGCOV. Pokelego999 ( talk) 19:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 15:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a federal district court judge. Let'srun ( talk) 19:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
And that is it. I've told you a couple of times over that there are no other pertinent, explicit criteria. I have challenged you a couple times over to demonstrate that there is pertinent, explicit criteria such as you describe. We do not make determinations based on what you think should be in the criteria were you the one making the rules here. We make them based on the notability criteria already in place. Period. Ravenswing 10:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawing AfD now that the distinction has been clarified between established chairs and personal ones. (non-admin closure) - car chasm ( talk) 02:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
No indication of meeting WP:PROF. Article was deprodded with the claim that this professor seems to hold a named chair, which I can find no evidence of on the university website. - car chasm ( talk) 19:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
deprod; appears to hold an established chair.I didn't mention a named chair, as I am misquoted as doing. An established chair, as David Eppstein points out, is one that always exists, is only held by one individual at a time, and to which one is appointed, as opposed to a personal chair, which is merely an academic promotion to professorial rank (usually for long service) with no actual established chair attached. Named chairs (which are just established chairs that have the name of an individual or organisation attached, either because they funded the chair or in their honour) are relatively rare outside North America, where they seem to be the norm for established chairs. But he does hold an established chair (the Chair of Logic and Philosophy of Language). These are equivalent to named chairs and therefore meet WP:PROF #5. Many professors who already hold personal chairs are later appointed to established chairs, which are most definitely more prestigious. Wikipedia does not revolve around the American way of doing things, which is why PROF #5 quite clearly states "or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon". -- Necrothesp ( talk) 07:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
One official appearance with the Suriname national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. No indication of notability. Fails WP:NARTIST. UtherSRG (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Mount Everest#Selected climbing records. Star Mississippi 15:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
A declined PROD. Should never really have been a BLP as the subject's notability is tied to a climbing record that was never in itself notable. Coverage is limited to the recording of him holding the time record at a given moment, but nothing else beyond that. No SIGCOV of coverage on the person as a notable individual in any quality RS. Could also redirect to Mount Everest#Selected climbing records. Aszx5000 ( talk) 18:47, 29 June 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! 22:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 18:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
i dont believe this article is notable. the real "notable" thing that she did is "talking in congress"? ---- modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 17:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Nominating on behalf of an IP. Rationale is as follows: Article fails
WP:BIO and
WP:SIGCOV. If you look at the sources you can see there's barely any actual coverage on the person himself. There seems to be more on promoting dao5 which isn't even notable enough to have it own article. And that's assuming you can even use such sources which I don't think is possible since they seem to not be independent. A few are flat out interviews which cannot be considered independent. I'm also getting some
WP:PROMO vibes from the article.
Qwaiiplayer (
talk) 17:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Scream of the Shalka. (non-admin closure) WJ94 ( talk) 16:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
While an incarnation of The Doctor, the Shalka Doctor currently displays no individual notability. I took a look, and while some potential sources exist, they don't seem to be enough to establish this incarnation as a separate article. Thus, this article currently does not meet the GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 ( talk) 15:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Doctor Who villains. Star Mississippi 13:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Article displays no individual notability. A search for sources yields nothing, and the article currently functions off of one primary source. Article currently does not meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 ( talk) 15:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Doctor Who supporting characters. Star Mississippi 13:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
While notable in the series itself, article does not display individual notability. A search for sources yields little to no results outside of passing mentions and references. Article currently does not meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 ( talk) 15:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Faction Paradox. Star Mississippi 13:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Fictional location that displays no individual relevance or notability. No sources seem to exist outside of primary ones, and thus the article doesn't meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 ( talk) 15:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Faction Paradox. (non-admin closure) WJ94 ( talk) 16:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
While an incarnation of The Doctor, Grandfather Paradox displays little individual notability from The Doctor, and a search shows no sources that display that, either. The article currently does not meet GNG nor SIGCOV. Pokelego999 ( talk) 15:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Cartmel Masterplan. Viable AtD Star Mississippi 13:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
While an incarnation of The Doctor, The Other displays no individual notability from the character. All information related to him is already covered by the Cartmel Masterplan article, as well as The Doctor's main article, and no sources I can find demonstrate individual notability. As it stands, the article fails both GNG and SIGCOV. Pokelego999 ( talk) 15:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to The Sarah Jane Adventures. (non-admin closure) WJ94 ( talk) 16:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
While a decently notable recurring character in the series itself, the article does not currently demonstrate GNG or SIGCOV. I did a search, but outside of one book reference, I don't see enough potential sources for this article to meet either GNG or SIGCOV, and is currently functioning off of one review as its entire reception section. Pokelego999 ( talk) 15:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to The Web Planet. Star Mississippi 13:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
2nd AfD. Only survived the first one due to having some encyclopedic citations, but all of them are primary sources related to the franchise itself. A search shows no other sources related to the planet. As it stands, the article does not meet GNG or SIGCOV. Given no article for the Planets in Doctor Who exists, its contents should most likely be merged into The Web Planet and the List of Aliens in the series. Pokelego999 ( talk) 15:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Promotional piece with a history of COI editors. Google News does not show any real secondary sourcing, besides the usual mentions in rankings and business listings. No secondary sources are supplied, so that's not helpful. Drmies ( talk) 14:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Triboelectric effect — as an editorial decision, this may be reversed at will, though it is preferable to seek consensus on the talk page beforehand. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 ( t • c) 07:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
This article currently consists of material all found in Triboelectric effect, after @ Ldm1954:'s overhauls to the pages. The previous material is at [7], and I don't think there's enough material not covered by Triboelectric effect that we can source and salvage. Save for 1 and 2 all sources of that version are primary sources by a small group of people. Aaron Liu ( talk) 14:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
17:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
18:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Merge as Talk said MICHAEL 942006 ( talk) 18:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens#Thal. ✗ plicit 23:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Generally not notable fictional species. While they are recurring and factor into the Daleks' history, they are not notable by themselves, with the article being entirely primary sources and not meeting GNG or SIGCOV. Its contents are honestly better off being merged into either the List of Aliens from Doctor Who, or into the article for Skaro. Pokelego999 ( talk) 14:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens#Ogron. ✗ plicit 14:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Generally not notable antagonists. I can't find any sources outside of primary ones and a listicle, and the article already doesn't meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 ( talk) 14:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Does not pass GNG or SIGCOV. Article discusses two minor and mostly unrelated one off characters, and cites no sources, and it doesn't seem like there are sufficient sources to establish either GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 ( talk) 14:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Non notable tech entrepreneur. All three sources cited appeared to be a distributed paid content and an independent search to determine the subject's notability returned negative Noneate ( talk) 13:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 18:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a judge on the Court of International Trade. Also no secondary sources Let'srun ( talk) 12:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Delete Agree with Nominator according to WP:NPOL if this individual doesn't meet the WP:GNG they shouldn't be included. I don't see how they meet General Notability. ---- VViking Talk Edits 13:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal bench & announced on the White House official home page are notable for that reason alone. Most nominees have numerous other reasons they are notable without the announcement, otherwise they wouldn't make it to that point. Even if the nomination fails it receives numerous headlines & therefore the person is still notable.
MIAJudges ( talk) 21:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Lack of valid sources. Fails WP:AUTHOR. UtherSRG (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 15:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is wp:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a federal district court judge. Also no secondary sources Let'srun ( talk) 12:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Delete Agree with Nominator and Kablammo, according to WP:NPOL if this individual doesn't meet the WP:GNG they shouldn't be included. I don't see how they meet General Notability. As for "Prior to 6/28/2023 there were already 22 district court nominees..." this is an example of other things exist which is not an argument for keeping the article.-- VViking Talk Edits 13:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal bench & announced on the White House official home page are notable for that reason alone. Most nominees have numerous other reasons they are notable without the announcement, otherwise they wouldn't make it to that point. Even if the nomination fails it receives numerous headlines & therefore the person is still notable.
MIAJudges ( talk) 20:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Justinw303
This is -- me not being afraid of answering questions -- why I took time to look at your page. It is common practice at ANI to survey the records of involved parties, especially when they're making extraordinary claims. I am not the first, nor the first hundredth, editor to do so. That record was what led some of us to conclude that you were tossing out spurious notability grounds and making wild claims out of inexperience. Your assertion that you are using an alternate account, and that you are actually a veteran editor, takes that excuse out of play. There are few other reasons for your repeated refusal to answer those questions. I struck that because it's gotten a whole lot more serious. You making up headlines to mislead participants in the Garnett AfD
[11] is not only reprehensible, that sort of shenanigans is the reason why some of us are careful about checking evidence. You want to explain yourself, and you want to do it fast.
Ravenswing 06:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 15:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a federal district court judge. Let'srun ( talk) 12:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Delete Agree with Nominator according to WP:NPOL if this individual doesn't meet the WP:GNG they shouldn't be included. I don't see how they meet General Notability. As for "Prior to 6/28/2023 there were already 22 district court nominees..." this is an example of other things exist which is not an argument for keeping the article.-- VViking Talk Edits 13:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
MIAJudges ( talk) 20:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
This Assistant United States Attorney and fellow presidential nominee Judge Jennifer L. Hall are both women who have advance degrees in engineering or science, a masters in Industrial Engineering and a Ph.D in Biochemistry, respectively.
Both have published statements in patent law either as having written an article or a court judgement, respectively. Their nominations by the president give insight for historians on how the president in deciding on judge candidates. EDIT of Edit: I noticed the comments below so I want to add Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and judges
Politicians and judges who have held...sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature
She is a an assistant US Attorney for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, so this should apply.
I do want to add that she is with a degree in industrial engineering who was contributed to intellectual property law scholarship, albeit in a small way. All in all, it is a uniqueness for an assistance US attorney. Starlighsky ( talk)
You will note, as I assume the closing admin will, that having an engineering or a science degree is not listed. You will also note that having a law degree is not listed. You will further note that having published statements in patent law is not listed, and I assure you that there are hundreds and thousands of patent law attorneys that can claim that much. The applicable notability criterion that McMillion would need to meet is having been a judge at the statewide level or higher. As it happens, McMillion is not, and has never been, a judge. I stand on my statement above: that you need to advocate based on the notability criteria in place, not on what you wish the criteria would read if you were the one making the rules. I recognize that you are new on Wikipedia, and invite you to better inform yourself on notability policy and guidelines. Ravenswing 22:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 14:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. No sources provided. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Completely unsourced article and it appears that no such band has existed. Only a discogs entry exists with a 1959 similar band's name. https://www.discogs.com/artist/5161139-Band-O-Gypsys aggarwala2727 ( talk) 12:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Courcelles ( talk) 15:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a federal district court judge Let'srun ( talk) 12:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Delete Agree with Nominator according to WP:NPOL if this individual doesn't meet the WP:GNG they shouldn't be included. I don't see how they meet General Notability. As for "Prior to 6/28/2023 there were already 22 district court nominees..." this is an example of other things exist which is not an argument for keeping the article.-- VViking Talk Edits 13:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal bench & announced on the White House official home page are notable for that reason alone. Most nominees have numerous other reasons they are notable without the announcement, otherwise they wouldn't make it to that point. Even if the nomination fails it receives numerous headlines & therefore the person is still notable.
MIAJudges ( talk) 20:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleting Federal judicial nominees makes no sense. There is widespread interest in the Federal judiciary because it affects so many lives with its rulings. A large number of people are interested in this topic and removing this page and others like it needlessly alienate them and benefit no one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:CC4:20F0:6475:DA5A:C113:E6F4 ( talk) 23:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I want to add that in terms of her adjunct professorship, Wiikipedia: Notability for Academic Professionals should likely be a part of the notability: "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." Starlighsky ( talk) 13:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Starlighsky
The result was Draftify. I participated in the ANI, but the consensus here is clear and I feel comfortable closing it without being "involved". Draftification preserves the history for interested editors to work on this until Hurson is confirmed. Star Mississippi 13:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a federal district court judge Let'srun ( talk) 12:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Keep per WP:Some stuff exists for a reason Snickers2686 ( talk) 14:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Keep The WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges directive states a nomination doesn't mean they are inherently notable but that does not mean the nominees aren't notable. A person is never nominated to an equal branch of government for a lifetime appointment by the leader of the executive branch without having a lengthy career & background. All of the nominees have references to their careers in the press. The president's own announcement details each of their bios. MIAJudges ( talk) 00:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Unreferenced for 9 years. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar ( talk) 10:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous
WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
No significant coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Only primary sources provided. LibStar ( talk) 10:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 11:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSOFT Mfixerer ( talk) 09:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 11:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
per WP:NOTNEWS. Alleged crime which has achieved some short-lived media attention but doesn't presently have lasting notability. Doesn't seem to have anything to indicate it's more notable than numerous other alleged criminal acts. Neiltonks ( talk) 10:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
The article IPv10 should be deleted for the follow reasons:
-- Zac67 ( talk) 08:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
IPv6 has serious drawbacks and is not capable of routing the available Range blocks sizes and most IP addresses are un routable/manageable.
real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event- "web content" would be dubious since at its core it is a software/protocol proposal). That being said, there are no sources, hence no notability, hence zap it.
The result was keep. Star Mississippi 02:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
This article had tons of puffery in it, and it just feels like it's a corporate profile that was written with significant COI problems. The sources are VERY weak, and these are not within the standards expected to Wiki. As such, this should be deleted in accordance with Wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpkinspyce ( talk • contribs) 20:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Redirect Probably redirect to Hachette UK, seems to be a sub-unit of that company now. [33] Oaktree b ( talk) 14:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Redirecting is an editorial decision that can happen outside of AFD. It’s clear there’s no consensus to use the delete button. Courcelles ( talk) 15:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Article about a mayor, not
reliably sourced as the subject of sufficient coverage to pass
WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not all "inherently" notable just because they exist -- the notability test for a mayor requires significant coverage that enables us to write a substantive article about her political impact: specific things she did, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects her mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But all that's here is two footnotes verifying her declaration of her candidacy and her swearing-in as mayor, which is not enough.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when a stronger, more informative and better-referenced article can be written, but just stating and minimally sourcing that she exists as a mayor is not enough in and of itself.
Bearcat (
talk) 00:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 04:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
"For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage."
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability."
"Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline."
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. The Keeps are fairly Weak but there is not strong support for Deletion. This article might make a return visit to AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't meet notability, despite a plethora of sources, most of which aren't RS. Nswix ( talk) 04:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. NYC Guru ( talk) 21:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG -- FMSky ( talk) 06:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 07:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
probably not a good idea to have an article only sourced to the subject's promotional materials. lettherebedarklight 晚安 10:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
SWinxy (
talk) 01:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 04:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: FInal relist. Also, please check out the sources that have been added since the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) LibStar ( talk) 23:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Last AfD had minimal participation. A search in gnews for name in English and Norwegian yielded nothing. The last AfD pointed to a library search that yielded hits in Norwegian newspapers which may or may not be reliable sources. If not, this fails WP:ORG. LibStar ( talk) 00:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 04:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Sam Hyde. While there was good-faith support for keep among some less policy-based arguments, a thorough analysis of sources undemined the independence of some sources with extensive coverage. Several !votes were phrased as "delete" rather than "redirect, but beyond bare statements of preference (and some of the delete !votes don't even do that much with respect to redirection), but no argument was given for why a redirect to the target, which already briefly mentions Fishtank, would not be valid. signed, Rosguill talk 03:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
BLARed this a bit ago as it didn't appear notable to me. Still doesn't. One source has been added since from Sports Keeda which is regarded as unreliable per its entry at WP:RSP. As I had it before, I still believe this should be redirected to Sam Hyde. Also, it's worth noting that some Sam Hyde fans know about the BLAR and are not happy about it, so that may be an issue to watch out for during these proceedings. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 13:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more policy-backed comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
SWinxy (
talk) 02:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I still am not seeing any policy-based arguments from those advocating Keep who seem to rely on unverified viewer numbers which are not important for notability on Wikipedia. These personal attacks are unacceptable and if they continue, there will be blocks. Right now, I'm leaning towards a Redirect. By the way, I am not familiar with this series creator and whatever views he might have. If you are new to AFDs, what matters is
reliable, independent, secondary sources that establish notability, that's the only "agenda" here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 01:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Almost all of the prior arguments are clear as a bell canvassed, and don't really address the question of whether there is or is not sufficient material about this subject in reliable and independent sources to sustain an article on this subject. Comments which directly address this would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Seraphimblade
Talk to me 06:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Source assessment table: prepared by
User:siroxo
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
KOB.com | interview with contestant | ~ local news | ✘ No | |
WIN.gg | ? Tied to promotion of esports (see above), unsure how it impacts this discussion at this time. | "WIN.gg is a proud part of Final Boss Entertainment." Can't find anything beyond a defunct game studio. Not enough on team members [38]. Very little discussion on wikipedia [39]. edit to add: Seem to be tied to esports betting and promotion via WIN group (see discussion above) | ✘ No | |
Passionfruit | ~ founded by daily dot, no consensus per WP:RSP | ~ Partial | ||
POPTOPIC | ? | cited two times across Wikipedia including this article | ✘ No | |
whynow | platform for telling artists stories, advertises itself as not independent | ? | ✘ No | |
D Magazine | ? | ? | not about article subject | ✘ No |
Jewish Journal | ? | ? | not about article subject | ✘ No |
Know Your Meme via MSN | ~ KYM staff writer | current consensus is to avoid in BLP, at best "no consensus" for their produced videos. As this article has a lot in the way of living people, seems risky | ✘ No | |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
One appearance for the Central African Republic national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 05:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
One appearance for the Central African Republic national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 05:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
List of night vision devices
This list article has a few problems, the most serious of which is that it has no sources. It also does not indicate what the criterion is for inclusion, and so does not satisfy list notability. The criterion isn't having a Wikipedia article, since some of the entries are not linked to articles. This list was moved to draft space by User:BoyTheKingCanDance with the statement that it has no sources (because it has no sources). It was then moved back to article space by its creator without adding sources. This is a contested draftification and so is being sent to AFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment the lack of sourcing is a red-herring. Our List of botanists, for example, has no sources, and rightly so: it's a navigational aid to find articles on notable botanists, and all the sourcing required to establish that they are botanists and notable is to be found in the articles on each botanist. The question is whether we really need a navigational aid to find articles on individual night-vision devices. Lists can also be useful to keep articles on the general topic more concise, but since our article on night-vision devices already lists everything, mixed up with the text, this stand-alone list isn't achieving anything particularly useful. Also stand-alone navigational lists shouldn't contain items that don't have a corresponding article. Elemimele ( talk) 06:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Puffery galore, doesn’t look to be notable? Cornmazes ( talk) 04:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 05:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Couldn't find enough coverage or verify sales/charting mentioned on the artist's page. I guess I can't definitely call this non-notable, but it's at least gonna need some work to meet that burden of proof, and if it can't do that then it should be redirected to G.NA. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 02:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 03:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk! 04:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. A couple handwave keep comments, but the detailed, NCORP arguments are all on the delete side. Courcelles ( talk) 15:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Completely unsourced. UtherSRG (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 02:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 03:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk! 04:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 06:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Fails RS, N ( NSOFT), V. Not a notable element of the Linux kernel. It has existed since 2005, and has had a sourcing issue since 2009. No reliable significant sources have been found in 18 years, and I doubt any will turn up soon. Some sources do exist that mention xconfig, but it is a passing mention that confirm it exists ( EXIST), and it is certainly not the focus of them. WhoAteMyButter ( 🌴talk│ ☀️contribs) 04:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
.bashrc
,
init.el
, and
.vimrc
don't have their own own articles despite being some of the most edited config files in Linux is telling. 〜
Festucalex •
talk 05:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)The result was redirect to 2022 United States House of Representatives election in Alaska#Republican Party. This seemed like the more preferred redirect target. If you disagree, you can make your argument at WP:RFD. Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Article about a political candidate, not
properly sourced as having a strong notability claim. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they didn't win -- the notability test at
WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. To qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia rather, a candidate must show that either (a) he already has preexisting notability for some other reasons (e.g. having held a different notable office, having established notability in another career independently of politics) that would already have secured inclusion in Wikipedia anyway, or (b) he has a credible claim to being a special case whose candidacy should be seen as uniquely more notable than other people's candidacies, in some way that would pass the
ten year test for enduring significance.
But neither of those things is in evidence here: there's no serious claim that he was notable for other reasons besides an unsuccessful election campaign, the writing shades into "campaign brochure" territory by spending entirely too much time on his political opinions, and the referencing consists of a small smattering of the purely
run of the mill campaign coverage that every candidate in every election can always show, which hardly constitutes evidence that he's more notable than other candidates.
This previously existed as a redirect to the election he ran in, before being converted into this yesterday -- so no prejudice against restoration of the redirect, but this should be stricken from the edit history first. There's just nothing here that's "inherently" notable at all.
Bearcat (
talk) 02:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NEVENT, little to no significant coverage in reliable sources Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 12:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥
𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆
(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist since a lot of work has been done to this article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable business executive. Sources are all about the company raising money, or primary sources. Nothing additional found, beyond linked in and the like. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥
𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆
(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Remember, each participant can only offer one bolded "vote".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There seems to be equal support for Delete, Keep and Merge/Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Doctor Who supporting characters. Liz Read! Talk! 05:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Minor recurring character, who, despite some potential notability, does not currently meet the GNG nor SIGCOV in the article. Pokelego999 ( talk) 02:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Highly promotional tone, and only one source. I found only one other reliable source, from Mayo County Council https://www.mayo.ie/en-ie/home-to-mayo-2022/ambassadors/adrian-flannelly -- but that doesn't seem independent. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk! 10:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 02:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
There are no sources.. there are dead links.. one of which is archived but it leads to some archive of a personal page that has nothing of substance. This person is not mentioned anywhere. The template for needing more sourced was added 16 years ago.. I think there has been plenty of time to fix the article. There is no fixing it. Nominating for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireandflames2 ( talk • contribs) 01:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 01:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
"fred bronson" + billboardon newspapers.com alone, which vary between in-depth reviews of his book, quotes from or discussions of his Billboard column, and stories about his short-lived radio show. Overall this fellow does not seem to have suffered from a shortage of influentiality. -- Visviva ( talk) 03:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Batman family enemies#Enemies of lesser renown. There were a couple of suggested redirect targets but this one seemed to come up more frequently. If you have a different opinion, you can bring it to WP:RFD or start a discussion on the redirect talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Very minor antagonist in the franchise who has barely shown up past his initial appearance. The previous deletion discussion allowed it to stay due to a few encyclopedic sources, but outside of those few sources, I don't believe it meets GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 ( talk) 00:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)