The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable due to failing WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 05:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 07:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 07:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Reads like an advertisement, notability and verifiability thresholds not met.
Pecopteris (
talk) 07:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Subject doesn't meet WP:JUDGE or WP:GNG as a failed federal judicial nominee. I suppose we could redirect this to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. Let'srun ( talk) 23:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Durham Energy Institute#Geo-energy. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability. No indication the references provide any WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. No indication of any notability. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Possible Merge or Rename can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
This list has no encyclopedic value. "Large aircraft" are defined by aviation authorities such as the FAA and ICAO, and basically include all the airliners, transports, flying boats, bombers and oddballs of any significant size. The class of large aircraft is huge and this list will grow endlessly over time. But it has no cohesion other than a bureaucratic designation. These types are better listed (if at all) within the various more familiar classes I just mentioned, such as the List of airliners by maximum takeoff weight.
There is already an article on large aircraft, covering their characteristics, history and so forth. It includes a historical list of the largest built, so there is no mileage in repurposing this list article along such lines.
The previous AfD in 2014 got tangled up while these and other issues were being figured out, and failed to reach a consensus. Now that things have settled down for a few years, it is time we revisited the matter. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 16:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:18, 1 September 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! 23:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
One reference that is a website claiming to be the "official home of beer darts", and two books about drinking games that briefly mention "beer darts". Methinks this is not "significant coverage from reliable sources". Argles Barkley ( talk) 22:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to XM Satellite Radio channel history#Defunct channels. Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Subject does not pass WP:GNG, with a total lack of WP:SIGCOV for this defunct satellite radio channel. Let'srun ( talk) 21:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 04:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG, tagged for notability since 2018 DonaldD23 talk to me 21:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The article notes: "Reunion Road Trip kicks off on June 10 with All My Children fan favorites Rebecca Budig, Eva LaRue, Cameron Mathison, and Jacob Young, who come together at an exclusive Hollywood mansion to celebrate the show's 50th anniversary with surprise visits from former cast members Alicia Minshew, Debbi Morgan, Kelly Ripa, and Darnell Williams. The second episode, on June 17, features the Original Fab Five from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy — Ted Allen, Kyan Douglas, Thom Filicia, Carson Kressley, and Jai Rodriguez — as they reassemble in Los Angeles to give Rodriguez a makeover for his 40th birthday."
The review notes: "Jersey Shore‘s Reunion Road Trip played out like a long overdue meet-up with all your friends from high school — only if every trace of your time together had burnt down in a fire. ... But mostly, this Reunion was about reminiscing over clips we couldn’t watch (™ MTV) and making sure The Situation feels as humble as possible before he very likely heads to prison. But hey! At least he was able to cushion some of his friends’ blows with the neck brace he scored when infamously ramming his head into a concrete wall during their inglorious return to their Italian homeland in season 4."
The review notes: "This one-off special is a surprisingly candid, funny, and touching half-hour of television that reveals what happens when fist-pumping, binge-drinking gorilla juice heads grow up. ... The special opens with a Behind the Music feel as Mike — who through the years has also appeared on Dancing With the Stars, Celebrity Big Brother, Marriage Boot Camp, and Worst Cooks in America — recounts how high their highs were over six seasons of Jersey Shore."
The article notes: "Titled Reunion Road Trip, the unscripted entry will capture an epic show reunion as the cast drives down memory lane, making familiar stops along the way — sharing stories, revisiting hot spots and catching up on each other’s current lives. Viewers will follow the lifelong friends as they come together to gossip about each other’s lives, what has been said about them in the press, the juiciest moments and stories from behind the scenes that we never saw, and most of all talk about the pop culture hit that has bonded them forever."
The article notes: "The cast of the MTV reality show “Jersey Shore” are coming together again for a new reunion docuseries at E! “Jersey Shore” stars will be in the pilot episode of “Reunion Road Trip,” an unscripted development project that will reunite a variety of casts each week, a source confirmed with Variety. Producers are considering both unscripted and scripted series casts for possible future episodes, with “Jersey Shore” as the only group currently lined up. Greg Lipstone, Simon Knight, Adam Greener, Emily Mayer and Lauren Stevens will executive produce the series."
The article notes: "The unscripted series will be called “Reunion Road Trip” and will feature the cast taking a trip down memory lane. They’ll visit their old stomping grounds, including Jenkinson’s in Point Pleasant Beach, as they reminisce about the original series and catch up on each other’s lives."
The article notes: "“Reunion Road Trip” was filmed primarily at Jenkinson’s Pavilion Restaurant in Point Pleasant Beach. The reunion wasn’t allowed to film in Seaside Heights, which hosted the series from 2009 to 2012. Cast members were arrested, got into brawls, and, as explained on “Reunion Road Trip,” relieved themselves all around town."
The article notes: "This four-part limited series draws to a close with “Back in Scrubs,” an hour devoted to the cult medical sitcom that ran from 2001 to 2010, first on NBC, then on ABC. Leading players Zach Braff (J.D. Dorian), Sarah Chalke (Elliot Reid) and Donald Faison (Christopher Turk) embark on a quest to find Rowdy, the show’s beloved — if taxidermied — dog. As they look back on their “Scrubs” years, they run into other ex-colleagues, including Judy Reyes (head nurse Carla Espinosa) and Robert Maschio (Dr. Todd “The Todd” Quinlan)."
The article notes: "Oh my gosh, they’re back again! Thom Filicia, Ted Allen, Carson Kressley, Kyan Douglas and Jai Rodriguez, aka the Original Fab 5, are reuniting to give one of their own a makeover in an E! Reunion Road Trip special. Almost 20 years after Queer Eye for the Straight Guy premiered on Bravo, the cast is coming together to celebrate Jai’s 40th birthday and giving him a surprisingly much-needed makeover."
The article notes: "Now, thanks to E! Entertainment's Road Trip Reunion series, the original fab five return to our screens for a heart-warming get-together in which they turn their gaze on one of their own, the youngest and only non-white member of the group, Rodriguez, for a surprise makeover on the occasion of his 40th birthday, filmed in LA in the midst of the Covid-19 epidemic."
Cunard ( talk) 04:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 20:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
This list was a fork from Irish Americans in March, 2006, and as far as I can tell it's never passed WP:LISTN at any point since. The selection criteria are ambiguous, and only Boston is sourced. I don't think it can be sourced reliably without some kind of criteria, but editors have never reached consensus on that question. ~ T P W 20:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
If this person/thing/etc. weren't X, would it reduce their fame or significance?). The answer in this case is clearly and emphatically, "No." Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 16:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 20:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, Ambassadors are not considered presumptively notable. No evidence of notability for this person. PK-WIKI ( talk) 19:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Love Sex Aur Dhokha. Liz Read! Talk! 19:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFF - not enough coverage for a film that won't be released for quite a while. Article was PROD'd, but removed. Ravensfire ( talk) 18:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 19:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Seems like WP:PROMO, WP:REFBOMB can easily be observed. The fact that he is the first verified user in the region doesn't make them notable — Toghrul R ( t) 16:08, 1 September 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! 19:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
No sustained significant coverage, and no lasting effects as defined by WP:EFFECT. News story in violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 16:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Unclear why a season for a local youth league would be a notable subject when the league itself doesn't even have an article and the best sources that may be expected are local bits of routine coverage. Fails our notability guideline. Current sources aren't independent. Fram ( talk) 15:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. and Redirected to United Daughters of the Confederacy Liz Read! Talk! 19:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Reviewing the sources, not a single one is significant coverage contributing to GNG. The first few are primary sources that just mention her name, the next two are about her son, and the rest are mere passing mentions of her name in relation to her position on behalf of United Daughters of the Confederacy in that they released a statement (or in a couple, did not respond to emails). Could be redirected to United Daughters of the Confederacy, but there are zero substantive sources actually about the subject. Reywas92 Talk 15:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 19:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Repeatedly rejected at WP:AFC for lack of notability, repeatedly created in mainspace. Time to decide once and for all whether this can stay or not. Article as it stands doesn't even make clear what it is about, and sources are promo pieces. Fram ( talk) 14:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
No reliable sources provided except for routine coverage and one interview, which is definitely not enough. Delete Mozzcircuit ( talk) 08:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 07:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
This list attempts to list NASCAR drivers for all series. It's become bogged down and is overly broad ( WP:SALAT), with some sections not being updated for years. Additionally, it cites no sources ( WP:LISTPEOPLE), which has been an issue for over a year per the warning template. Additionally, this info already exists and is generally kept updated on each NASCAR season's page. glman ( talk) 15:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 10:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of bills in the 113th United States Congress. Spartaz Humbug! 07:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Notability is highly questionable. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 12:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. PhantomSteve/ talk¦ contribs\ 21:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
None of these leagues meet the relevant notability thresholds. It's likely that WP:NCORP applies, but even the lower threshold (in terms of source independence) of WP:GNG is not met here. In fact, none of them have any independent sources that provide significant coverage of the individual leages. Articles included in this nomination per WP:BUNDLE are:
I've taken these from Category:CIF Central Section; if there are any others that belong in this bundle nom, please let me know. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 12:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Comment: Note previous related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Yosemite Horizon League. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 12:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Redirect all except Hi-Lo League to CIF Central Section: Most of these leagues do not meet WP:GNG or any other notability criteria. However, there appears to be enough WP:SIGCOV about the Hi-Lo League due to the geography of the conference. [ [9]][ [10]]. Per the previous Afd, redirect all of the others to CIF Central Section. User:Let'srun 16:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
So, the TLDR version of the above is: there's a weak Keep argument based on presumption of local coverage and a compelling IAR argument based on utility. 4.37.252.50 ( talk) 16:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
This is an obvious effort to wipe out this entire swath of content; to remove from Wikipedia the league structure of this geographic section of California.
All of these and all other similar leagues WILL qualify under WP:SIGCOVdirectly contradicts WP:CRYSTAL. Notability requires verifiable evidence, and editor analysis that a subject will certainly become notable in the future is unverifiable. Calling this nomination
an uninformed effort to damage Wikipedia by deleting content you do not understandis unduly accusatory and hardly civil. I understand your argument, and the bundling of these nominations may not have been the best way to go. But it was well-intentioned, and I would appreciate some civility as we figure out how to proceed with this. Thanks for your work and your time. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 17:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 12:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 04:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Does not pass WP:NMUSIC. I can't find much significant coverage. Maintenance tags since 2010. Qcne (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 12:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:08, 1 September 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 14:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
There is no independent significant coverage that meets the requirements set out at WP:GNG. All I can find is, he was twice caught in the news. First, for his involvement with some land deals that reached litigation that just happened to involve a football club, which is what the news was actually interested in. And second, when it was found that a block of flats that had gone viral for its "squalid" conditions was owned by him. I feel silly having to say this, but neither one, nor both together, should be enough to qualify a person for an encyclopedia entry, even one as inclusive as ours. Also, we should not be creating an article about otherwise non-notable people to list out bad things about them which were not severe enough to make them famous and result in massive court cases that find them guilty. And he is otherwise non-notable. Remove those two incidents, and we are left with zero secondary sources. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Merge with /info/en/?search=List_of_magazines_in_the_Netherlands Mimi Ho Kora ( talk) 13:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. One critical source seems to be about another person entirely. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
No evidence of wp:notability under eiother GNG or n:sports. Sources are just database listings. Tagged for this since May. North8000 ( talk) 12:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
then why don't you put those sources into the article?as a mere suggestion but as accusatory. Robby.is.on ( talk) 19:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
No content or evidence of wp:notability under either GNG or N:Sports. Tagged for this since July North8000 ( talk) 12:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was Disambiguate.. There is consensus that converting this to a DAB is appropriate. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Not really a distinct genre. During a short interval in the early 2000s it appears that this phrase circulated a little bit, but overall, nowadays, such games are categorized as action-adventure games. The notion of this hybrid genre named in this way this also conflicts with how a game like Myst is not a "first-person adventure" (a game of this hybrid genre, i.e. a first-person action adventure), but at the same time it is a first-person adventure (a first person adventure game, and it is often described using those words). Sourcing is lacking. Fails WP:GNG as a term. — Alalch E. 08:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
'''First-person adventure''' refers to the following types of video games: * First-person adventure as an [[adventure game]], played from a first-person perspective ** First-person adventure as an adventure game of the [[walking simulator]] subgenre of such games, played from a first-person perspective * First-person adventure as an [[action-adventure game]] that combines first-person shooter elements with adventure game elements
Would those pages make mention of the genres being "first-person" adventure games?The DAB proposal doesn't call "First-person adventure" a genre, as it isn't a genre. Player perspective (first-person, third-person etc.) is not a defining characteristic of a genre when adventure games are concerned. Two of the three dabbed articles do say as much, mentioning the attribute "first-person" to say that there are such games in this player perspective, among others (emphasis mine in examples):
Graphic adventures are adventure games that use graphics to convey the environment to the player. Games under the graphic adventure banner may have a variety of input types, from text parsers to touch screen interfaces. Graphic adventure games will vary in how they present the avatar. Some games will utilize a first-person or third-person perspective where the camera follows the player's movements, whereas many adventure games use drawn or pre-rendered backgrounds, or a context-sensitive camera that is positioned to show off each location to the best effect.
— Adventure game#Graphic adventure
Comment: This was the target of the former redirect; the links to the redirect in articles directed players to the content that explains the classic adventure genre, as was intended, but this was broken with the restoration of the content usurping this relationship and causing nonsensical linking, see my comment further down
They are distinct from graphic adventures, which sometimes have free-moving central characters, but also a wider variety of commands and fewer or no action game elements and are distinct too from text adventures, characterized by many different commands introduced by the user via a complex text parser and no free-moving character. While they share general gameplay dynamics, action-adventures vary widely in the design of their viewpoints, including bird's eye, side-scrolling, first-person, third-person, over-the-shoulder, or even a 3/4 isometric view.
/no mention of "first-person", but it should be added/
— Walking simulator.
Comment: It is not original research to say that walking simulators may have a first-person perspective. The article fails to mention this, but it should really be mentioned, as it is more of a prominent characteristic of walking simulators then of adventure games in general and of action-adventures. The games the article takes as examples are adventure games with a first-person perspective: Dear Esther (that article: "Dear Esther is an adventure video game" /fails to mention the first-person perspective/), The Stanley Parable (that article: "The Stanley Parable is a story-based video game /vague about the genre/ ... The player has a first-person perspective, ...), Gone Home (that article: "Gone Home is a first-person adventure video game"), The Vanishing of Ethan Carter (that article: "... is a 2014 horror adventure" /fails to mention the first-person perspective/), Firewatch (that article: "Firewatch is an adventure game played from a first-person").Sources that discuss the first-person and the third-person perspective in walking simulators:
- Kunzelman, Cameron (29 March 2022). "Behold the birth, and resonance, of walking simulators". Washington Post.
- Penabella, Miguel (27 October 2015). "Why are we so afraid to walk?". Kill Screen.
First-person adventure refers to the following types of video games.I'm mainly just asking the question of: is there any evidence to suggest that "first-person adventure" is what ANY of these types of games are referred to as, and whether this referral has any basis beyond "it's an adventure game that is in first-person, therefore it's a first-person adventure [game]". None of the articles refer to any variations being described as a "first person adventure", nor is there any coverage about the significance of an adventure game BEING in first-person besides passing mentions that they can be [in first-person], which is akin to most other game genres.
Nintendo stressed that it was not a first-person shooter but a "first-person adventure".) could be a valid ATD. I no longer intend to pursue proposed DABbing, but I am not against it either. — Alalch E. 14:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Article fails the notability guidelines for corporations the sources available are most paid sources. Best, Reading Beans ( talk) 08:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
https://techcabal.com/2023/07/10/ojirehprime-partners-with-onfido-to-improve-customer-onboarding/ | The author "Partner" indicates that it was paid for | ~ | ✘ No | |
https://techcabal.com/2023/07/10/ojirehprime-introduces-new-savings-feature/ | ditto | ✘ No | ||
https://businessday.ng/technology/article/ceo-who-slept-on-lagos-streets-set-to-complete-21m-funding/ | ? | ? Unknown | ||
https://nairametrics.com/2022/04/20/ojirehprime-launches-digital-bank-with-interest-free-loans/ | The author "N.M. Partners" indicates that it was paid for. | ✘ 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! 08:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Subject does not meet the general notability guidelines for living persons. First sources is an interview, second is a paid press release (Partner at TechCabal is for paid articles), the others from Business Day relies solely on what he said AND they were written by the same author, so, I don’t know make out whatever you can. Best, Reading Beans ( talk) 08:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Reading Beans ( talk) 21:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't find this person notable. The article doesn't speak for itself. I previously moved the article to draftspace so that the creator can develop it undisturbed. They removed the AFC tag, moved it back to mainspace and pretended as if it was accepted via AFC. To avoid a move war, I am bringing it here. Citations also don't look reliable. In a nutshell, it fails WP:GNG Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 08:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Other than the nominator, there was a single delete vote, a single redirect vote and 3 keeps. PhantomSteve/ talk¦ contribs\ 21:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Nominated here because PROD was contested.
Wikipedia’s criteria for inclusion apply to articles about Wikipedia and Wikipedians as much as any other. As this is an article about Wikipedia editors written by Wikipedia editors, there is clearly a conflict of interest to be aware of. The PROD was removed entirely legitimately but only (I assert) because a PROD can be removed for any reason – the explanation given included It's a very notable group that plays great role in promoting Wikimedia Movement and Wikimedia Values wolrdwide. More over, this effort counters the m:Gender Gap which is one of the biggest tasks for the movement
, which clearly points to a COI and a
non-neutral point of view – those are not of themselves valid reasons for retaining the article.
Notability is neither inherent or inherited. For the group to be notable, significant, independent and reliable coverage of the group itself is required. What I see is riding on the coattails of Wikipedia’s notability. The article should therefore be deleted. Dorsetonian ( talk) 06:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm supposed to be neutral but this seems like a silly subject to bring to AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 07:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 08:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
As this is an article about Wikipedia editors written by Wikipedia editors, there is clearly a conflict of interest to be aware of...seems 'silly', almost like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human. Nobody is being "punished" here, we're attempting to achieve consensus. NotAGenious ( talk) 11:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit 14:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Massive number of footnotes, but only one of them covers the subject directly in any detail. The article is full of excessive detail about Skinner's work, which allows for many more footnotes. This was previously proposed for deletion, or I would have gone that route. ~ T P W 14:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 07:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 08:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Kushwaha. Liz Read! Talk! 08:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
This is just another pronunciation of Kushwaha. And a long surname article exists for that, with a few reliable sources that a social group uses that surname in India. That article aso contains the four individuals listed here. Hence it needs to be deleted.- Admantine123 ( talk) 07:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Another DTV America/HC2/Innovate LPTV with no significant coverage anywhere, and not much to speak of in general (despite the attempt to represent the 2011 CP grant date as its "sign on", it was only licensed in 2021). (This is another station that was part of the failed bulk nomination of HC2/Innovate station articles that intermingled stations like this one with facilities that may have, if not more notability, at least more substantial histories.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 04:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 07:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Limited participation after 3 relistings means this is closing as No consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to be notable enough for its own article, seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:COMPOSER. The only sources I could find were his own website and a British Music Collection biography of him, the rest are mirrors. There were also 2? reviews from The Guardian, but at least the other one looked like a passing mention only. Perhaps a redirect to Royal Northern College of Music under 'Notable alumni' or 1974 in British music under 'Births'? NotAGenious ( talk) 11:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 17:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 20:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of the available reference material would be helpful. Discussion of what the person has done is not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Seraphimblade
Talk to me 06:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I'm closing this as No consensus as I don't anticipate more participation happening here. Still some unanswered concerns. Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Previous 2 AFDs were closed as Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 21:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of available source material would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Seraphimblade
Talk to me 06:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Boko Haram insurgency. Liz Read! Talk! 04:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
No sustained significant coverage. Two disparate events as part of a larger conflict. News story in violation of WP:NOTNEWS. There's no reason for this to have an article split off from Boko Haram insurgency or List of massacres in Nigeria. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 04:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
No sustained significant coverage. News story in violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 04:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 04:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I initially only tagged this for notability, but then I realized that this article is entirely created through two single-purpose accounts. I'm now more confident no reliable sources will be turned up. ~ T P W 17:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 04:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Procedural nomination per this discussion at RfD. Article was redirected after PROD, but no content was merged nor mentioned at the target. There was also an unsuccessful attempt at WP:BLARring the page in 2020. CycloneYoris talk! 10:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 04:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability, and this is an informational list that is split out of the main article. I don't see a need to delete this list. — siro χ o 04:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Delete by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) Lightoil ( talk) 04:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
This looks like a hoax to me. Before requesting a speedy deletion as a blatant hoax, I would like to have a couple of opinions and probably share some good laughs. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk) 04:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
The subject has earned at least 14 caps for the Dominican Republic women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 04:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Guyana women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 04:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Guyana women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least one cap for the Guyana women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 04:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Lacks WP:SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources, the only reliable coverage I could find is [23]. The article should be redirected to YouTube Vanced, as it is only barely notable as Vanced's successor. Yeeno ( talk) 03:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article.Unfortunately, there really isn't a way around this, regardless of how you think things should be. Notability also isn't determined by a WP:BIGNUMBER, nor is it WP:INHERITED from Vanced, so we need reliable third-party sources to determine notability. While I understand the concern about fakes, Wikipedia isn't the place to solve that issue, as, again, we are dependent on what reliable independent sources say; per WP:SELFSOURCE, primary sources are only used for self-descriptive information such as an app's website or version number, and cannot be used to support notability. Yeeno ( talk) 06:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 03:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Behind Closed Doors is not something that is needs an article. Every animated production has drawings like the ones seen in this book. Anything between Popeye to Rugrats has had vile pictures drawn by staff, this is just another to add to the pile. Not only is it unncessary, but it also lacks sufficient documentation. Only one reference to this book (might I add without any details) has been discovered that predates the book's leak by YouTuber LSuperSonicQ. Every other reference is written about that video, and no new information comes from them because of it. We don't know enough about this book to be given proper coverage, and again, even if it did, it does not stand out from any of the other books and artwork of its nature. With this logic, the Rugrats storyboard jam "Incredible" (which is of a very similar nature and includes vile drawings of children's characters) should also have an article. This is only been given social significance due to its falsified popularity online, and in reality has no actual historical significance outside of any other animated production. Ziggycashmere ( talk) 03:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Fails GNG. Sources in the article are primary, database, government. BEFORE showed database and primary, some ROUTINE news, nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 03:05, 1 September 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 04:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Subject appears to fall into WP:BIO1E from winning a beauty pageant. Not enough here to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun ( talk) 02:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:49, 1 September 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 04:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Subject lacks a sustained amount of coverage to meet WP:GNG. Let'srun ( talk) 02:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJUDGE. Let'srun ( talk) 02:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess changes to the article and sources brought up in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Robbie Williams. Just another reminder, if you are seeking an outcome of Redirect or Merge, please specify the target article you believe is most appropriate so the closer doesn't have to guess what you are thinking. Failing to do this will likely cause the discussion to be relisted until a target is specified. Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
This page was recreated multiple times from 2019 to 2021 with no notability demonstrated since then. It only has three sources, and two of those are to Williams's website, and the other is YouTube. I don't see any convincing coverage of this from a Google search, and while the first two volumes have a bit more out there on them that might make them notable, I don't think this third volume does. Williams having released notable recordings before and since doesn't mean this compilation is notable as notability is inherited, and so I'm requesting this be redirected so that there's consensus against another editor restoring it. Ss 112 00:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 01:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was Speedy keep: Withdrawn by nominator. HenryMP02 ( talk) 03:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Sources are not independent: they are press releases. Couldn't find significant coverage elsewhere. Therefore, this article does not meet the general notability guideline. HenryMP02 ( talk) 00:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator after User:A. B. found new sources (especially the Salon article) that establish notability. HenryMP02 ( talk) 03:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 00:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
The Subject has only won "multiple medals" in Karate which does not constitute wiki notability for WP:NKICK. Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NSPORT. Lethweimaster ( talk) 07:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 17:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess source brought up in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 21:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk! 00:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I don't see a consensus here and I doubt that one more week will definitively resolve the difference of opinion and interpretation of policy. Liz Read! Talk! 00:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Sourcing is poor, none of their releases are notable. I found nothing of use on a WP:BEFORE search. dannymusiceditor oops 20:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
A BAND from Detroit, Search The City, have recorded their first Tooth & Nail album. 'A Fire So Big The Heavens Can See It' is produced by James Paul Wisner (Dashboard Confessional, Underoath). Said the band's frontman Josh Frost, "We're more influenced by hardcore music than anything else. It doesn't show so much because we're pretty poppy in parts. But collectively, we all love bands like Jimmy Eat World. We'd probably say we are progressive rock or something like that."from Cross Rhyms. That's a very trivial coverage. An announcement that they've recorded an album, then the other half is a quotation of the band member's commentary, so you couldn't call that independent. Hardly a sigcov. More like slightly above a mention. I agree that things do not need to have refresher coverages every xx years to be notable; however, WP:20YT and notice over a sufficient time period are something to consider. On the JesusFreakhideout, there's an Amazon link with AFFILIATE CODE in it to buy the CD page, so in a way, it's like a sponsored review. Graywalls ( talk) 11:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 20:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors are still split between keeping and deleting... Further input would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk! 00:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
A local non-profit doing local thing. A quick WP:BEFORE suggests it does not meet WP:NCORP and I don't believe it's a suitable encyclopedia article. The article creator appears to be a promotional editor based on the edit pattern and the name that's suggestive of a purpose specific role account with activity duration that seems to be consistent with a typical internship. Graywalls ( talk) 08:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Burns continued, “Together, we created an organization that offers lifesaving and life-changing services to people wrestling with chronic illness, substance use disorder, housing insecurity and other challenges. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to be a part of this important work.”is clearly not independent. I see a lot of local coverage. Local organizations get local coverage but local notability is not global notability, which is essentially the criteria for WP:NCORP Graywalls ( talk) 22:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For some further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk! 00:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Comment: our guidelines and policies make no distinction between national coverage and local coverage or between big newspapers and little newspapers. The reason is because Wikipedia wants to include as much reliable information as possible (you know, the old "sum of all human knowledge"). We screen for notability not as some measure of earned merit ("they're big and famous") but rather as an indicator as to whether we have enough with which to build a reliable article. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 00:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
the biggest daily newspaper in any US state(Pennsylvania). No prejudice against a new article when SIRS sources are found and a proper article is written. — siro χ o 07:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable due to failing WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 05:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 07:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 07:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Reads like an advertisement, notability and verifiability thresholds not met.
Pecopteris (
talk) 07:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Subject doesn't meet WP:JUDGE or WP:GNG as a failed federal judicial nominee. I suppose we could redirect this to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. Let'srun ( talk) 23:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Durham Energy Institute#Geo-energy. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability. No indication the references provide any WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. No indication of any notability. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Possible Merge or Rename can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
This list has no encyclopedic value. "Large aircraft" are defined by aviation authorities such as the FAA and ICAO, and basically include all the airliners, transports, flying boats, bombers and oddballs of any significant size. The class of large aircraft is huge and this list will grow endlessly over time. But it has no cohesion other than a bureaucratic designation. These types are better listed (if at all) within the various more familiar classes I just mentioned, such as the List of airliners by maximum takeoff weight.
There is already an article on large aircraft, covering their characteristics, history and so forth. It includes a historical list of the largest built, so there is no mileage in repurposing this list article along such lines.
The previous AfD in 2014 got tangled up while these and other issues were being figured out, and failed to reach a consensus. Now that things have settled down for a few years, it is time we revisited the matter. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 16:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:18, 1 September 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! 23:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
One reference that is a website claiming to be the "official home of beer darts", and two books about drinking games that briefly mention "beer darts". Methinks this is not "significant coverage from reliable sources". Argles Barkley ( talk) 22:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to XM Satellite Radio channel history#Defunct channels. Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Subject does not pass WP:GNG, with a total lack of WP:SIGCOV for this defunct satellite radio channel. Let'srun ( talk) 21:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 04:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG, tagged for notability since 2018 DonaldD23 talk to me 21:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The article notes: "Reunion Road Trip kicks off on June 10 with All My Children fan favorites Rebecca Budig, Eva LaRue, Cameron Mathison, and Jacob Young, who come together at an exclusive Hollywood mansion to celebrate the show's 50th anniversary with surprise visits from former cast members Alicia Minshew, Debbi Morgan, Kelly Ripa, and Darnell Williams. The second episode, on June 17, features the Original Fab Five from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy — Ted Allen, Kyan Douglas, Thom Filicia, Carson Kressley, and Jai Rodriguez — as they reassemble in Los Angeles to give Rodriguez a makeover for his 40th birthday."
The review notes: "Jersey Shore‘s Reunion Road Trip played out like a long overdue meet-up with all your friends from high school — only if every trace of your time together had burnt down in a fire. ... But mostly, this Reunion was about reminiscing over clips we couldn’t watch (™ MTV) and making sure The Situation feels as humble as possible before he very likely heads to prison. But hey! At least he was able to cushion some of his friends’ blows with the neck brace he scored when infamously ramming his head into a concrete wall during their inglorious return to their Italian homeland in season 4."
The review notes: "This one-off special is a surprisingly candid, funny, and touching half-hour of television that reveals what happens when fist-pumping, binge-drinking gorilla juice heads grow up. ... The special opens with a Behind the Music feel as Mike — who through the years has also appeared on Dancing With the Stars, Celebrity Big Brother, Marriage Boot Camp, and Worst Cooks in America — recounts how high their highs were over six seasons of Jersey Shore."
The article notes: "Titled Reunion Road Trip, the unscripted entry will capture an epic show reunion as the cast drives down memory lane, making familiar stops along the way — sharing stories, revisiting hot spots and catching up on each other’s current lives. Viewers will follow the lifelong friends as they come together to gossip about each other’s lives, what has been said about them in the press, the juiciest moments and stories from behind the scenes that we never saw, and most of all talk about the pop culture hit that has bonded them forever."
The article notes: "The cast of the MTV reality show “Jersey Shore” are coming together again for a new reunion docuseries at E! “Jersey Shore” stars will be in the pilot episode of “Reunion Road Trip,” an unscripted development project that will reunite a variety of casts each week, a source confirmed with Variety. Producers are considering both unscripted and scripted series casts for possible future episodes, with “Jersey Shore” as the only group currently lined up. Greg Lipstone, Simon Knight, Adam Greener, Emily Mayer and Lauren Stevens will executive produce the series."
The article notes: "The unscripted series will be called “Reunion Road Trip” and will feature the cast taking a trip down memory lane. They’ll visit their old stomping grounds, including Jenkinson’s in Point Pleasant Beach, as they reminisce about the original series and catch up on each other’s lives."
The article notes: "“Reunion Road Trip” was filmed primarily at Jenkinson’s Pavilion Restaurant in Point Pleasant Beach. The reunion wasn’t allowed to film in Seaside Heights, which hosted the series from 2009 to 2012. Cast members were arrested, got into brawls, and, as explained on “Reunion Road Trip,” relieved themselves all around town."
The article notes: "This four-part limited series draws to a close with “Back in Scrubs,” an hour devoted to the cult medical sitcom that ran from 2001 to 2010, first on NBC, then on ABC. Leading players Zach Braff (J.D. Dorian), Sarah Chalke (Elliot Reid) and Donald Faison (Christopher Turk) embark on a quest to find Rowdy, the show’s beloved — if taxidermied — dog. As they look back on their “Scrubs” years, they run into other ex-colleagues, including Judy Reyes (head nurse Carla Espinosa) and Robert Maschio (Dr. Todd “The Todd” Quinlan)."
The article notes: "Oh my gosh, they’re back again! Thom Filicia, Ted Allen, Carson Kressley, Kyan Douglas and Jai Rodriguez, aka the Original Fab 5, are reuniting to give one of their own a makeover in an E! Reunion Road Trip special. Almost 20 years after Queer Eye for the Straight Guy premiered on Bravo, the cast is coming together to celebrate Jai’s 40th birthday and giving him a surprisingly much-needed makeover."
The article notes: "Now, thanks to E! Entertainment's Road Trip Reunion series, the original fab five return to our screens for a heart-warming get-together in which they turn their gaze on one of their own, the youngest and only non-white member of the group, Rodriguez, for a surprise makeover on the occasion of his 40th birthday, filmed in LA in the midst of the Covid-19 epidemic."
Cunard ( talk) 04:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 20:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
This list was a fork from Irish Americans in March, 2006, and as far as I can tell it's never passed WP:LISTN at any point since. The selection criteria are ambiguous, and only Boston is sourced. I don't think it can be sourced reliably without some kind of criteria, but editors have never reached consensus on that question. ~ T P W 20:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
If this person/thing/etc. weren't X, would it reduce their fame or significance?). The answer in this case is clearly and emphatically, "No." Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 16:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 20:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, Ambassadors are not considered presumptively notable. No evidence of notability for this person. PK-WIKI ( talk) 19:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Love Sex Aur Dhokha. Liz Read! Talk! 19:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFF - not enough coverage for a film that won't be released for quite a while. Article was PROD'd, but removed. Ravensfire ( talk) 18:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 19:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Seems like WP:PROMO, WP:REFBOMB can easily be observed. The fact that he is the first verified user in the region doesn't make them notable — Toghrul R ( t) 16:08, 1 September 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! 19:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
No sustained significant coverage, and no lasting effects as defined by WP:EFFECT. News story in violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 16:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Unclear why a season for a local youth league would be a notable subject when the league itself doesn't even have an article and the best sources that may be expected are local bits of routine coverage. Fails our notability guideline. Current sources aren't independent. Fram ( talk) 15:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. and Redirected to United Daughters of the Confederacy Liz Read! Talk! 19:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Reviewing the sources, not a single one is significant coverage contributing to GNG. The first few are primary sources that just mention her name, the next two are about her son, and the rest are mere passing mentions of her name in relation to her position on behalf of United Daughters of the Confederacy in that they released a statement (or in a couple, did not respond to emails). Could be redirected to United Daughters of the Confederacy, but there are zero substantive sources actually about the subject. Reywas92 Talk 15:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 19:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Repeatedly rejected at WP:AFC for lack of notability, repeatedly created in mainspace. Time to decide once and for all whether this can stay or not. Article as it stands doesn't even make clear what it is about, and sources are promo pieces. Fram ( talk) 14:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
No reliable sources provided except for routine coverage and one interview, which is definitely not enough. Delete Mozzcircuit ( talk) 08:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 07:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
This list attempts to list NASCAR drivers for all series. It's become bogged down and is overly broad ( WP:SALAT), with some sections not being updated for years. Additionally, it cites no sources ( WP:LISTPEOPLE), which has been an issue for over a year per the warning template. Additionally, this info already exists and is generally kept updated on each NASCAR season's page. glman ( talk) 15:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 10:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of bills in the 113th United States Congress. Spartaz Humbug! 07:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Notability is highly questionable. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 12:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. PhantomSteve/ talk¦ contribs\ 21:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
None of these leagues meet the relevant notability thresholds. It's likely that WP:NCORP applies, but even the lower threshold (in terms of source independence) of WP:GNG is not met here. In fact, none of them have any independent sources that provide significant coverage of the individual leages. Articles included in this nomination per WP:BUNDLE are:
I've taken these from Category:CIF Central Section; if there are any others that belong in this bundle nom, please let me know. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 12:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Comment: Note previous related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Yosemite Horizon League. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 12:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Redirect all except Hi-Lo League to CIF Central Section: Most of these leagues do not meet WP:GNG or any other notability criteria. However, there appears to be enough WP:SIGCOV about the Hi-Lo League due to the geography of the conference. [ [9]][ [10]]. Per the previous Afd, redirect all of the others to CIF Central Section. User:Let'srun 16:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
So, the TLDR version of the above is: there's a weak Keep argument based on presumption of local coverage and a compelling IAR argument based on utility. 4.37.252.50 ( talk) 16:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
This is an obvious effort to wipe out this entire swath of content; to remove from Wikipedia the league structure of this geographic section of California.
All of these and all other similar leagues WILL qualify under WP:SIGCOVdirectly contradicts WP:CRYSTAL. Notability requires verifiable evidence, and editor analysis that a subject will certainly become notable in the future is unverifiable. Calling this nomination
an uninformed effort to damage Wikipedia by deleting content you do not understandis unduly accusatory and hardly civil. I understand your argument, and the bundling of these nominations may not have been the best way to go. But it was well-intentioned, and I would appreciate some civility as we figure out how to proceed with this. Thanks for your work and your time. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 17:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 12:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 04:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Does not pass WP:NMUSIC. I can't find much significant coverage. Maintenance tags since 2010. Qcne (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 12:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:08, 1 September 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 14:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
There is no independent significant coverage that meets the requirements set out at WP:GNG. All I can find is, he was twice caught in the news. First, for his involvement with some land deals that reached litigation that just happened to involve a football club, which is what the news was actually interested in. And second, when it was found that a block of flats that had gone viral for its "squalid" conditions was owned by him. I feel silly having to say this, but neither one, nor both together, should be enough to qualify a person for an encyclopedia entry, even one as inclusive as ours. Also, we should not be creating an article about otherwise non-notable people to list out bad things about them which were not severe enough to make them famous and result in massive court cases that find them guilty. And he is otherwise non-notable. Remove those two incidents, and we are left with zero secondary sources. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Merge with /info/en/?search=List_of_magazines_in_the_Netherlands Mimi Ho Kora ( talk) 13:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. One critical source seems to be about another person entirely. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
No evidence of wp:notability under eiother GNG or n:sports. Sources are just database listings. Tagged for this since May. North8000 ( talk) 12:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
then why don't you put those sources into the article?as a mere suggestion but as accusatory. Robby.is.on ( talk) 19:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
No content or evidence of wp:notability under either GNG or N:Sports. Tagged for this since July North8000 ( talk) 12:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was Disambiguate.. There is consensus that converting this to a DAB is appropriate. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Not really a distinct genre. During a short interval in the early 2000s it appears that this phrase circulated a little bit, but overall, nowadays, such games are categorized as action-adventure games. The notion of this hybrid genre named in this way this also conflicts with how a game like Myst is not a "first-person adventure" (a game of this hybrid genre, i.e. a first-person action adventure), but at the same time it is a first-person adventure (a first person adventure game, and it is often described using those words). Sourcing is lacking. Fails WP:GNG as a term. — Alalch E. 08:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
'''First-person adventure''' refers to the following types of video games: * First-person adventure as an [[adventure game]], played from a first-person perspective ** First-person adventure as an adventure game of the [[walking simulator]] subgenre of such games, played from a first-person perspective * First-person adventure as an [[action-adventure game]] that combines first-person shooter elements with adventure game elements
Would those pages make mention of the genres being "first-person" adventure games?The DAB proposal doesn't call "First-person adventure" a genre, as it isn't a genre. Player perspective (first-person, third-person etc.) is not a defining characteristic of a genre when adventure games are concerned. Two of the three dabbed articles do say as much, mentioning the attribute "first-person" to say that there are such games in this player perspective, among others (emphasis mine in examples):
Graphic adventures are adventure games that use graphics to convey the environment to the player. Games under the graphic adventure banner may have a variety of input types, from text parsers to touch screen interfaces. Graphic adventure games will vary in how they present the avatar. Some games will utilize a first-person or third-person perspective where the camera follows the player's movements, whereas many adventure games use drawn or pre-rendered backgrounds, or a context-sensitive camera that is positioned to show off each location to the best effect.
— Adventure game#Graphic adventure
Comment: This was the target of the former redirect; the links to the redirect in articles directed players to the content that explains the classic adventure genre, as was intended, but this was broken with the restoration of the content usurping this relationship and causing nonsensical linking, see my comment further down
They are distinct from graphic adventures, which sometimes have free-moving central characters, but also a wider variety of commands and fewer or no action game elements and are distinct too from text adventures, characterized by many different commands introduced by the user via a complex text parser and no free-moving character. While they share general gameplay dynamics, action-adventures vary widely in the design of their viewpoints, including bird's eye, side-scrolling, first-person, third-person, over-the-shoulder, or even a 3/4 isometric view.
/no mention of "first-person", but it should be added/
— Walking simulator.
Comment: It is not original research to say that walking simulators may have a first-person perspective. The article fails to mention this, but it should really be mentioned, as it is more of a prominent characteristic of walking simulators then of adventure games in general and of action-adventures. The games the article takes as examples are adventure games with a first-person perspective: Dear Esther (that article: "Dear Esther is an adventure video game" /fails to mention the first-person perspective/), The Stanley Parable (that article: "The Stanley Parable is a story-based video game /vague about the genre/ ... The player has a first-person perspective, ...), Gone Home (that article: "Gone Home is a first-person adventure video game"), The Vanishing of Ethan Carter (that article: "... is a 2014 horror adventure" /fails to mention the first-person perspective/), Firewatch (that article: "Firewatch is an adventure game played from a first-person").Sources that discuss the first-person and the third-person perspective in walking simulators:
- Kunzelman, Cameron (29 March 2022). "Behold the birth, and resonance, of walking simulators". Washington Post.
- Penabella, Miguel (27 October 2015). "Why are we so afraid to walk?". Kill Screen.
First-person adventure refers to the following types of video games.I'm mainly just asking the question of: is there any evidence to suggest that "first-person adventure" is what ANY of these types of games are referred to as, and whether this referral has any basis beyond "it's an adventure game that is in first-person, therefore it's a first-person adventure [game]". None of the articles refer to any variations being described as a "first person adventure", nor is there any coverage about the significance of an adventure game BEING in first-person besides passing mentions that they can be [in first-person], which is akin to most other game genres.
Nintendo stressed that it was not a first-person shooter but a "first-person adventure".) could be a valid ATD. I no longer intend to pursue proposed DABbing, but I am not against it either. — Alalch E. 14:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Article fails the notability guidelines for corporations the sources available are most paid sources. Best, Reading Beans ( talk) 08:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
https://techcabal.com/2023/07/10/ojirehprime-partners-with-onfido-to-improve-customer-onboarding/ | The author "Partner" indicates that it was paid for | ~ | ✘ No | |
https://techcabal.com/2023/07/10/ojirehprime-introduces-new-savings-feature/ | ditto | ✘ No | ||
https://businessday.ng/technology/article/ceo-who-slept-on-lagos-streets-set-to-complete-21m-funding/ | ? | ? Unknown | ||
https://nairametrics.com/2022/04/20/ojirehprime-launches-digital-bank-with-interest-free-loans/ | The author "N.M. Partners" indicates that it was paid for. | ✘ 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! 08:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Subject does not meet the general notability guidelines for living persons. First sources is an interview, second is a paid press release (Partner at TechCabal is for paid articles), the others from Business Day relies solely on what he said AND they were written by the same author, so, I don’t know make out whatever you can. Best, Reading Beans ( talk) 08:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Reading Beans ( talk) 21:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't find this person notable. The article doesn't speak for itself. I previously moved the article to draftspace so that the creator can develop it undisturbed. They removed the AFC tag, moved it back to mainspace and pretended as if it was accepted via AFC. To avoid a move war, I am bringing it here. Citations also don't look reliable. In a nutshell, it fails WP:GNG Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 08:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Other than the nominator, there was a single delete vote, a single redirect vote and 3 keeps. PhantomSteve/ talk¦ contribs\ 21:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Nominated here because PROD was contested.
Wikipedia’s criteria for inclusion apply to articles about Wikipedia and Wikipedians as much as any other. As this is an article about Wikipedia editors written by Wikipedia editors, there is clearly a conflict of interest to be aware of. The PROD was removed entirely legitimately but only (I assert) because a PROD can be removed for any reason – the explanation given included It's a very notable group that plays great role in promoting Wikimedia Movement and Wikimedia Values wolrdwide. More over, this effort counters the m:Gender Gap which is one of the biggest tasks for the movement
, which clearly points to a COI and a
non-neutral point of view – those are not of themselves valid reasons for retaining the article.
Notability is neither inherent or inherited. For the group to be notable, significant, independent and reliable coverage of the group itself is required. What I see is riding on the coattails of Wikipedia’s notability. The article should therefore be deleted. Dorsetonian ( talk) 06:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm supposed to be neutral but this seems like a silly subject to bring to AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 07:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 08:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
As this is an article about Wikipedia editors written by Wikipedia editors, there is clearly a conflict of interest to be aware of...seems 'silly', almost like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human. Nobody is being "punished" here, we're attempting to achieve consensus. NotAGenious ( talk) 11:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit 14:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Massive number of footnotes, but only one of them covers the subject directly in any detail. The article is full of excessive detail about Skinner's work, which allows for many more footnotes. This was previously proposed for deletion, or I would have gone that route. ~ T P W 14:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 07:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 08:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Kushwaha. Liz Read! Talk! 08:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
This is just another pronunciation of Kushwaha. And a long surname article exists for that, with a few reliable sources that a social group uses that surname in India. That article aso contains the four individuals listed here. Hence it needs to be deleted.- Admantine123 ( talk) 07:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Another DTV America/HC2/Innovate LPTV with no significant coverage anywhere, and not much to speak of in general (despite the attempt to represent the 2011 CP grant date as its "sign on", it was only licensed in 2021). (This is another station that was part of the failed bulk nomination of HC2/Innovate station articles that intermingled stations like this one with facilities that may have, if not more notability, at least more substantial histories.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 04:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 07:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Limited participation after 3 relistings means this is closing as No consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to be notable enough for its own article, seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:COMPOSER. The only sources I could find were his own website and a British Music Collection biography of him, the rest are mirrors. There were also 2? reviews from The Guardian, but at least the other one looked like a passing mention only. Perhaps a redirect to Royal Northern College of Music under 'Notable alumni' or 1974 in British music under 'Births'? NotAGenious ( talk) 11:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 17:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 20:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of the available reference material would be helpful. Discussion of what the person has done is not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Seraphimblade
Talk to me 06:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I'm closing this as No consensus as I don't anticipate more participation happening here. Still some unanswered concerns. Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Previous 2 AFDs were closed as Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 21:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of available source material would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Seraphimblade
Talk to me 06:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Boko Haram insurgency. Liz Read! Talk! 04:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
No sustained significant coverage. Two disparate events as part of a larger conflict. News story in violation of WP:NOTNEWS. There's no reason for this to have an article split off from Boko Haram insurgency or List of massacres in Nigeria. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 04:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
No sustained significant coverage. News story in violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 04:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 04:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I initially only tagged this for notability, but then I realized that this article is entirely created through two single-purpose accounts. I'm now more confident no reliable sources will be turned up. ~ T P W 17:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 04:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Procedural nomination per this discussion at RfD. Article was redirected after PROD, but no content was merged nor mentioned at the target. There was also an unsuccessful attempt at WP:BLARring the page in 2020. CycloneYoris talk! 10:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 04:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability, and this is an informational list that is split out of the main article. I don't see a need to delete this list. — siro χ o 04:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Delete by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) Lightoil ( talk) 04:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
This looks like a hoax to me. Before requesting a speedy deletion as a blatant hoax, I would like to have a couple of opinions and probably share some good laughs. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk) 04:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
The subject has earned at least 14 caps for the Dominican Republic women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 04:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Guyana women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 04:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Guyana women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least one cap for the Guyana women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 04:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Lacks WP:SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources, the only reliable coverage I could find is [23]. The article should be redirected to YouTube Vanced, as it is only barely notable as Vanced's successor. Yeeno ( talk) 03:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article.Unfortunately, there really isn't a way around this, regardless of how you think things should be. Notability also isn't determined by a WP:BIGNUMBER, nor is it WP:INHERITED from Vanced, so we need reliable third-party sources to determine notability. While I understand the concern about fakes, Wikipedia isn't the place to solve that issue, as, again, we are dependent on what reliable independent sources say; per WP:SELFSOURCE, primary sources are only used for self-descriptive information such as an app's website or version number, and cannot be used to support notability. Yeeno ( talk) 06:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 03:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Behind Closed Doors is not something that is needs an article. Every animated production has drawings like the ones seen in this book. Anything between Popeye to Rugrats has had vile pictures drawn by staff, this is just another to add to the pile. Not only is it unncessary, but it also lacks sufficient documentation. Only one reference to this book (might I add without any details) has been discovered that predates the book's leak by YouTuber LSuperSonicQ. Every other reference is written about that video, and no new information comes from them because of it. We don't know enough about this book to be given proper coverage, and again, even if it did, it does not stand out from any of the other books and artwork of its nature. With this logic, the Rugrats storyboard jam "Incredible" (which is of a very similar nature and includes vile drawings of children's characters) should also have an article. This is only been given social significance due to its falsified popularity online, and in reality has no actual historical significance outside of any other animated production. Ziggycashmere ( talk) 03:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Fails GNG. Sources in the article are primary, database, government. BEFORE showed database and primary, some ROUTINE news, nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 03:05, 1 September 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 04:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Subject appears to fall into WP:BIO1E from winning a beauty pageant. Not enough here to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun ( talk) 02:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:49, 1 September 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 04:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Subject lacks a sustained amount of coverage to meet WP:GNG. Let'srun ( talk) 02:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJUDGE. Let'srun ( talk) 02:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess changes to the article and sources brought up in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Robbie Williams. Just another reminder, if you are seeking an outcome of Redirect or Merge, please specify the target article you believe is most appropriate so the closer doesn't have to guess what you are thinking. Failing to do this will likely cause the discussion to be relisted until a target is specified. Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
This page was recreated multiple times from 2019 to 2021 with no notability demonstrated since then. It only has three sources, and two of those are to Williams's website, and the other is YouTube. I don't see any convincing coverage of this from a Google search, and while the first two volumes have a bit more out there on them that might make them notable, I don't think this third volume does. Williams having released notable recordings before and since doesn't mean this compilation is notable as notability is inherited, and so I'm requesting this be redirected so that there's consensus against another editor restoring it. Ss 112 00:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 01:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was Speedy keep: Withdrawn by nominator. HenryMP02 ( talk) 03:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Sources are not independent: they are press releases. Couldn't find significant coverage elsewhere. Therefore, this article does not meet the general notability guideline. HenryMP02 ( talk) 00:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator after User:A. B. found new sources (especially the Salon article) that establish notability. HenryMP02 ( talk) 03:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 00:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
The Subject has only won "multiple medals" in Karate which does not constitute wiki notability for WP:NKICK. Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NSPORT. Lethweimaster ( talk) 07:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 17:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess source brought up in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 21:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk! 00:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I don't see a consensus here and I doubt that one more week will definitively resolve the difference of opinion and interpretation of policy. Liz Read! Talk! 00:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Sourcing is poor, none of their releases are notable. I found nothing of use on a WP:BEFORE search. dannymusiceditor oops 20:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
A BAND from Detroit, Search The City, have recorded their first Tooth & Nail album. 'A Fire So Big The Heavens Can See It' is produced by James Paul Wisner (Dashboard Confessional, Underoath). Said the band's frontman Josh Frost, "We're more influenced by hardcore music than anything else. It doesn't show so much because we're pretty poppy in parts. But collectively, we all love bands like Jimmy Eat World. We'd probably say we are progressive rock or something like that."from Cross Rhyms. That's a very trivial coverage. An announcement that they've recorded an album, then the other half is a quotation of the band member's commentary, so you couldn't call that independent. Hardly a sigcov. More like slightly above a mention. I agree that things do not need to have refresher coverages every xx years to be notable; however, WP:20YT and notice over a sufficient time period are something to consider. On the JesusFreakhideout, there's an Amazon link with AFFILIATE CODE in it to buy the CD page, so in a way, it's like a sponsored review. Graywalls ( talk) 11:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 20:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors are still split between keeping and deleting... Further input would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk! 00:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
A local non-profit doing local thing. A quick WP:BEFORE suggests it does not meet WP:NCORP and I don't believe it's a suitable encyclopedia article. The article creator appears to be a promotional editor based on the edit pattern and the name that's suggestive of a purpose specific role account with activity duration that seems to be consistent with a typical internship. Graywalls ( talk) 08:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Burns continued, “Together, we created an organization that offers lifesaving and life-changing services to people wrestling with chronic illness, substance use disorder, housing insecurity and other challenges. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to be a part of this important work.”is clearly not independent. I see a lot of local coverage. Local organizations get local coverage but local notability is not global notability, which is essentially the criteria for WP:NCORP Graywalls ( talk) 22:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For some further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk! 00:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Comment: our guidelines and policies make no distinction between national coverage and local coverage or between big newspapers and little newspapers. The reason is because Wikipedia wants to include as much reliable information as possible (you know, the old "sum of all human knowledge"). We screen for notability not as some measure of earned merit ("they're big and famous") but rather as an indicator as to whether we have enough with which to build a reliable article. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 00:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
the biggest daily newspaper in any US state(Pennsylvania). No prejudice against a new article when SIRS sources are found and a proper article is written. — siro χ o 07:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)