The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 00:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 00:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to XM Satellite Radio channel history#Defunct channels. Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
This defunct satellite radio channel doesn't have any significant coverage, failing WP:GNG. Perhaps redirect to XM Satellite Radio channel history#Defunct channels? Let'srun ( talk) 15:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to XM Satellite Radio channel history#Defunct channels. Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
This defunct satellite radio channel has no sources present in the article, and a WP:BEFORE check doesn't turn up any WP:SIGCOV. Perhaps redirect to XM Satellite Radio channel history#Defunct channels? Let'srun ( talk) 15:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Star Mississippi 01:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:31, 13 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! 03:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Most (all?) of the references are about things he worked on as opposed to being about him (so are passing mentions and not WP:SIGCOV). - UtherSRG (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:30, 13 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! 03:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:30, 13 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 05:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable failed internet exchange. No WP:SIGCOV could be found on Google, Newspapers.com, or the Times Digital Archive. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 16:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:27, 13 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 05:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
non-notable programming environment. The name makes it tricky to search, though, and another editor may be able to turn up sources I could not. ~ T P W 16:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 01:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 19:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
No evidence of notability, no RS coverage. In a WP:BEFORE, I found a sole RS passing mention of Fleming on the launch of his first book. Oddly for a man with three mainstream published books, I could find zero reviews in RSes - only the publisher pages. There appears to be no evidence of independent RSes covering Fleming in depth as would be required for a BLP to exist. What little coverage of Fleming exists is in fringe non-RSes, and even those are sparse. I would be delighted to be shown wrong with solid RSes that pass a notability criterion. David Gerard ( talk) 17:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 19:40, 6 September 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, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus and no indication more input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 02:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Most of news are primarily routine, as he was with Kofi Annan. No significant independent coverage, fails Notability. Not sure, why he is notable, if he has a page as he was former United Nations official, every former United Nations official should be there on Wikipedia. Fishgrail2 ( talk) 14:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 19:57, 6 September 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, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Bengali films of 1994. Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
No indication of notability per WP:NFILM. Google search comes up with about 66 results -- directory listings for the film and its soundtrack, but no reviews or significant discussion. ... discospinster talk 20:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 21:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Crime in Ecuador. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTNEWS. The current version of the article is heavily based in the Spanish version, which at the same time is a compilation of prison riots and gang conflicts. Said term is barely used in the sources, not to mention experts or academics, which in turn suggests that it is also simply WP:TOOSOON to use this name. NoonIcarus ( talk) 15:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If the nominator wished for a rename, it shouldn't have been brought to AFD and you could have pursued a Merger without a trip here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:09, 13 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! 22:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Semi-advertorialized article about an organization, referenced entirely to its own self-published content about itself without showing any evidence of WP:GNG-worthy third party coverage about it in any reliable sources. Bearcat ( talk) 22:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete: Fails WP:ORGCRITE and a cursory Google search doesn't turn up any independent sources. The article itself is lacks encyclopedic coverage; its mostly lists of staff and statements about itself. Grumpylawnchair ( talk) 22:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. This is a combination of a WP:SNOW deletion and a speedy deletion as created by blocked vandal, hoaxer, and sockpuppeteer KimSumi21 while evading blocks. JBW ( talk) 21:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Same scenario as the previous nomination (that draft still exists). Fails WP:SIGCOV, was created WP:TOOSOON. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 22:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Draftify: Per Wikipedia:CRYSTAL, this is not well documented in reliable sources, and as such should not be an article for now. This is bound to come up in the future, so we can move it to mainspace after more reliable sources provide coverage of this. Grumpylawnchair ( talk) 22:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. This is a combination of a WP:SNOW delete, a speedy deletion as a hoax, and a speedy deletion as created by the blocked editor KimSumi21 while evading blocks on accounts. JBW ( talk) 20:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:SIGCOV – far too soon. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 22:24, 13 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! 22:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Reviewed during NPP. Previously deleted. IMO misses GNG and N:Corp by a mile. Has only one reference and that is to a web site, a piece that appears to be a self-written press release/ self description North8000 ( talk) 19:16, 13 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! 22:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
The subject has earned at least two caps for the El Salvador women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Spirits (TV series)#Remake. Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Web series reboot of a TV series, with almost no coverage online. In a WP:BEFORE search, all I could find on reliable secondary sources was a few passing mentions, in articles about the actors. Not all programmes released by notable outlets are themselves inherently notable, and I can't see how this web series merits a separate article. WP:SPA article creator since June. Wikishovel ( talk) 18:56, 13 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! 23:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:NARTIST - Rich T| C| E-Mail 18:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete WP:BEFORE brings up only a reliable source for birth year and education. Most of the other citations are passing mentions of being included in film screenings or exhibitions. The Motherhood Museum link (above) is an illustration credit for an article and the other link to Kentish Town Health Centre is a press release for an exhibition. I do not see any in-depth coverage and she fails WP:NARTIST - no notable exhibitions or collections. I moved the passing mentions off the main space and into the talk. Embedded links that can't be properly included in the article.-- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 22:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Has only one source, which is from a tabloid paper. Found nothing with WP:BEFORE except for sources talking about the actress' future works. Not sure exactly where this could be merged or redirected to, as many list pages from this show should probably also be deleted. (Oinkers42) ( talk) 18:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Merge to
List of Hollyoaks characters (2003)#Darlene Taylor. I would ideally like to keep this but a merge is more reasonable. Just wanted to add that the yearly lists should not be deleted. They are important to soap operas for the information about the character's and plot and context. Soaps do not have seasons and thus there is not a season/series page for each year like there are for other TV shows, and soaps are long running (Hollyoaks has been running since 1995, whilst Coronation Street since 1960!) and air 4–6 new episodes a week and thus have a large cast and set of characters that have very long storylines and context. Some of the earlier Hollyoaks yearly lists are not as sourced as is ideal, but we are working on that. But if you look at some of the later articles, such as
List of Hollyoaks characters (2022) or
List of The Bold and the Beautiful characters (2020s), you can see that every character that has a section is sourced and has real life information (reception, development, casting, quotes etc).
DaniloDaysOfOurLives (
talk) 05:38, 14 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. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable musician, doesn't appear to meet WP:COMPOSER. Mooonswimmer 17:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Single note posing as a reference. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGAMES. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk) 17:22, 13 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! 23:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
I request the deletion of the Wikipedia article about Marco Scherbaum. Reasons: It is an obvious marketing article. The person concerned is an average businessman (insurance broker) with no regional nor national relevance. In addition, he advertises with fancy titles ("European Senator"), which derive from the membership of a private association (Europäischer Wirtschaftssenat e. V.), but may give the impression of being an official title/legit political position. By mentioning on Wikipedia, this impression becomes reinforced and, if necessary, legitimized. The German Wiki's article has already been deleted for these reasons.-- BancoBank ( talk) 10:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Evanko does not meet notability criteria. Based on the article and potential sources, his "claim to fame" is having been director of a gynecology department where he oversaw a doctor who sexually abused patients (Robert Hadden). This could potentially lead to notability, but none of the sources I could find provide significant coverage of Evanko. I also cannot find significant coverage for notability for academics. Significa liberdade ( talk) 14:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
This is a pretty obviuos attempt to circumvent the previous AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left Front (India) - only adding a number of factually incorrect statements. What was founded in 1977 where the Left Front (West Bengal) and Left Front (Tripura), no nation-wide alliance. The notion that the now-existent Left Front has merged into INDIA is factually incorrect. Soman ( talk) 13:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) iMahesh ( talk) 03:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR, primarily recognized for secondary roles in only a few movies. The sources provided for the PTV Award are unreliable. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 11:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nominator has made the best arguments, in favour of deletion, but nobody else agrees with them. More input is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 12:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
All these articles are WP:NOTDATABASE violations sourced only to one statistics/database website, ESPNcricinfo. The main articles for these events have the key statistics (top 5 for most runs and most wickets) which is all that's needed for an encyclopedia. These article just include way too much WP:TRIVIA like top partnership by wicket (there will only be a handful of 10th wicket partnerships each tournament, so this isn't at all a meaningful, encyclopedic statistic) Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:56, 13 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 12:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Borderline WP:GNG case under WP:BLP. The case for notability seems to be founded on Malhotra's nomination for the Forbes 30 Under 30 list in 2016. One would think this would be quite a strong indicia that he is notable. However, for whatever reason, the only available sources are mostly primary sources being interviews of ( [24] [25] [26] [27]) or articles written by the subject ( [28] [29]) or about the games and not the subject at all ( [30]). Some sources have independence and reliability issues: the Forbes sources are naturally fawning, one is an interview for Malhotra's former college, and another is a podcast interview with a "friend". Further, neither his studio, Skyless Game Studios, nor the games made by that studio, have barely any coverage nor seem to attract their own notability. A WP:BEFORE for sources seems to yield articles with the same problems. The article also seems to have been created by Mr. Malhotra. Appreciate your thoughts. VRXCES ( talk) 09:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Nagol0929 ( talk) 11:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article and cannot find any sources to add. The four existing citations are all to a commercial site connected to this person, vedantaworld. I don't think he meets WP:GNG. Tacyarg ( talk) 08:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Blob Tree. ✗ plicit 14:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
The inventor of the 'Blob Tree', this educator is not inherently notable. Article sourced to owned media (Lulu), no pass of WP:GNG evident from WP:BEFORE, which purely reveals networked vendors of Blob Tree books. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 08:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Article cites seven sources. They are a combination of blogs and novelty sites with no evidence of editorial oversight or fact-checking. Some of them give credence to conspiracy theories about the nature of the island. Since it's not a populated area, it's not covered by WP:GEOLAND, and a BEFORE search turns up no reliable sources. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 06:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you want to Keep this article, please state this in your comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 07:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Much of the content is padding on background history - without that, there is not much on the man himself, and virtually all of that is genealogy or run-of-the-mill property transactions. Ingratis ( talk) 05:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please keep comments concise and focused on policy, notability and sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The existing draft is the same, mooting the need to draftify Star Mississippi 02:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Sound Party (2023 film)
This article about an unreleased film was created in article space and then correctly moved to draft space by User:Karnataka as too soon. The originator then contested the draftification by creating another copy of the article in article space. There are three stages of development for films:
This film is too soon, and the article should be deleted from mainspace. When the film is released, the draft can be updated and resubmitted. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to DD National#1992 to 2010: Competition. Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. C1K98V ( 💬 ✒️ 📂) 05:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 05:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Another non-notable LPTV. How did KCDH-LP have The WB when it was on "KWMB" (via WB 100+)? Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 04:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
PROD'd by David Gerard in 2020, but ineligible because of previous PROD. His rationale, which I agree with, follows: Promotional article, created by SPA. No evidence nor claim of notability - article claims are puffery. WP:BEFORE showed no evidence of meeting WP:NCORP or WP:GNG.
(Well, the article was puffery, before it was stripped to the bone, but regardless.)
It was PROD'd in 2013 as spam by Salimfadhley and endorsed by Bearian, but that PROD was removed by Rmbeanie who was an SPA and hasn't edited since. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to 2000 AD (comics). Liz Read! Talk! 02:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
A fictional concept from Judge Dredd's universe, a lenghty plot summary with no reception/analysis, many footnotes here but they are all to the comic book, with one exception (Facebook post...). I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale " I think this needs to go to AfD" which IMHO is not a helpful rationale, but - let's discuss. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale "I think this needs to go to AfD" which IMHO is not a helpful rationale...As you very well know, a prodded article can be deprodded by anyone for any reason or none. As you also very well know (or should do), prodding should not be used as an attempt to get around AfD and should never be used if opposition could be reasonably foreseen. I do not consider that this is an article that should simply be deleted without discussion. Prodding is becoming worryingly common on articles for which deletion could clearly be controversial. To reiterate, prodding is for uncontroversial deletion only. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
The page itself seems notable for the comic, video game and cinema universe but it's not realistic in my opinion to only provide print sources for the comic book itself plus Facebook to cite an article of this length. Definitely needs improvement but I personally would keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WrestlingHistoryFan ( talk • contribs) 22:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have two different suggested target articles for Redirect/Merge. Please settle on one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable defunct charter high school, Fails WP:NORG. The only source in the article talks about the small school that replaced it, "SET". No article has been written for that school.
It is unclear that this SET school is notable either as that the source is a local news source which fails WP:CORPDEPTH, especially since that source only relies on school officials for information. Mottezen ( talk) 02:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Not a G4, but no indication issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Lancaster, Pennsylvania, mayoral election have changed. Star Mississippi 01:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
event... of lasting, historical significance. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 02:29, 17 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! 01:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC let alone WP:GNG - Rich T| C| E-Mail 01:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete Vanity page created and maintained by multiple SPA editors and IP addresses. A small time group, self-record and release own work. Gained no significant third party coverage. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 10:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to William Henderson (architect). Liz Read! Talk! 01:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTGENEALOGY, although there are a few related Hendersons here, there are no sources establishing notability of the family as a whole; fails WP:NLIST/GNG. Reywas92 Talk 01:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. especially given expansion of article since nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 01:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
This small high school (95 students in grades 7-12) fails WP:ORG notability criteria. The school is no longer operating. Current article sourcing consists of government sources. Searching finds fairly routine sports coverage such as: 1956 article, and 1957 article. No significant coverage found although there are about 60 years of coverage and I did not read every article available.
A redirect to Paw Paw, Illinois#Education is an alternative to deletion. Gab4gab ( talk) 18:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Comment. Calling this school a small school with "less 100 students" seems disingenous. The school was in operation from at least 19561841-2018 (175+ years). Some sources I saw mentioned much larger enrollments. As an encyclopedia, should we consider the current status of a subject or should we consider its entire history? I've noticed significant improvements to the article already by
BeanieFan11. Let's see if we can't find some offline sources, as the vast majority of this school's existence predates the internet.
Jacona (
talk) 21:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific discussion and analysis of available source material would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Seraphimblade
Talk to me 01:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
See
[38]. Page was deleted, draftified, and deleted (once again, 4 months ago). It was created under a different name by the same editor (
[39]). But still, per
WP:PROF, doesn't appear to have had significant impact. All (except one) of the sources are his own work. I couldn't find any secondary sources that indicated his work was so significant to merit his own article. And according to the specific criteria notes: Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1.
Also, citation metrics, such as having 8,600 citations is not a good indicator per
WP:PROF#Citation metrics: Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied.
A non-governmental organization,
ASSOCHAM, through a virtual conference gave him a grandiose honorary title, which doesn't equate to a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level
. As a further note, a search of the name returns possibly several people of the same name, and an assistant professor from the US comes up first.
Aintabli (
talk) 01:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Second we had some non-policy based Delete votes like this one " Wikipedia is not LinkedIn for fringe-medicine purveyors." I also felt that most of the problem was with the way the page was written, which made people think that way. So I have completely revised the copy. In addition, it really doesn't matter if he has enough citations, because as an Academic he meets WP:ACADEMIC and has over 8000 citations. It just speaks for itself. He is well known as one of the experts in his field and has also won awards as follows:
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! 01:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
As noted by the maintenance template (dating back to February 2015), the article topic doesn't appear to be notable. I am having a difficult time finding reliable secondary sources for his notability. Current references are either from the website of the sports club he once led or his family website, let alone none of the links are functioning. The article was basically forgotten after 2015. According to Turkish Wikipedia, he appears to have resigned from Mersin İdmanyurdu SK 8 years ago. Aintabli ( talk) 01:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
This is a person who has no coverage in reliable sources in English. A Google search for Santa Das Kathiababa produced six results, including three Youtube videos, and two Facebook pages. The article has ten "citations": three of these are to Wikipedia pages, and three to www.exoticindiaart.com. -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
It is also a recreation of an article that was previously deleted, both as a result of deletion discussions, and as a result of speedy deletions (see User talk:Srabanta Deb). (Sorry I did not spot this earlier.) -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:48, 5 September 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.I searched on Google to try to find reliable sources on the topic, but I could not find any. The Wikipedia article you have created for the nth time only has one source that I consider plausible, an article in The Telegraph (India), Janmashtami at ashram, by Dalia Mukherjee, 22 August 2014, but all the information about Santa Das Kathiababa in the article was provided by Joydeb Kumar Sarkar, the secretary of the ashram. If he really does have "millions of fans and followers", there ought to be coverage of this in reliable sources - so where is it?-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please provide poilcy-based arguments for Keeping or Deleting this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 00:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 02:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 21:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 21:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this one more week in the hope that we can get some analysis of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 00:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NOLY and WP:SPORTSCRIT. I could not find any significant coverage. LibStar ( talk) 00:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
known for expertise in the field– Paora is known for expertise in the New Zealand athletics area, having found coverage for notability in many cases where others were unable to. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 01:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
known for expertise in the field. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 01:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
known for expertise in the field. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 01:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
known for expertise in the field– wasn't there some policy called WP:AGF? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 01:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
where other users said things like "pinging Paora who's known for being really good at finding sources for New Zealand topicsis not an excuse to do the same because "I saw others do it." LibStar ( talk) 01:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 00:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 00:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to XM Satellite Radio channel history#Defunct channels. Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
This defunct satellite radio channel doesn't have any significant coverage, failing WP:GNG. Perhaps redirect to XM Satellite Radio channel history#Defunct channels? Let'srun ( talk) 15:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to XM Satellite Radio channel history#Defunct channels. Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
This defunct satellite radio channel has no sources present in the article, and a WP:BEFORE check doesn't turn up any WP:SIGCOV. Perhaps redirect to XM Satellite Radio channel history#Defunct channels? Let'srun ( talk) 15:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Star Mississippi 01:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:31, 13 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! 03:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Most (all?) of the references are about things he worked on as opposed to being about him (so are passing mentions and not WP:SIGCOV). - UtherSRG (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:30, 13 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! 03:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:30, 13 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 05:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable failed internet exchange. No WP:SIGCOV could be found on Google, Newspapers.com, or the Times Digital Archive. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 16:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:27, 13 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 05:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
non-notable programming environment. The name makes it tricky to search, though, and another editor may be able to turn up sources I could not. ~ T P W 16:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 01:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 19:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
No evidence of notability, no RS coverage. In a WP:BEFORE, I found a sole RS passing mention of Fleming on the launch of his first book. Oddly for a man with three mainstream published books, I could find zero reviews in RSes - only the publisher pages. There appears to be no evidence of independent RSes covering Fleming in depth as would be required for a BLP to exist. What little coverage of Fleming exists is in fringe non-RSes, and even those are sparse. I would be delighted to be shown wrong with solid RSes that pass a notability criterion. David Gerard ( talk) 17:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 19:40, 6 September 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, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus and no indication more input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 02:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Most of news are primarily routine, as he was with Kofi Annan. No significant independent coverage, fails Notability. Not sure, why he is notable, if he has a page as he was former United Nations official, every former United Nations official should be there on Wikipedia. Fishgrail2 ( talk) 14:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 19:57, 6 September 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, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Bengali films of 1994. Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
No indication of notability per WP:NFILM. Google search comes up with about 66 results -- directory listings for the film and its soundtrack, but no reviews or significant discussion. ... discospinster talk 20:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 21:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Crime in Ecuador. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTNEWS. The current version of the article is heavily based in the Spanish version, which at the same time is a compilation of prison riots and gang conflicts. Said term is barely used in the sources, not to mention experts or academics, which in turn suggests that it is also simply WP:TOOSOON to use this name. NoonIcarus ( talk) 15:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If the nominator wished for a rename, it shouldn't have been brought to AFD and you could have pursued a Merger without a trip here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:09, 13 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! 22:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Semi-advertorialized article about an organization, referenced entirely to its own self-published content about itself without showing any evidence of WP:GNG-worthy third party coverage about it in any reliable sources. Bearcat ( talk) 22:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete: Fails WP:ORGCRITE and a cursory Google search doesn't turn up any independent sources. The article itself is lacks encyclopedic coverage; its mostly lists of staff and statements about itself. Grumpylawnchair ( talk) 22:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. This is a combination of a WP:SNOW deletion and a speedy deletion as created by blocked vandal, hoaxer, and sockpuppeteer KimSumi21 while evading blocks. JBW ( talk) 21:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Same scenario as the previous nomination (that draft still exists). Fails WP:SIGCOV, was created WP:TOOSOON. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 22:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Draftify: Per Wikipedia:CRYSTAL, this is not well documented in reliable sources, and as such should not be an article for now. This is bound to come up in the future, so we can move it to mainspace after more reliable sources provide coverage of this. Grumpylawnchair ( talk) 22:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. This is a combination of a WP:SNOW delete, a speedy deletion as a hoax, and a speedy deletion as created by the blocked editor KimSumi21 while evading blocks on accounts. JBW ( talk) 20:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:SIGCOV – far too soon. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 22:24, 13 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! 22:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Reviewed during NPP. Previously deleted. IMO misses GNG and N:Corp by a mile. Has only one reference and that is to a web site, a piece that appears to be a self-written press release/ self description North8000 ( talk) 19:16, 13 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! 22:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
The subject has earned at least two caps for the El Salvador women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Spirits (TV series)#Remake. Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Web series reboot of a TV series, with almost no coverage online. In a WP:BEFORE search, all I could find on reliable secondary sources was a few passing mentions, in articles about the actors. Not all programmes released by notable outlets are themselves inherently notable, and I can't see how this web series merits a separate article. WP:SPA article creator since June. Wikishovel ( talk) 18:56, 13 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! 23:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:NARTIST - Rich T| C| E-Mail 18:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete WP:BEFORE brings up only a reliable source for birth year and education. Most of the other citations are passing mentions of being included in film screenings or exhibitions. The Motherhood Museum link (above) is an illustration credit for an article and the other link to Kentish Town Health Centre is a press release for an exhibition. I do not see any in-depth coverage and she fails WP:NARTIST - no notable exhibitions or collections. I moved the passing mentions off the main space and into the talk. Embedded links that can't be properly included in the article.-- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 22:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Has only one source, which is from a tabloid paper. Found nothing with WP:BEFORE except for sources talking about the actress' future works. Not sure exactly where this could be merged or redirected to, as many list pages from this show should probably also be deleted. (Oinkers42) ( talk) 18:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Merge to
List of Hollyoaks characters (2003)#Darlene Taylor. I would ideally like to keep this but a merge is more reasonable. Just wanted to add that the yearly lists should not be deleted. They are important to soap operas for the information about the character's and plot and context. Soaps do not have seasons and thus there is not a season/series page for each year like there are for other TV shows, and soaps are long running (Hollyoaks has been running since 1995, whilst Coronation Street since 1960!) and air 4–6 new episodes a week and thus have a large cast and set of characters that have very long storylines and context. Some of the earlier Hollyoaks yearly lists are not as sourced as is ideal, but we are working on that. But if you look at some of the later articles, such as
List of Hollyoaks characters (2022) or
List of The Bold and the Beautiful characters (2020s), you can see that every character that has a section is sourced and has real life information (reception, development, casting, quotes etc).
DaniloDaysOfOurLives (
talk) 05:38, 14 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. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable musician, doesn't appear to meet WP:COMPOSER. Mooonswimmer 17:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Single note posing as a reference. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGAMES. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk) 17:22, 13 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! 23:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
I request the deletion of the Wikipedia article about Marco Scherbaum. Reasons: It is an obvious marketing article. The person concerned is an average businessman (insurance broker) with no regional nor national relevance. In addition, he advertises with fancy titles ("European Senator"), which derive from the membership of a private association (Europäischer Wirtschaftssenat e. V.), but may give the impression of being an official title/legit political position. By mentioning on Wikipedia, this impression becomes reinforced and, if necessary, legitimized. The German Wiki's article has already been deleted for these reasons.-- BancoBank ( talk) 10:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Evanko does not meet notability criteria. Based on the article and potential sources, his "claim to fame" is having been director of a gynecology department where he oversaw a doctor who sexually abused patients (Robert Hadden). This could potentially lead to notability, but none of the sources I could find provide significant coverage of Evanko. I also cannot find significant coverage for notability for academics. Significa liberdade ( talk) 14:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
This is a pretty obviuos attempt to circumvent the previous AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left Front (India) - only adding a number of factually incorrect statements. What was founded in 1977 where the Left Front (West Bengal) and Left Front (Tripura), no nation-wide alliance. The notion that the now-existent Left Front has merged into INDIA is factually incorrect. Soman ( talk) 13:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) iMahesh ( talk) 03:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR, primarily recognized for secondary roles in only a few movies. The sources provided for the PTV Award are unreliable. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 11:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nominator has made the best arguments, in favour of deletion, but nobody else agrees with them. More input is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 12:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
All these articles are WP:NOTDATABASE violations sourced only to one statistics/database website, ESPNcricinfo. The main articles for these events have the key statistics (top 5 for most runs and most wickets) which is all that's needed for an encyclopedia. These article just include way too much WP:TRIVIA like top partnership by wicket (there will only be a handful of 10th wicket partnerships each tournament, so this isn't at all a meaningful, encyclopedic statistic) Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:56, 13 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 12:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Borderline WP:GNG case under WP:BLP. The case for notability seems to be founded on Malhotra's nomination for the Forbes 30 Under 30 list in 2016. One would think this would be quite a strong indicia that he is notable. However, for whatever reason, the only available sources are mostly primary sources being interviews of ( [24] [25] [26] [27]) or articles written by the subject ( [28] [29]) or about the games and not the subject at all ( [30]). Some sources have independence and reliability issues: the Forbes sources are naturally fawning, one is an interview for Malhotra's former college, and another is a podcast interview with a "friend". Further, neither his studio, Skyless Game Studios, nor the games made by that studio, have barely any coverage nor seem to attract their own notability. A WP:BEFORE for sources seems to yield articles with the same problems. The article also seems to have been created by Mr. Malhotra. Appreciate your thoughts. VRXCES ( talk) 09:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Nagol0929 ( talk) 11:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article and cannot find any sources to add. The four existing citations are all to a commercial site connected to this person, vedantaworld. I don't think he meets WP:GNG. Tacyarg ( talk) 08:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Blob Tree. ✗ plicit 14:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
The inventor of the 'Blob Tree', this educator is not inherently notable. Article sourced to owned media (Lulu), no pass of WP:GNG evident from WP:BEFORE, which purely reveals networked vendors of Blob Tree books. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 08:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Article cites seven sources. They are a combination of blogs and novelty sites with no evidence of editorial oversight or fact-checking. Some of them give credence to conspiracy theories about the nature of the island. Since it's not a populated area, it's not covered by WP:GEOLAND, and a BEFORE search turns up no reliable sources. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 06:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you want to Keep this article, please state this in your comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 07:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Much of the content is padding on background history - without that, there is not much on the man himself, and virtually all of that is genealogy or run-of-the-mill property transactions. Ingratis ( talk) 05:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please keep comments concise and focused on policy, notability and sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The existing draft is the same, mooting the need to draftify Star Mississippi 02:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Sound Party (2023 film)
This article about an unreleased film was created in article space and then correctly moved to draft space by User:Karnataka as too soon. The originator then contested the draftification by creating another copy of the article in article space. There are three stages of development for films:
This film is too soon, and the article should be deleted from mainspace. When the film is released, the draft can be updated and resubmitted. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to DD National#1992 to 2010: Competition. Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. C1K98V ( 💬 ✒️ 📂) 05:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 05:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Another non-notable LPTV. How did KCDH-LP have The WB when it was on "KWMB" (via WB 100+)? Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 04:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
PROD'd by David Gerard in 2020, but ineligible because of previous PROD. His rationale, which I agree with, follows: Promotional article, created by SPA. No evidence nor claim of notability - article claims are puffery. WP:BEFORE showed no evidence of meeting WP:NCORP or WP:GNG.
(Well, the article was puffery, before it was stripped to the bone, but regardless.)
It was PROD'd in 2013 as spam by Salimfadhley and endorsed by Bearian, but that PROD was removed by Rmbeanie who was an SPA and hasn't edited since. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to 2000 AD (comics). Liz Read! Talk! 02:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
A fictional concept from Judge Dredd's universe, a lenghty plot summary with no reception/analysis, many footnotes here but they are all to the comic book, with one exception (Facebook post...). I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale " I think this needs to go to AfD" which IMHO is not a helpful rationale, but - let's discuss. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale "I think this needs to go to AfD" which IMHO is not a helpful rationale...As you very well know, a prodded article can be deprodded by anyone for any reason or none. As you also very well know (or should do), prodding should not be used as an attempt to get around AfD and should never be used if opposition could be reasonably foreseen. I do not consider that this is an article that should simply be deleted without discussion. Prodding is becoming worryingly common on articles for which deletion could clearly be controversial. To reiterate, prodding is for uncontroversial deletion only. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
The page itself seems notable for the comic, video game and cinema universe but it's not realistic in my opinion to only provide print sources for the comic book itself plus Facebook to cite an article of this length. Definitely needs improvement but I personally would keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WrestlingHistoryFan ( talk • contribs) 22:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have two different suggested target articles for Redirect/Merge. Please settle on one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable defunct charter high school, Fails WP:NORG. The only source in the article talks about the small school that replaced it, "SET". No article has been written for that school.
It is unclear that this SET school is notable either as that the source is a local news source which fails WP:CORPDEPTH, especially since that source only relies on school officials for information. Mottezen ( talk) 02:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Not a G4, but no indication issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Lancaster, Pennsylvania, mayoral election have changed. Star Mississippi 01:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
event... of lasting, historical significance. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 02:29, 17 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! 01:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC let alone WP:GNG - Rich T| C| E-Mail 01:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete Vanity page created and maintained by multiple SPA editors and IP addresses. A small time group, self-record and release own work. Gained no significant third party coverage. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 10:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to William Henderson (architect). Liz Read! Talk! 01:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTGENEALOGY, although there are a few related Hendersons here, there are no sources establishing notability of the family as a whole; fails WP:NLIST/GNG. Reywas92 Talk 01:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. especially given expansion of article since nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 01:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
This small high school (95 students in grades 7-12) fails WP:ORG notability criteria. The school is no longer operating. Current article sourcing consists of government sources. Searching finds fairly routine sports coverage such as: 1956 article, and 1957 article. No significant coverage found although there are about 60 years of coverage and I did not read every article available.
A redirect to Paw Paw, Illinois#Education is an alternative to deletion. Gab4gab ( talk) 18:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Comment. Calling this school a small school with "less 100 students" seems disingenous. The school was in operation from at least 19561841-2018 (175+ years). Some sources I saw mentioned much larger enrollments. As an encyclopedia, should we consider the current status of a subject or should we consider its entire history? I've noticed significant improvements to the article already by
BeanieFan11. Let's see if we can't find some offline sources, as the vast majority of this school's existence predates the internet.
Jacona (
talk) 21:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific discussion and analysis of available source material would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Seraphimblade
Talk to me 01:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
See
[38]. Page was deleted, draftified, and deleted (once again, 4 months ago). It was created under a different name by the same editor (
[39]). But still, per
WP:PROF, doesn't appear to have had significant impact. All (except one) of the sources are his own work. I couldn't find any secondary sources that indicated his work was so significant to merit his own article. And according to the specific criteria notes: Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1.
Also, citation metrics, such as having 8,600 citations is not a good indicator per
WP:PROF#Citation metrics: Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied.
A non-governmental organization,
ASSOCHAM, through a virtual conference gave him a grandiose honorary title, which doesn't equate to a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level
. As a further note, a search of the name returns possibly several people of the same name, and an assistant professor from the US comes up first.
Aintabli (
talk) 01:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Second we had some non-policy based Delete votes like this one " Wikipedia is not LinkedIn for fringe-medicine purveyors." I also felt that most of the problem was with the way the page was written, which made people think that way. So I have completely revised the copy. In addition, it really doesn't matter if he has enough citations, because as an Academic he meets WP:ACADEMIC and has over 8000 citations. It just speaks for itself. He is well known as one of the experts in his field and has also won awards as follows:
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! 01:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
As noted by the maintenance template (dating back to February 2015), the article topic doesn't appear to be notable. I am having a difficult time finding reliable secondary sources for his notability. Current references are either from the website of the sports club he once led or his family website, let alone none of the links are functioning. The article was basically forgotten after 2015. According to Turkish Wikipedia, he appears to have resigned from Mersin İdmanyurdu SK 8 years ago. Aintabli ( talk) 01:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
This is a person who has no coverage in reliable sources in English. A Google search for Santa Das Kathiababa produced six results, including three Youtube videos, and two Facebook pages. The article has ten "citations": three of these are to Wikipedia pages, and three to www.exoticindiaart.com. -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
It is also a recreation of an article that was previously deleted, both as a result of deletion discussions, and as a result of speedy deletions (see User talk:Srabanta Deb). (Sorry I did not spot this earlier.) -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:48, 5 September 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.I searched on Google to try to find reliable sources on the topic, but I could not find any. The Wikipedia article you have created for the nth time only has one source that I consider plausible, an article in The Telegraph (India), Janmashtami at ashram, by Dalia Mukherjee, 22 August 2014, but all the information about Santa Das Kathiababa in the article was provided by Joydeb Kumar Sarkar, the secretary of the ashram. If he really does have "millions of fans and followers", there ought to be coverage of this in reliable sources - so where is it?-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please provide poilcy-based arguments for Keeping or Deleting this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 00:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 02:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 21:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 21:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this one more week in the hope that we can get some analysis of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 00:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NOLY and WP:SPORTSCRIT. I could not find any significant coverage. LibStar ( talk) 00:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
known for expertise in the field– Paora is known for expertise in the New Zealand athletics area, having found coverage for notability in many cases where others were unable to. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 01:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
known for expertise in the field. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 01:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
known for expertise in the field. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 01:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
known for expertise in the field– wasn't there some policy called WP:AGF? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 01:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
where other users said things like "pinging Paora who's known for being really good at finding sources for New Zealand topicsis not an excuse to do the same because "I saw others do it." LibStar ( talk) 01:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
References