The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
No evidence of notability, one local article in Liechtenstein, otherwise either passing mentions (e.g. the Faroese articles just state that their team beat Liechtenstein, it doesn't give any actual attention to the Liechtenstein team), databases, or non-independent sources (organizers and the like). Fram ( talk) 08:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 00:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No improvements in article since its nomination. Can we see an evaluation of sources brough to this discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 00:41, 13 April 2024 (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 12:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Working author but doesn't appear to meet WP:NAUTHOR / WP:GNG. Unref blp. Boleyn ( talk) 14:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 08:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I can't close this as Soft Deletion due to its previous AFD but there also isn't a consensus here to Delete. With no future participation after two relisting, I'm closing this as No consensus as there is not enough (or any) participation other than the nominator to determine a consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable model. Classicwiki ( talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 06:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:17, 12 April 2024 (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 12:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 01:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Florida International University. Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Subject is not independently notable (it does not inherit notability from its unquestionably notable parent organization ElKevbo ( talk) 23:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Florida International University. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Subject does not appear to be notable (notability is not inherited from its unquestionably notable parent organization) ElKevbo ( talk) 23:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:ADMASQ about a non-notable philanthropist who fails WP:BIO as far as I can see. The sources cited in this article at best just mention her or the foundation she has set up, or are just downright non-reliable. I can't see any reliable sources offering in-depth coverage on a search either. Java Hurricane 13:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. A procedural close, as the ink has not yet dried over the previous AfD, and the sources identified there have not yet been added to the article. If the nom believes the previous close (in which they participated) does not reflect consensus, they should have taken this to DRV, or waited six months--not four days--before renominating. Owen× ☎ 20:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Sources talk about the founders and the amountof money raised for their product but very little about the product itself. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 17:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Why start a new AFD so soon after the previous one was just closed? Especially as it had a Keep closure, not a No consensus closure. This may warrant a procedural Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
no evident notability in the article, apart from having a song used in a documentary. I can only find coverage on punkglobe.com, and it's unclear if this is a reputable source given the outdated appearance of their website. InDimensional ( talk) 22:35, 12 April 2024 (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! 22:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NJOURNALIST. Current sources consist of homepages of news websites, and articles written by the subject. Doesn't seem to have any independent or significant coverage. ARandomName123 ( talk)Ping me! 21:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:35, 12 April 2024 (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! 22:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Does not pass notability per WP:BAND as their main accomplishments are having songs used in a 2006 video game and a 2005 film. A google search for this band brings up no coverage at all. InDimensional ( talk) 22:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Ken Carson. This closure can be revisited if the song becomes more notable according to Wikipedia's music guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Too soon - song was apparently only released today, therefore cannot meet WP:NSONG - no indication of independent WP:SIGCOV or notability. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:23, 12 April 2024 (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! 22:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Totally unreferenced article. No significant coverage of the artist on the web apart from a brief mention in a Complex article "The Best Licensed Songs Used in Video Game Commercials". The talk page suggest that the article was written as a class assignment. InDimensional ( talk) 22:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Another embassy article that fails WP:GNG. There's really not much about this embassy that wouldn't fit under Australia–Azerbaijan relations: the only coverage I could find was this non-independent press release regarding the creation of the embassy; this small clash between Azeris and Armenians outside of the embassy; and the fact that the embassy staff imported over 40,000 cigarettes and lots of booze, possibly to sell it to the black market. All in all, there's nothing really noteworthy *about the embassy* that makes me think we should be keeping this article, and all the material I dug up could end up at Australia–Azerbaijan relations. I think a redirect here would be a good fit. Pilaz ( talk) 21:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. Sharing the stage with bands with Wiki pages doesn't mean notability. I can't see in what format they were featured in the Oct '13 issue of Decibel, but they weren't mentioned in the cover. A search on the web for their quite unique band name brings up no significant coverage. InDimensional ( talk) 21:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Not hit of SIGCOV on google news aside from database results which is lot a secondary source or WP:RS. The articles didn't meet WP:GNG, WP:SPORTSBIO and WP:SPORTSCRIT for the time. May be notable in the future! Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 20:45, 12 April 2024 (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! 22:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
There has been a notability tag since October 2021. The first sentence of the article is "Hunter Scott is best known for the research he did on the sinking of USS Indianapolis as a sixth-grade student." I would go so far to say that he is only known for this accomplishment. As such, this is a BLP1E and the article should be deleted. He has not done any academic work since so no further historical work, so does not meet the criteria for academics. In an effort to add information so the article focuses on more facts, it also mentions he is a naval aviator. However, it provides no context to presume that his naval aviation career would meet GNG. An incredibly accomplished individual, nevertheless Wikipedia's policies indicate, in my opinion, there should not be an article on the subject. Mpen320 ( talk) 20:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. New sources found are sufficient, no delete votes.( non-admin closure) StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NPRODUCT, lacks WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. The best I could find was a CNET review of one of the models and some trivial mentions in books that amount to "it is recording software that you can use." StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Film was announced in 2003, over 20 years ago, and has not yet been released. None of sources are current and give no indication as to why this unreleased film is notable. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, a French rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that I found was this interview. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
The closest I could find to notability was this anecdote about the band, but it's only a few sentences and I can't guarantee the reliability of the book. Past that, I saw passing mentions but nothing else of worth. Redirecting to Tim David Kelly would make sense, though his article isn't much more promising in the realm of notability and could potentially go at any time as well if there's nothing more to be found there. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 20:04, 12 April 2024 (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! 23:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Subject is a violation of WP:NOTSTATS, this information is best saved for sports databases. Let'srun ( talk) 19:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Belarusian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:24, 12 April 2024 (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, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
No inherent claim of notability and filled with unsourced original research. Any verifiable information could be a simple mention within Ahmad Kamal. ZimZalaBim talk 19:16, 12 April 2024 (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! 23:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable term used in a few history books. No clear agreed upon meaning (googling finds authors using it in the plain english sense to refer to the 1915 campaign and the proposed 1917 campaign, not the period the article talks about), and not apparently used except by those authors. Also the article is currently factually problematic, as many writers consider prize rules to be essentially in place in this period and certainly do not agree that submarines were "virtually ineffective". Fangz ( talk) 17:40, 12 April 2024 (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! 23:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. delete as this clearly fails WP:NEVENTS — Saqib ( talk | contribs) 16:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Montserrat Championship. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 ( talk) 19:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Zero sources. Duplicates content at Montserrat Championship. Arguably fails WP:NOT DIRECTORY as "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit." AusLondonder ( talk) 16:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 16:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Sources are entirely works by him, not works about him. Article is on the global title blacklist due to cross-wiki spamming * Pppery * it has begun... 16:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Hadlow Down. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Lowest-level local government authority in England covering a village. Parish councils are rarely notable - there are more than 10,000 in England. No secondary sources. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder ( talk) 16:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 05:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLP of an academic, not
properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for academics. As always, academics are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show sourcing that properly verifies that they meet certain specific criteria for inclusion -- but this has no footnotes at all, and just contextlessly lists a couple of
primary sources (i.e. her own faculty profiles on the
self-published websites of her own employers and a directory entry) that aren't support for notability.
This was, further, created in draftspace by a brand new user and then immediately moved into mainspace by the same user without
WP:AFC review practically the moment they had accumulated 10 edits for the purposes of gaining autoconfirmed privileges -- which is not the proper process for article creation either.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have any third-party sourcing besides her own staff profiles from directly affiliated entities.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
so it meets notability requirements" exhibits a misunderstanding of what notability means. It is not articles that meet notability requirements, it is their subjects. If the subject is notable, she is notable regardless of the state of the article. If she is not, she is not. Since we're at AfD, we should decide the issue. Draftifying, after reaching AfD, has the appearance of being a cowardly way of saying "let's hope the author goes away so we can delete it in another 6 months without discussion". Draftifying can sometimes be useful in the situation where we have a clearly-notable subject and a clearly-unready article about them, but that's not the case here. It is not article improvement that we need – the article is in ok shape for what its sources provide – but a determination of whether the subject actually is notable or not. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) voorts ( talk/ contributions) 03:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Semi-advertorialized article about a local sports facility, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for sports facilities. As always, sports facilities are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them, but this is "referenced" entirely to primary source content self-published by the city council, with absolutely no evidence of media coverage shown at all -- and while it was only just recently tagged for notability issues, it has existed in this state since 2008 without seeing any better referencing added. Bearcat ( talk) 15:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
According to the About page, "Canadian Architect is the journal of record of two national professional associations: the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC) and the AIA Canada Society and is the official magazine of each association – carrying both the RAIC Journal and the AIA Canada Journal within the pages of Canadian Architect magazine." Leslie Jen is the former associate editor for Canadian Architect.
The review notes: "A predominantly white and silver colour palette is offset by the judicious employment of vibrant saturated colours in a plethora of applications, colours specifically chosen to communicate the active and energetic colours associated with athletics and athletic attire. To that end, horizontal bands of coloured glass are used sparingly on the curtain walls to animate the faades and to create jewel-toned splashes of light on the interior. High-contrast black and white tiles define the floor surfaces, a clever reference to the colours–or lack thereof–found in soccer balls and referee jerseys."
The article notes: "One example of the imaginative use of materials is Brampton, Ont.'s $26.5-million Soccer Centre, completed in May, 2007. The 152,000-sq.-ft. building includes four indoor soccer fields, bleachers, change facilities, a community wing and main lobby. It was designed to be easily converted to hockey and other indoor sports and is sized and scaled to operate with four independent programs running at the same time, including trade show events and other community activities."
The article notes: "The new Brampton Soccer Centre offers more than just soccer but make no mistake-- soccer will be at the centre of it all. ... The new facility, at 1495 Sandalwood Parkway East, at the intersection of Sandalwood and Dixie Rd., will be a year-round home for local soccer groups. Four indoor field houses are expected to get plenty of use. Each field measures 85 by 200 with seating for about 350 spectators."
The article notes: "The Brampton Soccer Centre was opened in 2007. The more than 120,000 square-metre property features four turfed field houses in a 14,200 square-metre indoor facility. The centre also currently features exterior fields and amenities including a splash pad. The city is looking to expand on the current soccer, dance and youth programming currently available at the site."
The article notes: "The Brampton Soccer Centre won’t be called that for much longer. The complex located at 1495 Sandalwood Parkway E. will be renamed the Save Max Sports Centre after the City of Brampton signed sponsorship agreement for the exterior naming rights with Save Max Real Estate Inc. The deal, announced by the city in a release on Oct. 26, is for 15 years and $2,512,500."
However, Save Max Sports Centre is not required to meet WP:AUD. Save Max Sports Centre is a building. The relevant guideline is WP:NBUILD, not WP:NORG (which WP:AUD is a part of). Cunard ( talk) 09:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Previously deleted at Rani Hazarika. She's sung a few more songs since then but I see no real new evidence of notability * Pppery * it has begun... 15:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Now, resorting to an AFD is like digging a well in the desert while knowing there is no water-> huh? I'm not following your analogy at all. The only thing that could mean is that I somehow knew this AfD was doomed to fail and was disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and if you're really accusing me of that you need much stronger evidence for it. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
As the name suggests Rani Hazarika is a voice with thousand attributes? And your AfD link is WP:OTHERSTUFF and not even a very convincing OTHERSTUFF, since I see no relationship at all between this AfD and that one other than that both are about musicians. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
"reliability matter on the contributor of the topic.", which means notable jpu8rnalist's writing in Times of India are always reliable. Twinkle1990 ( talk) 15:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
The Asian Age is WP:RS per consensus.-> per consensus where? It's not on WP:RSP or WP:NPPSG where I would expect such a source to be documented. The issue with The Times of India isn't reliability per se, it's that it
is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage, which makes it completely useless for establishing notability as all having an article in The Times of India proves is that you paid them, not an assessment of independent worth. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
References
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 ( talk) 15:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a writer, not
properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for writers. The attempted notability claim here is a language conservation award, which would be fine if the article were properly sourced but is in no way "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass
WP:GNG, but the article as written is completely unsourced.
As I can't read Swedish, I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody who can read Swedish can find enough sourcing to salvage it, but she isn't exempted from having to have any sourcing just because the article has the word "award" in it.
Bearcat (
talk) 14:51, 12 April 2024 (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! 23:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
All the sources provided are from July 2017. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar ( talk) 14:50, 12 April 2024 (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 14:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO, ambassadors are not inherently notable. Broc ( talk) 14:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Only 2 articles link to this. Nothing in gnews or Australian database trove. 2 small mentions in google books. Fails WP:ARCHITECT. LibStar ( talk) 04:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Like many AFDs these days, we need more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 04:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk) 06:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still needs more participation. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 13:40, 12 April 2024 (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 14:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails GNG. Some hits online due to prolific local history writing, and being involved in various local events and organisations. None of it notable though, and no significant coverage for this individual. Heavy Grasshopper ( talk) 13:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 05:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately fails WP:GNG. Lack of notability indicated by no WP:VG/S review sources, either in the article or doing a WP:BEFORE, which only yielded mention in one WP:OFFLINE source from the Dutch magazine Gameplay. Reviews for two situational sources: TechRaptor and Gaming Age, although source discussions for neither seem particularly positive and both authors, whilst having a few reviews under their belt, have no experience or presence outside writing for their respective websites. Absent more reliable sources being found, seems like coverage is mostly confined to primary sources, non-reliable indie blogs and game guide type articles. Mindful this is a little closer to borderline than usual so welcome thoughts. VRXCES ( talk) 12:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Nominator withdraw on the basis that the found sources have since illustrated that notability has been comfortably met, supported by participants, making the need for a discussion moot. thanks to @ Nomader:. VRXCES ( talk) 02:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 ( t • c) 12:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Bad content fork Users123users ( talk) 11:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs) 11:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs) 11:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs) 12:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs) 12:57, 12 April 2024 (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Zero references, written completely in-universe, no indication of notability. Hard to look up any sources, as most results of "world of watches" concern the timepiece, but even a search with author name Lukyanenko bring up very little. Suitable for a dedicated fansite or Fandom wiki. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. If desired, anyone may create a redirect as an ordinary editing decision. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NEVENT. Relatively minor controversy that did not have much of a lasting impact. Furthermore, it is already covered in the GB News article. Partofthemachine ( talk) 11:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of radio stations in U.S. territories#Guam. Hey man im josh ( talk) 17:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Very little content. Zero secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder ( talk) 11:40, 12 April 2024 (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 12:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
An article about a Nigerian actress, filmmaker, Philanthropist and a business woman that doesn't meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and WP:NACTOR. The actress has appeared in non notable films and has neither lead any role or praised for that role in any film per WP:BEFORE. Gross case of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES: the sources seems to bear interview natures like "she said", "I did abortion", etc and doesn't mean WP:SIGCOV. Sideway drive of promotional clauses ! Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 10:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 ( t • c) 11:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
2 sources provided are from time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar ( talk) 10:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
The existence of this article is a testament to recency bias that has been prevalent on Wikipedia. The simple fact that Real Madrid and Manchester City are currently among the strongest teams in Europe that compete for trophies against each other does not make them rivals. It is a disgrace that this copy-pasted article with zero reliable sources was even approved in the first place. Monerals ( talk) 10:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
This college notability appears to be questionable, as many of the sources cited do not meet the criteria outlined in WP:RS. Additionally, an education institute does not inherently meet the Notability unless it meets WP:GNG, which it does not. It was created by User: Faizanalivarya, known for COI editing. The editing history by User: Faizanalivarya ( see this) to add unsourced promotional content about a relatively unknown small college in the US, and then these comments on the talk page suggesting the possibility of paid editing. — Saqib ( talk | contribs) 10:14, 12 April 2024 (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! 07:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. The game is mentioned in passing in 3 of 5 sources and the other 2 are database entries. No added content since its creation in 2021. Humsorgan ( talk) 07:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs) 08:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
No independent reliable sources about the player (just passing mentions), just clubs and tournament organisers. Nothing useful on Google News. Fails WP:BIO Fram ( talk) 07:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Incompliance with WP:N, WP:NSOFT, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOT as well as lack of purpose, and advertising. Ztimes3 ( talk) 06:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft deletion.Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 08:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. As stated, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Not seeing this pass WP:NCORP Hemiauchenia ( talk) 15:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Surprisingly poor sourced, not notable company. WP THREE? Rodgers V ( talk) 12:15, 22 March 2024 (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! 06:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk) 06:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Like I stated, Soft Deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Similar to the Northwestern European people and Eastern European people articles that have also been deleted, this similarly written article has the same problems. Lots of WP:REFBOMBED issues where the article just references random articles with the phrase "Eastern European" in it. Also WP:SYNTH. (This is almost verbatim the rationale of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern European people, and it also applies here). NLeeuw ( talk) 05:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Franz Kafka. Liz Read! Talk! 07:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:ANYBIO. Being the sister of someone notable does not make her notable. She has achieved nothing in life. FromCzech ( talk) 04:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Keep. I've gone through the articles on de.wiki and cs.wiki, did a little other searching, probably meets WP:BASIC. Kafka's life is so heavily covered, and she is covered in most of his biographies. I don't think the fact she never achieved anything herself really is relevant to whether or not she's notable enough for inclusion. Valereee ( talk) 06:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No consensus for a particular outcome has transpired at this time. North America 1000 09:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. i can´t find substantive coverage in independent sources. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk) 15:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Eddie891
Talk
Work 17:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk 02:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Looks like No consensus right now. Hoping for some more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was Draftify as there is an active desire to address the WP:V issues. Draftifying as this as there does not appear to be a consensus on the best title. For the move to whichever title it eventually lands at, feel free to ping me if that requires admin action but should be fine editorially. Star Mississippi 02:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewed during NPP. There's nothing in the one on line source given that confirms that this even exists and I could not find anything in a search. I looked several places on the history of Dalmatia and none of the mentions it. Creator appears to not be present in Wikipedia. Either way not much to lose, the contents of this stub pretty much is already at a table at List of wars involving Bosnia and Herzegovina which I put a CN tag on. North8000 ( talk) 23:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is highly productive, but I don't think I can find consensus here. It seems the (verified) content should be merged, perhaps?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26 (
spin me /
revolutions) 01:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Calling it a definable and isolated "war" is a stretch.This is reading too much into the title. Wars often contain smaller wars, so the fact that these military actions were not isolated doesn't matter. Just look at the contemporary Hundred Years' War and its sub-wars.
an article on the broader civil war in Hungary ... is where this content belongs.So the content belongs at an article that doesn't exist. This is a reason to keep this article and work on it.
The title itself is OR. Not necessarily a problem per WP:NDESC, although "war" should not be upper case. Srnec ( talk) 20:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Move to draft at Draft:Hungarian Civil War (1382–1394) per input from Norden1990. No redirect should remain. I struck my earlier vote above. @ Norden1990 and Joy, do you two mind assisting with writing this draft? Srnec you are of course welcome to aid in writing the draft as well. I'll pitch in if nobody else is willing, but it's not my area of expertise. Many hands make light work. 4meter4 ( talk) 21:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This discussion is going into the weeds with talk of dates of rebellions and national borderlines when AFDs typically focus on issues of notability and sourcing that establishes that notability. Other issues over who did what to whom and why are content decisions that can be worked out if this article is Kept. But we need some definitive verdicts on what should happen. I have a bias towards ATD in discussions like this but if a consensus forms to delete, that's what will happen. I guess I'm just surprised that the nominator doesn't have an opinion on this. Why did it come to AFD if you weren't seeking deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
The information source in the article is unreliable .Because it does not meet the requirement of Wikipedia:Notability. It is recommended to delete it. Hhhlx ( talk) 05:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs) 05:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)The summary of the company on the page linking to the report notes: "Chengdu Kanghong Pharmaceuticals Group Co Ltd (Kanghong Pharmaceuticals) focuses on the development, manufacturing and marketing of Chinese medicines, chemical drugs, and biological products. It offers products for the treatment of medical conditions related to the central nervous system, ophthalmology, digestive system, gastrointestinal, and diabetes among others. Kanghong Pharmaceutical products include Lumitin, Bosiqing, Bolexin, Danshu, Xinluona, Yiqing, Keluoxin, Yitanning, and Xuanmaiganju. The company offers its products in the form of dispersible tablets, ophthalmic injections, oral drugs, detoxification drugs, and antiviral medicines. Kanghong Pharmaceuticals is headquartered in Chengdu, Sichuan, China."
The article notes: "康弘药业(002773)的一款核心药品,三年来一直被公司释放“海外临床进展良好”的信号。然而,随着公司3月29日的一纸“自愿公告”,利好突然变为利空——先是法国临床试验“莫名其妙”被暂停,后是直接宣布临床试验停止。康弘药业到底是何时获得临床失败信息的?其公告所称“近日”具体指哪一日?康弘药业对这一重大消息的信披是否真实、准确、完整、及时?大量资金为何在消息公布前出逃?"
From Google Translate: "A core drug of Kanghong Pharmaceutical (002773), the company has been releasing signals of "good overseas clinical progress" for three years. However, with the company's "voluntary announcement" on March 29, the good news suddenly turned bad - first, the French clinical trial was "inexplicably" suspended, and then the clinical trial was directly announced to be stopped. When did Kanghong Pharmaceutical obtain the clinical failure information? What specific day does the "recent days" mentioned in its announcement refer to? Is Kanghong Pharmaceutical's disclosure of this major news true, accurate, complete and timely? Why did a large amount of money flee before the news was announced?"
The article notes: "公开资料显示,康弘药业是一家致力于中成药、化学药及生物制品的研发、生产、销售的企业,总部位于四川成都。在资本市场上带有"国内自主研发药企"的耀眼头衔。 ... 上世纪九十年代,在华西医科大学附属第一医院药房当主任的柯尊洪离职,与3名同行共同创业。康弘药业是1998年通过整体收购全民所有制企业济民制药厂后,于2008年3月6日更名而成。"
From Google Translate: "Public information shows that Kanghong Pharmaceutical is an enterprise dedicated to the research and development, production and sales of Chinese patent medicines, chemical drugs and biological products. It is headquartered in Chengdu, Sichuan. ... In the 1990s, Ke Zunhong, who was the director of the pharmacy of the First Affiliated Hospital of West China University of Medical Sciences, resigned and started a business with three colleagues. Kanghong Pharmaceutical was renamed on 6 March 2008 after the overall acquisition of Jimin Pharmaceutical Factory, an enterprise owned by the whole people in 1998."
The article notes: "2018年5月,康弘药业启动了关于“一项多中心、双盲、随机、剂量范围试验,评估康柏西普眼注注射液治疗新生血管性年龄相关性黄斑变性患者的疗效和安全性”全球Ⅲ期临床试验项目(即KH916项目),而且信心满满地跟阿柏西普(再生元和拜耳联合开发的VEGF单抗)进行头对头比较。2020年12月,康弘药业还曾计划定增募资34.72亿元,并将其中25.73亿元用于康柏西普的“出海”。然而,这个历时近3年的创新药“出海”项目最终宣告夭折,近14亿元的研发投入因此打了水漂。"
From Google Translate: "In May 2018, Kanghong Pharmaceutical launched "a multi-center, double-blind, randomized, dose-ranging trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Conbercept Ophthalmic Injection in the treatment of patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration" "Global Phase III clinical trial project (i.e. KH916 project), and confidently conduct a head-to-head comparison with aflibercept (a VEGF monoclonal antibody jointly developed by Regeneron and Bayer). In December 2020, Kanghong Pharmaceutical also planned to raise 3.472 billion yuan in additional capital, of which 2.573 billion yuan would be used for Conbercept's "overseas expansion.""
The article notes: "长江商报记者注意到,康弘药业净利润的增长主要原因之一为,眼科创新药康柏西普全球多中心临床试验停止。由此导致研发费用等费用下滑,为利润增长打开空间。"
From Google Translate: "A reporter from the Changjiang Business Daily noticed that one of the main reasons for the growth of Kanghong Pharmaceutical's net profit was the suspension of global multi-center clinical trials of the innovative ophthalmic drug Conbercept. This has led to a decline in R&D expenses and other expenses, opening up room for profit growth."
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! 07:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
This Guanghua Education Group article has words in it that sound like an advertorial promotion, and the sources cited are not valid. Also, most of the searches for this Chinese educational organisation in China are for its own official sources, which is not in accordance with Wikipedia:Notability (organisations and companies). Zhuo1221 ( talk) 04:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. I don't feel great about closing an AFD discussion for an article with a single source of unknown quality but that's the consensus here. If Merge or Redirection is an appropriate solution, please start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 07:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Because this article does not contain a single citation, the verifiability of this article does not. and Notability (geographic features) is insufficient, and the description of the Meilong Railway Station in the article is outdated, as the station has been canceled and rebuilt into a new station called Shanghai South Railway Station. This is a violation of Wikipedia's article on Notability (geographic features), and I suggest that it be deleted to avoid misleading others. CHENG SHIYI ( talk) 04:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. The consensus here, relative to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies for deletion, is for deletion at this time. North America 1000 14:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Non-notable CEO of a notable company. All of the sources cited are about the company, apart from
this paywalled article in Stat about him winning a "best biopharma CEO" award reader poll. He has appeared on television news to discuss the company and biotech more generally, but those are primary sources, and I couldn't find solid, significant coverage of him in reliable secondary sources to show that he's notable independent from the company.
Wikishovel (
talk) 18:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article appears to have been expanded since the last delete !vote was posted, although based on arguments made here the balance still favors deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk 02:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk) 04:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Source assessment table: prepared by
User:Wikishovel
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
CRISPR Therapeutics | Press release or paid placement | ? Press release | Press release, no byline, includes marketing phone numbers at bottom | ✘ No |
All About Belgaum | Press release or paid placement | News blog with no byline, obvious COI as it talks about his "proud parents" | user-submitted, not journalism | ✘ No |
Fierce Biotech | Press release or paid placement | Biotech news blog, no byline | Press release, no byline, includes line about "our vision" at end | ✘ No |
CRISPR bio | His bio on his company's website | Company bio | All companies publish bios of their senior mgt | ✘ No |
Scientific American | Well established magazine | Byline given, and editorial oversight clearly outlined on website | His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article | ✘ No |
Time magazine | Well established magazine | Byline given, and editorial oversight clearly outlined on website | His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article | ✘ No |
Forbes | Well established magazine | Byline given, editorial oversight clearly outlined on website | His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article | ✘ No |
Fierce Pharma | ? Sister title of "Fierce Biotech" above, independence unclear | ? Byline given in this one, but reliability is unclear | His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article | ✘ No |
Healthcare Technology Report | ? blog, unknown if it is user-submitted content, but it includes a posed photo, apparently from his company | blog, click-bait | ? One entry in a list on an SEO blog of the "top healthcare CEOs of 2020", with no explanation of inclusion criteria | ✘ No |
Timmerman Report | ? blog, unknown if it is user-submitted content, but it includes a posed photo, apparently from his company | ? a post by grad student on a biopharma blog of unknown reliability | One entry on a blog post about the "Asian Americans shaping the future of biopharma", with no explanation of inclusion criteria | ✘ No |
Centessa | His bio on his company's website | Company bio | Copypaste of his CRISPR Therapeutics company bio above | ✘ No |
Black Diamond | His bio on his company's website | Company bio | All companies publish bios of their senior mgt | ✘ No |
ReparerX | Board list on company website | Company bios | His name isn't mentioned on the page | ✘ No |
Marketscreener | ? Some sort of company listings website, might be independent | ? no editorial oversight or even contact info listed, might be reliable | directory listing simply confirms that he's head of a company | ✘ No |
Biotechnology Innovation Organization | membership listing page of an industry association | seems reliable from its "about" page etc | His name isn't mentioned in the list | ✘ No |
India New England News | clickbait news blog attempting to pass as a newspaper | probably user-generated content as it's mostly a paste of his company bio (and photo) above, otherwise it's paid placement | ? the American India Foundation is notable, but this post simply says he and another exec are being "honored at a gala", so the notability of the recognition is unclear | ✘ No |
STAT+ | newspaper | has byline, editorial oversight | ~ Some actual reportage here, but it's paywalled, and appears to be about him winning the newspaper's reader poll | ~ Partial |
CNBC | national TV network | national TV network | interview: primary source | ✘ No |
CNBC | national TV network | national TV network | interview: primary source | ✘ No |
WSJ | national newspaper | national newspaper | interview: primary source | ✘ No |
Cura Foundation | independent foundation with notable backers | interview by notable foundation | interview: primary source | ✘ No |
The Hill Events | The Hill is an established newspaper with well defined editorial oversight | interview during event sponsored by newspaper | interview: primary source | ✘ No |
Forbes | Forbes is an independent national newspaper... | ? ...but per WP:FORBES they also publish "contributed content", and it's unclear whether this is Forbes' own content or "contributed". | In either case, this is still an interview, therefore a primary source | ✘ No |
FII Institute | ? Future Investment Initiative Institute is a government-sponsored group | interview during event sponsored by group | interview: primary source | ✘ No |
FT | Financial Times is a national newspaper | interview during event sponsored by group | interview: primary source | ✘ No |
CNBC | National TV network | news website of the TV network | trivial coverage of his contribution in a highlights summary of a panel discussion | ✘ 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 procedural close. The first nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChinaCast Education (by the same nominator), is still open and ongoing. (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The article says ChinaCast Education Corporation is the leading for-profit provider of post-secondary education and e-learning services in the People's Republic of China. However, no information can be found on Chinese search engines, and in fact, the media does not continue to focus on this for-profit learning organisation, which is in line with Wikipedia:Notability. Zhuo1221 ( talk) 04:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Original research fork of love of money/ list of Latin phrases Traumnovelle ( talk) 03:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
*Merge back into
Love of money and keep the Latin phrase as a redirect to it.
Mccapra (
talk) 04:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 02:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 03:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 02:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 03:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 02:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 02:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. BusterD ( talk) 13:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Not notable. There are no independent sources Mdggdj ( talk) 14:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Eddie891
Talk
Work 15:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I considered closing this as no consensus, but one more relist in case someone proficient in Thai wants to try doing a thorough search can't hurt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk 01:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk) 02:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Wisconsin. There is a good case for arguing that this discussion should be closed as No consensus but taking in all comments, I'm closing this discussion as a Redirect to the election article. This will preserve article content in case his notability changes after the election but acknowledges those editors arguing for Delete who state that he presently isn't notable enough for a standalone article in main space. So, it's a bit of a compromise and I think a Redirect is more helpful for readers rather that moving the page to Draft space. If his situation changes after the election this summer, this discussion closure can be revisited. Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Does not meet WP:NPOL. Coverage is of his campaign and does not establish WP:GNG apart from his candidacy for office. Marquardtika ( talk) 17:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is not about the number of responses. The arguments and sources are not impressive. To keep such an article, make a stronger case based on police, reliable sources, and clear evidence of notability beyond simply running for office.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no! 09:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
counting [him] outat all. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More on redirect vs. draftify as an
ATD please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 01:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is no consensus for the deletion of this article, and a reasonable argument by those opposed to deletion that the subject meets
WP:LISTN. Concerns about the presentation of this list might be resolved by the proposal made in the discussion to move this article to
Fatal dog attacks in the United States, and shift the focus from the mere list to the general phenomenon. I will file a
WP:RM proposal after completing this closure.
BD2412
T 02:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
If you came here because
of a reddit post, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:NOTNEWS many of the entries are sourced to dogsbites.org which isn't a reliable source (see: [64]) and I've noticed a few entries were not supported by source. This list is near impossible to maintain and review and has little encyclopaedic value. List of fatal dog attacks already exists and it will be easier to manage all the verifiability issues with a single list Traumnovelle ( talk) 02:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
includ[e] analysis of dog & human interaction, that isn't the case in the vast majority of the given sources here. This is also pretty much the same reasons why the 2014 article was deleted. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.In other words, do sources exist that discuss Fatal Dog Attacks in the United States as a group? Yes, they do, for example, [77], [78], [79] Dog attacks are a perennial subject of scholarly interest, therefore, lists of such incidents are inherently notable by WP guidelines. By the way, just because something is covered by news, does not automatically make it susceptible to a WP:NOTNEWS argument. You may also enjoy similar topics in Wikipedia, like List of fatal crowd crushes, List of fatal bear attacks in North America, List of fatal shark attacks in the United States, List of fatal snake bites in Australia (note that the "in the United States" or "in Australia" does not indicate systemic bias, either), List of fatal alligator attacks in the United States, List of fatal shark attacks in South Africa, List of deadliest floods, and List of deaths on eight-thousanders. Geogene ( talk) 03:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Veritas Aeterna ( talk) 22:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Like previous AFDs, I don't see a consensus here yet. As Geogene points out, it doesn't matter if there are no similar articles for other countries, we have multiple country-specific lists. And I think it is important not to get lost in the weeds and argue about whether or not the breed of dog should be included and verified. What's essential is whether or not this article satisfies
WP:NLIST and whether there are sources that establish notability of this subject. Don't get distracted by elements that can be improved through editing and focus on the big picture of whether or not this article is suitable for the project, according to our policies and standards of notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
“Pit bull–type” dogs refers to a variety of breeds including the bull terrier, the Staffordshire bull terrier, the American pit bull terrier, and the American Staffordshire terrier. These dogs seem to be a particular problem compared with other breeds as they tend not to make threatening gestures, such as snarling or baring of teeth, prior to attacking and so there may be no warning of impending aggressive behavior. Pit bulls also take multiple bites and have greater jaw pressures than most other dogs, reaching 1800 pounds per square inch. Once attached, they also continue to grind their premolars and molars into tissues while holding on with their canine teeth causing greater amounts of soft-tissue....(and do not Google that paper lightly, there are reasons I'm not linking to it directly here) I don't see why Wikipedia owes any duty to censor reliably sourced information about specific types of dog that some peer reviewed journal papers consider problematic in the interest of "righting great wrongs". I also don't think it's appropriate to suggest that Wikipedia should take a political stance on Breed-Specific Legislation, or for Wikipedia to self-censor for that reason. Geogene ( talk) 02:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
The key point is that this article used to have prose information that gave it weight and the stamp of approval for standalone notability. Due to size constraints—and the subsequent
splitting/fracturing—it should maintain its notability due to its alliance with the other articles in the series, if not simply because it fulfills the
informational purpose of lists as mentioned in NLIST. NLIST discusses creating stand-alone lists
but does not address lists when they are split—in this case with the prose content being moved elsewhere, leaving the list standing alone.
If you want to "merge" something, then put some of the USA prose content back into " List of fatal dog attacks in the United States" from " Fatal dog attacks", whether it remains named "List of" or not. Veritas Aeterna ( talk) 22:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no! 09:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Maybe criteria for notability of the cases and attacks should be that they were fatal in the end and involved dogs- notability on Wikipedia means WP:N. It's typically about having enough coverage for a wide audience and over a period of time for a Wikipedia article. Most lists on Wikipedia that constitute lists of examples are lists of notable examples. Some lists aim to be exhaustive (discographies, lists of presidents of a particular country, lists of cars made by Audi, etc.). Fatal dog attacks is not one such list where I think we should aim to be exhaustive. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article. . .A list isn't needed for this topic and has only been causing problems with the tensions it causes with WP:NLIST. Instead, let secondary sources do the broad-level summarizing for us in a regular article where we aren't forced into having a list, but still have the option for a focused one if needed in that article.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More discussion on whether clearer
selection criteria would ameliorate the concerns about INDISCRIMINATE and NOTNEWS would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 01:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't find the WP:LISTN issues that you mention.And that's the underlying problem here that editors are not engaging with the LISTN issues and just keep broadly insisting the topic is notable. Denialism about that is not helpful here if any of us outside editors are going to be helpful in addressing the underlying problems at the article. That's already been addressed above though ad nauseum, so please be mindful of WP:BADGERING at this point.
Delete per Rhododendrites and KoA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 06:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete, or Keep but remove breed. There are several studies, some listed here [89] [90] [91], that have determined breed identification by visual inspection to be unreliable. News report what Animal Control states, and if its known their staff can't reliably determine breed, then the news is just reporting unreliable information too. There really isn't an argument for keeping data on Wikipedia that is already known to be unreliable, so I would say to either delete it, or remove breed from it and keeping a list of incidents with no breed listed. The exception, would be where DNA tests were done, but those are in the minority. This would also detract from users who go there for advocacy on either side. Removing inaccurate information and reducing POV is a double-win for Wikipedia. Also will sign myself as an SPA for disclosure.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiased6969 ( talk • contribs) 07:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC) — Unbiased6969 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was redirect to Montserrat Championship. Closing as redirect to Montserrat Championship. History is preserved under redirect, which can be used for merge or expansion, if required. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Contested PROD. No real indication that this is a notable team. The League they played in was short lived and no longer active. The only found references was a listing of previous champions of the now defunct Montserrat Championship. I can't see this passing WP:GNG. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 01:20, 12 April 2024 (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! 00:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:OR + fails WP:GNG. Virtually WP:UNSOURCED except 1 dead link since creation in 2008. (Edit: the archived link only mentions Argentina and provides no WP:SIGCOV.) It amounts to little more than Music of Argentina + Music of Chile + Music of Uruguay, with every example being country-specific rather than cross-border between the 3 countries. WP:BEFORE done: no single book on Google Books mentions it. NLeeuw ( talk) 00:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTDIRECTORY/ WP:NLIST. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 00:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
This list comprises significant works and figures in the study of English grammar and rhetoric, ranging from early comprehensive guides to modern analytical texts. The authors listed have contributed foundational texts that have shaped teaching practices and linguistic understanding in English-speaking academies and beyond.However, there are no sources to support that any given entry is a significant work or figure, or that those listed are considered foundational texts, or that any given entry has "shaped teaching practices and linguistic understanding". The list contains non-neutral, unsourced, and unattributed commentary such as
Not worth a pin,
A miserable jumble, and
This is a curious work, and remarkably well-written. Several entries are noted for plagiarism, so why are they included? Rather than being carefully curated, this appears to be a data dump of 18th and 19th century grammar books. Schazjmd (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
non-neutral, unsourced, and unattributed commentaryderives from the original work from which the text is copied, The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown ( wikisource). IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Living person, claiming to hold a world record of degrees, but world recodmaking organizing is... not exactly reputable, I don't see a strong case for this being a notable individual. Sadads ( talk) 00:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs) 00:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
No evidence of notability, one local article in Liechtenstein, otherwise either passing mentions (e.g. the Faroese articles just state that their team beat Liechtenstein, it doesn't give any actual attention to the Liechtenstein team), databases, or non-independent sources (organizers and the like). Fram ( talk) 08:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 00:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No improvements in article since its nomination. Can we see an evaluation of sources brough to this discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 00:41, 13 April 2024 (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 12:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Working author but doesn't appear to meet WP:NAUTHOR / WP:GNG. Unref blp. Boleyn ( talk) 14:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 08:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I can't close this as Soft Deletion due to its previous AFD but there also isn't a consensus here to Delete. With no future participation after two relisting, I'm closing this as No consensus as there is not enough (or any) participation other than the nominator to determine a consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable model. Classicwiki ( talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 06:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:17, 12 April 2024 (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 12:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 01:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Florida International University. Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Subject is not independently notable (it does not inherit notability from its unquestionably notable parent organization ElKevbo ( talk) 23:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Florida International University. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Subject does not appear to be notable (notability is not inherited from its unquestionably notable parent organization) ElKevbo ( talk) 23:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:ADMASQ about a non-notable philanthropist who fails WP:BIO as far as I can see. The sources cited in this article at best just mention her or the foundation she has set up, or are just downright non-reliable. I can't see any reliable sources offering in-depth coverage on a search either. Java Hurricane 13:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. A procedural close, as the ink has not yet dried over the previous AfD, and the sources identified there have not yet been added to the article. If the nom believes the previous close (in which they participated) does not reflect consensus, they should have taken this to DRV, or waited six months--not four days--before renominating. Owen× ☎ 20:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Sources talk about the founders and the amountof money raised for their product but very little about the product itself. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 17:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Why start a new AFD so soon after the previous one was just closed? Especially as it had a Keep closure, not a No consensus closure. This may warrant a procedural Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
no evident notability in the article, apart from having a song used in a documentary. I can only find coverage on punkglobe.com, and it's unclear if this is a reputable source given the outdated appearance of their website. InDimensional ( talk) 22:35, 12 April 2024 (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! 22:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NJOURNALIST. Current sources consist of homepages of news websites, and articles written by the subject. Doesn't seem to have any independent or significant coverage. ARandomName123 ( talk)Ping me! 21:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:35, 12 April 2024 (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! 22:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Does not pass notability per WP:BAND as their main accomplishments are having songs used in a 2006 video game and a 2005 film. A google search for this band brings up no coverage at all. InDimensional ( talk) 22:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Ken Carson. This closure can be revisited if the song becomes more notable according to Wikipedia's music guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Too soon - song was apparently only released today, therefore cannot meet WP:NSONG - no indication of independent WP:SIGCOV or notability. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:23, 12 April 2024 (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! 22:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Totally unreferenced article. No significant coverage of the artist on the web apart from a brief mention in a Complex article "The Best Licensed Songs Used in Video Game Commercials". The talk page suggest that the article was written as a class assignment. InDimensional ( talk) 22:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Another embassy article that fails WP:GNG. There's really not much about this embassy that wouldn't fit under Australia–Azerbaijan relations: the only coverage I could find was this non-independent press release regarding the creation of the embassy; this small clash between Azeris and Armenians outside of the embassy; and the fact that the embassy staff imported over 40,000 cigarettes and lots of booze, possibly to sell it to the black market. All in all, there's nothing really noteworthy *about the embassy* that makes me think we should be keeping this article, and all the material I dug up could end up at Australia–Azerbaijan relations. I think a redirect here would be a good fit. Pilaz ( talk) 21:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. Sharing the stage with bands with Wiki pages doesn't mean notability. I can't see in what format they were featured in the Oct '13 issue of Decibel, but they weren't mentioned in the cover. A search on the web for their quite unique band name brings up no significant coverage. InDimensional ( talk) 21:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Not hit of SIGCOV on google news aside from database results which is lot a secondary source or WP:RS. The articles didn't meet WP:GNG, WP:SPORTSBIO and WP:SPORTSCRIT for the time. May be notable in the future! Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 20:45, 12 April 2024 (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! 22:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
There has been a notability tag since October 2021. The first sentence of the article is "Hunter Scott is best known for the research he did on the sinking of USS Indianapolis as a sixth-grade student." I would go so far to say that he is only known for this accomplishment. As such, this is a BLP1E and the article should be deleted. He has not done any academic work since so no further historical work, so does not meet the criteria for academics. In an effort to add information so the article focuses on more facts, it also mentions he is a naval aviator. However, it provides no context to presume that his naval aviation career would meet GNG. An incredibly accomplished individual, nevertheless Wikipedia's policies indicate, in my opinion, there should not be an article on the subject. Mpen320 ( talk) 20:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. New sources found are sufficient, no delete votes.( non-admin closure) StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NPRODUCT, lacks WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. The best I could find was a CNET review of one of the models and some trivial mentions in books that amount to "it is recording software that you can use." StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Film was announced in 2003, over 20 years ago, and has not yet been released. None of sources are current and give no indication as to why this unreleased film is notable. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, a French rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that I found was this interview. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
The closest I could find to notability was this anecdote about the band, but it's only a few sentences and I can't guarantee the reliability of the book. Past that, I saw passing mentions but nothing else of worth. Redirecting to Tim David Kelly would make sense, though his article isn't much more promising in the realm of notability and could potentially go at any time as well if there's nothing more to be found there. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 20:04, 12 April 2024 (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! 23:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Subject is a violation of WP:NOTSTATS, this information is best saved for sports databases. Let'srun ( talk) 19:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Belarusian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:24, 12 April 2024 (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, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
No inherent claim of notability and filled with unsourced original research. Any verifiable information could be a simple mention within Ahmad Kamal. ZimZalaBim talk 19:16, 12 April 2024 (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! 23:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable term used in a few history books. No clear agreed upon meaning (googling finds authors using it in the plain english sense to refer to the 1915 campaign and the proposed 1917 campaign, not the period the article talks about), and not apparently used except by those authors. Also the article is currently factually problematic, as many writers consider prize rules to be essentially in place in this period and certainly do not agree that submarines were "virtually ineffective". Fangz ( talk) 17:40, 12 April 2024 (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! 23:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. delete as this clearly fails WP:NEVENTS — Saqib ( talk | contribs) 16:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Montserrat Championship. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 ( talk) 19:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Zero sources. Duplicates content at Montserrat Championship. Arguably fails WP:NOT DIRECTORY as "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit." AusLondonder ( talk) 16:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 16:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Sources are entirely works by him, not works about him. Article is on the global title blacklist due to cross-wiki spamming * Pppery * it has begun... 16:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Hadlow Down. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Lowest-level local government authority in England covering a village. Parish councils are rarely notable - there are more than 10,000 in England. No secondary sources. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder ( talk) 16:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 05:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLP of an academic, not
properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for academics. As always, academics are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show sourcing that properly verifies that they meet certain specific criteria for inclusion -- but this has no footnotes at all, and just contextlessly lists a couple of
primary sources (i.e. her own faculty profiles on the
self-published websites of her own employers and a directory entry) that aren't support for notability.
This was, further, created in draftspace by a brand new user and then immediately moved into mainspace by the same user without
WP:AFC review practically the moment they had accumulated 10 edits for the purposes of gaining autoconfirmed privileges -- which is not the proper process for article creation either.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have any third-party sourcing besides her own staff profiles from directly affiliated entities.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
so it meets notability requirements" exhibits a misunderstanding of what notability means. It is not articles that meet notability requirements, it is their subjects. If the subject is notable, she is notable regardless of the state of the article. If she is not, she is not. Since we're at AfD, we should decide the issue. Draftifying, after reaching AfD, has the appearance of being a cowardly way of saying "let's hope the author goes away so we can delete it in another 6 months without discussion". Draftifying can sometimes be useful in the situation where we have a clearly-notable subject and a clearly-unready article about them, but that's not the case here. It is not article improvement that we need – the article is in ok shape for what its sources provide – but a determination of whether the subject actually is notable or not. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) voorts ( talk/ contributions) 03:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Semi-advertorialized article about a local sports facility, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for sports facilities. As always, sports facilities are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them, but this is "referenced" entirely to primary source content self-published by the city council, with absolutely no evidence of media coverage shown at all -- and while it was only just recently tagged for notability issues, it has existed in this state since 2008 without seeing any better referencing added. Bearcat ( talk) 15:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
According to the About page, "Canadian Architect is the journal of record of two national professional associations: the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC) and the AIA Canada Society and is the official magazine of each association – carrying both the RAIC Journal and the AIA Canada Journal within the pages of Canadian Architect magazine." Leslie Jen is the former associate editor for Canadian Architect.
The review notes: "A predominantly white and silver colour palette is offset by the judicious employment of vibrant saturated colours in a plethora of applications, colours specifically chosen to communicate the active and energetic colours associated with athletics and athletic attire. To that end, horizontal bands of coloured glass are used sparingly on the curtain walls to animate the faades and to create jewel-toned splashes of light on the interior. High-contrast black and white tiles define the floor surfaces, a clever reference to the colours–or lack thereof–found in soccer balls and referee jerseys."
The article notes: "One example of the imaginative use of materials is Brampton, Ont.'s $26.5-million Soccer Centre, completed in May, 2007. The 152,000-sq.-ft. building includes four indoor soccer fields, bleachers, change facilities, a community wing and main lobby. It was designed to be easily converted to hockey and other indoor sports and is sized and scaled to operate with four independent programs running at the same time, including trade show events and other community activities."
The article notes: "The new Brampton Soccer Centre offers more than just soccer but make no mistake-- soccer will be at the centre of it all. ... The new facility, at 1495 Sandalwood Parkway East, at the intersection of Sandalwood and Dixie Rd., will be a year-round home for local soccer groups. Four indoor field houses are expected to get plenty of use. Each field measures 85 by 200 with seating for about 350 spectators."
The article notes: "The Brampton Soccer Centre was opened in 2007. The more than 120,000 square-metre property features four turfed field houses in a 14,200 square-metre indoor facility. The centre also currently features exterior fields and amenities including a splash pad. The city is looking to expand on the current soccer, dance and youth programming currently available at the site."
The article notes: "The Brampton Soccer Centre won’t be called that for much longer. The complex located at 1495 Sandalwood Parkway E. will be renamed the Save Max Sports Centre after the City of Brampton signed sponsorship agreement for the exterior naming rights with Save Max Real Estate Inc. The deal, announced by the city in a release on Oct. 26, is for 15 years and $2,512,500."
However, Save Max Sports Centre is not required to meet WP:AUD. Save Max Sports Centre is a building. The relevant guideline is WP:NBUILD, not WP:NORG (which WP:AUD is a part of). Cunard ( talk) 09:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Previously deleted at Rani Hazarika. She's sung a few more songs since then but I see no real new evidence of notability * Pppery * it has begun... 15:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Now, resorting to an AFD is like digging a well in the desert while knowing there is no water-> huh? I'm not following your analogy at all. The only thing that could mean is that I somehow knew this AfD was doomed to fail and was disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and if you're really accusing me of that you need much stronger evidence for it. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
As the name suggests Rani Hazarika is a voice with thousand attributes? And your AfD link is WP:OTHERSTUFF and not even a very convincing OTHERSTUFF, since I see no relationship at all between this AfD and that one other than that both are about musicians. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
"reliability matter on the contributor of the topic.", which means notable jpu8rnalist's writing in Times of India are always reliable. Twinkle1990 ( talk) 15:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
The Asian Age is WP:RS per consensus.-> per consensus where? It's not on WP:RSP or WP:NPPSG where I would expect such a source to be documented. The issue with The Times of India isn't reliability per se, it's that it
is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage, which makes it completely useless for establishing notability as all having an article in The Times of India proves is that you paid them, not an assessment of independent worth. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
References
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 ( talk) 15:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a writer, not
properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for writers. The attempted notability claim here is a language conservation award, which would be fine if the article were properly sourced but is in no way "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass
WP:GNG, but the article as written is completely unsourced.
As I can't read Swedish, I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody who can read Swedish can find enough sourcing to salvage it, but she isn't exempted from having to have any sourcing just because the article has the word "award" in it.
Bearcat (
talk) 14:51, 12 April 2024 (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! 23:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
All the sources provided are from July 2017. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar ( talk) 14:50, 12 April 2024 (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 14:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO, ambassadors are not inherently notable. Broc ( talk) 14:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Only 2 articles link to this. Nothing in gnews or Australian database trove. 2 small mentions in google books. Fails WP:ARCHITECT. LibStar ( talk) 04:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Like many AFDs these days, we need more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 04:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk) 06:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still needs more participation. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 13:40, 12 April 2024 (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 14:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails GNG. Some hits online due to prolific local history writing, and being involved in various local events and organisations. None of it notable though, and no significant coverage for this individual. Heavy Grasshopper ( talk) 13:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 05:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately fails WP:GNG. Lack of notability indicated by no WP:VG/S review sources, either in the article or doing a WP:BEFORE, which only yielded mention in one WP:OFFLINE source from the Dutch magazine Gameplay. Reviews for two situational sources: TechRaptor and Gaming Age, although source discussions for neither seem particularly positive and both authors, whilst having a few reviews under their belt, have no experience or presence outside writing for their respective websites. Absent more reliable sources being found, seems like coverage is mostly confined to primary sources, non-reliable indie blogs and game guide type articles. Mindful this is a little closer to borderline than usual so welcome thoughts. VRXCES ( talk) 12:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Nominator withdraw on the basis that the found sources have since illustrated that notability has been comfortably met, supported by participants, making the need for a discussion moot. thanks to @ Nomader:. VRXCES ( talk) 02:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 ( t • c) 12:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Bad content fork Users123users ( talk) 11:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs) 11:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs) 11:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs) 12:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs) 12:57, 12 April 2024 (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Zero references, written completely in-universe, no indication of notability. Hard to look up any sources, as most results of "world of watches" concern the timepiece, but even a search with author name Lukyanenko bring up very little. Suitable for a dedicated fansite or Fandom wiki. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. If desired, anyone may create a redirect as an ordinary editing decision. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NEVENT. Relatively minor controversy that did not have much of a lasting impact. Furthermore, it is already covered in the GB News article. Partofthemachine ( talk) 11:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of radio stations in U.S. territories#Guam. Hey man im josh ( talk) 17:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Very little content. Zero secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder ( talk) 11:40, 12 April 2024 (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 12:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
An article about a Nigerian actress, filmmaker, Philanthropist and a business woman that doesn't meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and WP:NACTOR. The actress has appeared in non notable films and has neither lead any role or praised for that role in any film per WP:BEFORE. Gross case of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES: the sources seems to bear interview natures like "she said", "I did abortion", etc and doesn't mean WP:SIGCOV. Sideway drive of promotional clauses ! Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 10:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 ( t • c) 11:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
2 sources provided are from time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar ( talk) 10:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
The existence of this article is a testament to recency bias that has been prevalent on Wikipedia. The simple fact that Real Madrid and Manchester City are currently among the strongest teams in Europe that compete for trophies against each other does not make them rivals. It is a disgrace that this copy-pasted article with zero reliable sources was even approved in the first place. Monerals ( talk) 10:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
This college notability appears to be questionable, as many of the sources cited do not meet the criteria outlined in WP:RS. Additionally, an education institute does not inherently meet the Notability unless it meets WP:GNG, which it does not. It was created by User: Faizanalivarya, known for COI editing. The editing history by User: Faizanalivarya ( see this) to add unsourced promotional content about a relatively unknown small college in the US, and then these comments on the talk page suggesting the possibility of paid editing. — Saqib ( talk | contribs) 10:14, 12 April 2024 (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! 07:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. The game is mentioned in passing in 3 of 5 sources and the other 2 are database entries. No added content since its creation in 2021. Humsorgan ( talk) 07:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs) 08:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
No independent reliable sources about the player (just passing mentions), just clubs and tournament organisers. Nothing useful on Google News. Fails WP:BIO Fram ( talk) 07:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Incompliance with WP:N, WP:NSOFT, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOT as well as lack of purpose, and advertising. Ztimes3 ( talk) 06:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft deletion.Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 08:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. As stated, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Not seeing this pass WP:NCORP Hemiauchenia ( talk) 15:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Surprisingly poor sourced, not notable company. WP THREE? Rodgers V ( talk) 12:15, 22 March 2024 (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! 06:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk) 06:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Like I stated, Soft Deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Similar to the Northwestern European people and Eastern European people articles that have also been deleted, this similarly written article has the same problems. Lots of WP:REFBOMBED issues where the article just references random articles with the phrase "Eastern European" in it. Also WP:SYNTH. (This is almost verbatim the rationale of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern European people, and it also applies here). NLeeuw ( talk) 05:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Franz Kafka. Liz Read! Talk! 07:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:ANYBIO. Being the sister of someone notable does not make her notable. She has achieved nothing in life. FromCzech ( talk) 04:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Keep. I've gone through the articles on de.wiki and cs.wiki, did a little other searching, probably meets WP:BASIC. Kafka's life is so heavily covered, and she is covered in most of his biographies. I don't think the fact she never achieved anything herself really is relevant to whether or not she's notable enough for inclusion. Valereee ( talk) 06:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No consensus for a particular outcome has transpired at this time. North America 1000 09:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. i can´t find substantive coverage in independent sources. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk) 15:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Eddie891
Talk
Work 17:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk 02:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Looks like No consensus right now. Hoping for some more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was Draftify as there is an active desire to address the WP:V issues. Draftifying as this as there does not appear to be a consensus on the best title. For the move to whichever title it eventually lands at, feel free to ping me if that requires admin action but should be fine editorially. Star Mississippi 02:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewed during NPP. There's nothing in the one on line source given that confirms that this even exists and I could not find anything in a search. I looked several places on the history of Dalmatia and none of the mentions it. Creator appears to not be present in Wikipedia. Either way not much to lose, the contents of this stub pretty much is already at a table at List of wars involving Bosnia and Herzegovina which I put a CN tag on. North8000 ( talk) 23:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is highly productive, but I don't think I can find consensus here. It seems the (verified) content should be merged, perhaps?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26 (
spin me /
revolutions) 01:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Calling it a definable and isolated "war" is a stretch.This is reading too much into the title. Wars often contain smaller wars, so the fact that these military actions were not isolated doesn't matter. Just look at the contemporary Hundred Years' War and its sub-wars.
an article on the broader civil war in Hungary ... is where this content belongs.So the content belongs at an article that doesn't exist. This is a reason to keep this article and work on it.
The title itself is OR. Not necessarily a problem per WP:NDESC, although "war" should not be upper case. Srnec ( talk) 20:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Move to draft at Draft:Hungarian Civil War (1382–1394) per input from Norden1990. No redirect should remain. I struck my earlier vote above. @ Norden1990 and Joy, do you two mind assisting with writing this draft? Srnec you are of course welcome to aid in writing the draft as well. I'll pitch in if nobody else is willing, but it's not my area of expertise. Many hands make light work. 4meter4 ( talk) 21:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This discussion is going into the weeds with talk of dates of rebellions and national borderlines when AFDs typically focus on issues of notability and sourcing that establishes that notability. Other issues over who did what to whom and why are content decisions that can be worked out if this article is Kept. But we need some definitive verdicts on what should happen. I have a bias towards ATD in discussions like this but if a consensus forms to delete, that's what will happen. I guess I'm just surprised that the nominator doesn't have an opinion on this. Why did it come to AFD if you weren't seeking deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
The information source in the article is unreliable .Because it does not meet the requirement of Wikipedia:Notability. It is recommended to delete it. Hhhlx ( talk) 05:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs) 05:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)The summary of the company on the page linking to the report notes: "Chengdu Kanghong Pharmaceuticals Group Co Ltd (Kanghong Pharmaceuticals) focuses on the development, manufacturing and marketing of Chinese medicines, chemical drugs, and biological products. It offers products for the treatment of medical conditions related to the central nervous system, ophthalmology, digestive system, gastrointestinal, and diabetes among others. Kanghong Pharmaceutical products include Lumitin, Bosiqing, Bolexin, Danshu, Xinluona, Yiqing, Keluoxin, Yitanning, and Xuanmaiganju. The company offers its products in the form of dispersible tablets, ophthalmic injections, oral drugs, detoxification drugs, and antiviral medicines. Kanghong Pharmaceuticals is headquartered in Chengdu, Sichuan, China."
The article notes: "康弘药业(002773)的一款核心药品,三年来一直被公司释放“海外临床进展良好”的信号。然而,随着公司3月29日的一纸“自愿公告”,利好突然变为利空——先是法国临床试验“莫名其妙”被暂停,后是直接宣布临床试验停止。康弘药业到底是何时获得临床失败信息的?其公告所称“近日”具体指哪一日?康弘药业对这一重大消息的信披是否真实、准确、完整、及时?大量资金为何在消息公布前出逃?"
From Google Translate: "A core drug of Kanghong Pharmaceutical (002773), the company has been releasing signals of "good overseas clinical progress" for three years. However, with the company's "voluntary announcement" on March 29, the good news suddenly turned bad - first, the French clinical trial was "inexplicably" suspended, and then the clinical trial was directly announced to be stopped. When did Kanghong Pharmaceutical obtain the clinical failure information? What specific day does the "recent days" mentioned in its announcement refer to? Is Kanghong Pharmaceutical's disclosure of this major news true, accurate, complete and timely? Why did a large amount of money flee before the news was announced?"
The article notes: "公开资料显示,康弘药业是一家致力于中成药、化学药及生物制品的研发、生产、销售的企业,总部位于四川成都。在资本市场上带有"国内自主研发药企"的耀眼头衔。 ... 上世纪九十年代,在华西医科大学附属第一医院药房当主任的柯尊洪离职,与3名同行共同创业。康弘药业是1998年通过整体收购全民所有制企业济民制药厂后,于2008年3月6日更名而成。"
From Google Translate: "Public information shows that Kanghong Pharmaceutical is an enterprise dedicated to the research and development, production and sales of Chinese patent medicines, chemical drugs and biological products. It is headquartered in Chengdu, Sichuan. ... In the 1990s, Ke Zunhong, who was the director of the pharmacy of the First Affiliated Hospital of West China University of Medical Sciences, resigned and started a business with three colleagues. Kanghong Pharmaceutical was renamed on 6 March 2008 after the overall acquisition of Jimin Pharmaceutical Factory, an enterprise owned by the whole people in 1998."
The article notes: "2018年5月,康弘药业启动了关于“一项多中心、双盲、随机、剂量范围试验,评估康柏西普眼注注射液治疗新生血管性年龄相关性黄斑变性患者的疗效和安全性”全球Ⅲ期临床试验项目(即KH916项目),而且信心满满地跟阿柏西普(再生元和拜耳联合开发的VEGF单抗)进行头对头比较。2020年12月,康弘药业还曾计划定增募资34.72亿元,并将其中25.73亿元用于康柏西普的“出海”。然而,这个历时近3年的创新药“出海”项目最终宣告夭折,近14亿元的研发投入因此打了水漂。"
From Google Translate: "In May 2018, Kanghong Pharmaceutical launched "a multi-center, double-blind, randomized, dose-ranging trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Conbercept Ophthalmic Injection in the treatment of patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration" "Global Phase III clinical trial project (i.e. KH916 project), and confidently conduct a head-to-head comparison with aflibercept (a VEGF monoclonal antibody jointly developed by Regeneron and Bayer). In December 2020, Kanghong Pharmaceutical also planned to raise 3.472 billion yuan in additional capital, of which 2.573 billion yuan would be used for Conbercept's "overseas expansion.""
The article notes: "长江商报记者注意到,康弘药业净利润的增长主要原因之一为,眼科创新药康柏西普全球多中心临床试验停止。由此导致研发费用等费用下滑,为利润增长打开空间。"
From Google Translate: "A reporter from the Changjiang Business Daily noticed that one of the main reasons for the growth of Kanghong Pharmaceutical's net profit was the suspension of global multi-center clinical trials of the innovative ophthalmic drug Conbercept. This has led to a decline in R&D expenses and other expenses, opening up room for profit growth."
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! 07:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
This Guanghua Education Group article has words in it that sound like an advertorial promotion, and the sources cited are not valid. Also, most of the searches for this Chinese educational organisation in China are for its own official sources, which is not in accordance with Wikipedia:Notability (organisations and companies). Zhuo1221 ( talk) 04:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. I don't feel great about closing an AFD discussion for an article with a single source of unknown quality but that's the consensus here. If Merge or Redirection is an appropriate solution, please start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 07:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Because this article does not contain a single citation, the verifiability of this article does not. and Notability (geographic features) is insufficient, and the description of the Meilong Railway Station in the article is outdated, as the station has been canceled and rebuilt into a new station called Shanghai South Railway Station. This is a violation of Wikipedia's article on Notability (geographic features), and I suggest that it be deleted to avoid misleading others. CHENG SHIYI ( talk) 04:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. The consensus here, relative to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies for deletion, is for deletion at this time. North America 1000 14:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Non-notable CEO of a notable company. All of the sources cited are about the company, apart from
this paywalled article in Stat about him winning a "best biopharma CEO" award reader poll. He has appeared on television news to discuss the company and biotech more generally, but those are primary sources, and I couldn't find solid, significant coverage of him in reliable secondary sources to show that he's notable independent from the company.
Wikishovel (
talk) 18:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article appears to have been expanded since the last delete !vote was posted, although based on arguments made here the balance still favors deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk 02:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk) 04:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Source assessment table: prepared by
User:Wikishovel
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
CRISPR Therapeutics | Press release or paid placement | ? Press release | Press release, no byline, includes marketing phone numbers at bottom | ✘ No |
All About Belgaum | Press release or paid placement | News blog with no byline, obvious COI as it talks about his "proud parents" | user-submitted, not journalism | ✘ No |
Fierce Biotech | Press release or paid placement | Biotech news blog, no byline | Press release, no byline, includes line about "our vision" at end | ✘ No |
CRISPR bio | His bio on his company's website | Company bio | All companies publish bios of their senior mgt | ✘ No |
Scientific American | Well established magazine | Byline given, and editorial oversight clearly outlined on website | His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article | ✘ No |
Time magazine | Well established magazine | Byline given, and editorial oversight clearly outlined on website | His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article | ✘ No |
Forbes | Well established magazine | Byline given, editorial oversight clearly outlined on website | His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article | ✘ No |
Fierce Pharma | ? Sister title of "Fierce Biotech" above, independence unclear | ? Byline given in this one, but reliability is unclear | His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article | ✘ No |
Healthcare Technology Report | ? blog, unknown if it is user-submitted content, but it includes a posed photo, apparently from his company | blog, click-bait | ? One entry in a list on an SEO blog of the "top healthcare CEOs of 2020", with no explanation of inclusion criteria | ✘ No |
Timmerman Report | ? blog, unknown if it is user-submitted content, but it includes a posed photo, apparently from his company | ? a post by grad student on a biopharma blog of unknown reliability | One entry on a blog post about the "Asian Americans shaping the future of biopharma", with no explanation of inclusion criteria | ✘ No |
Centessa | His bio on his company's website | Company bio | Copypaste of his CRISPR Therapeutics company bio above | ✘ No |
Black Diamond | His bio on his company's website | Company bio | All companies publish bios of their senior mgt | ✘ No |
ReparerX | Board list on company website | Company bios | His name isn't mentioned on the page | ✘ No |
Marketscreener | ? Some sort of company listings website, might be independent | ? no editorial oversight or even contact info listed, might be reliable | directory listing simply confirms that he's head of a company | ✘ No |
Biotechnology Innovation Organization | membership listing page of an industry association | seems reliable from its "about" page etc | His name isn't mentioned in the list | ✘ No |
India New England News | clickbait news blog attempting to pass as a newspaper | probably user-generated content as it's mostly a paste of his company bio (and photo) above, otherwise it's paid placement | ? the American India Foundation is notable, but this post simply says he and another exec are being "honored at a gala", so the notability of the recognition is unclear | ✘ No |
STAT+ | newspaper | has byline, editorial oversight | ~ Some actual reportage here, but it's paywalled, and appears to be about him winning the newspaper's reader poll | ~ Partial |
CNBC | national TV network | national TV network | interview: primary source | ✘ No |
CNBC | national TV network | national TV network | interview: primary source | ✘ No |
WSJ | national newspaper | national newspaper | interview: primary source | ✘ No |
Cura Foundation | independent foundation with notable backers | interview by notable foundation | interview: primary source | ✘ No |
The Hill Events | The Hill is an established newspaper with well defined editorial oversight | interview during event sponsored by newspaper | interview: primary source | ✘ No |
Forbes | Forbes is an independent national newspaper... | ? ...but per WP:FORBES they also publish "contributed content", and it's unclear whether this is Forbes' own content or "contributed". | In either case, this is still an interview, therefore a primary source | ✘ No |
FII Institute | ? Future Investment Initiative Institute is a government-sponsored group | interview during event sponsored by group | interview: primary source | ✘ No |
FT | Financial Times is a national newspaper | interview during event sponsored by group | interview: primary source | ✘ No |
CNBC | National TV network | news website of the TV network | trivial coverage of his contribution in a highlights summary of a panel discussion | ✘ 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 procedural close. The first nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChinaCast Education (by the same nominator), is still open and ongoing. (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The article says ChinaCast Education Corporation is the leading for-profit provider of post-secondary education and e-learning services in the People's Republic of China. However, no information can be found on Chinese search engines, and in fact, the media does not continue to focus on this for-profit learning organisation, which is in line with Wikipedia:Notability. Zhuo1221 ( talk) 04:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Original research fork of love of money/ list of Latin phrases Traumnovelle ( talk) 03:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
*Merge back into
Love of money and keep the Latin phrase as a redirect to it.
Mccapra (
talk) 04:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 02:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 03:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 02:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 03:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 02:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 02:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. BusterD ( talk) 13:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Not notable. There are no independent sources Mdggdj ( talk) 14:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Eddie891
Talk
Work 15:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I considered closing this as no consensus, but one more relist in case someone proficient in Thai wants to try doing a thorough search can't hurt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk 01:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk) 02:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Wisconsin. There is a good case for arguing that this discussion should be closed as No consensus but taking in all comments, I'm closing this discussion as a Redirect to the election article. This will preserve article content in case his notability changes after the election but acknowledges those editors arguing for Delete who state that he presently isn't notable enough for a standalone article in main space. So, it's a bit of a compromise and I think a Redirect is more helpful for readers rather that moving the page to Draft space. If his situation changes after the election this summer, this discussion closure can be revisited. Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Does not meet WP:NPOL. Coverage is of his campaign and does not establish WP:GNG apart from his candidacy for office. Marquardtika ( talk) 17:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is not about the number of responses. The arguments and sources are not impressive. To keep such an article, make a stronger case based on police, reliable sources, and clear evidence of notability beyond simply running for office.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no! 09:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
counting [him] outat all. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More on redirect vs. draftify as an
ATD please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 01:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is no consensus for the deletion of this article, and a reasonable argument by those opposed to deletion that the subject meets
WP:LISTN. Concerns about the presentation of this list might be resolved by the proposal made in the discussion to move this article to
Fatal dog attacks in the United States, and shift the focus from the mere list to the general phenomenon. I will file a
WP:RM proposal after completing this closure.
BD2412
T 02:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
If you came here because
of a reddit post, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:NOTNEWS many of the entries are sourced to dogsbites.org which isn't a reliable source (see: [64]) and I've noticed a few entries were not supported by source. This list is near impossible to maintain and review and has little encyclopaedic value. List of fatal dog attacks already exists and it will be easier to manage all the verifiability issues with a single list Traumnovelle ( talk) 02:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
includ[e] analysis of dog & human interaction, that isn't the case in the vast majority of the given sources here. This is also pretty much the same reasons why the 2014 article was deleted. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.In other words, do sources exist that discuss Fatal Dog Attacks in the United States as a group? Yes, they do, for example, [77], [78], [79] Dog attacks are a perennial subject of scholarly interest, therefore, lists of such incidents are inherently notable by WP guidelines. By the way, just because something is covered by news, does not automatically make it susceptible to a WP:NOTNEWS argument. You may also enjoy similar topics in Wikipedia, like List of fatal crowd crushes, List of fatal bear attacks in North America, List of fatal shark attacks in the United States, List of fatal snake bites in Australia (note that the "in the United States" or "in Australia" does not indicate systemic bias, either), List of fatal alligator attacks in the United States, List of fatal shark attacks in South Africa, List of deadliest floods, and List of deaths on eight-thousanders. Geogene ( talk) 03:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Veritas Aeterna ( talk) 22:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Like previous AFDs, I don't see a consensus here yet. As Geogene points out, it doesn't matter if there are no similar articles for other countries, we have multiple country-specific lists. And I think it is important not to get lost in the weeds and argue about whether or not the breed of dog should be included and verified. What's essential is whether or not this article satisfies
WP:NLIST and whether there are sources that establish notability of this subject. Don't get distracted by elements that can be improved through editing and focus on the big picture of whether or not this article is suitable for the project, according to our policies and standards of notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
“Pit bull–type” dogs refers to a variety of breeds including the bull terrier, the Staffordshire bull terrier, the American pit bull terrier, and the American Staffordshire terrier. These dogs seem to be a particular problem compared with other breeds as they tend not to make threatening gestures, such as snarling or baring of teeth, prior to attacking and so there may be no warning of impending aggressive behavior. Pit bulls also take multiple bites and have greater jaw pressures than most other dogs, reaching 1800 pounds per square inch. Once attached, they also continue to grind their premolars and molars into tissues while holding on with their canine teeth causing greater amounts of soft-tissue....(and do not Google that paper lightly, there are reasons I'm not linking to it directly here) I don't see why Wikipedia owes any duty to censor reliably sourced information about specific types of dog that some peer reviewed journal papers consider problematic in the interest of "righting great wrongs". I also don't think it's appropriate to suggest that Wikipedia should take a political stance on Breed-Specific Legislation, or for Wikipedia to self-censor for that reason. Geogene ( talk) 02:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
The key point is that this article used to have prose information that gave it weight and the stamp of approval for standalone notability. Due to size constraints—and the subsequent
splitting/fracturing—it should maintain its notability due to its alliance with the other articles in the series, if not simply because it fulfills the
informational purpose of lists as mentioned in NLIST. NLIST discusses creating stand-alone lists
but does not address lists when they are split—in this case with the prose content being moved elsewhere, leaving the list standing alone.
If you want to "merge" something, then put some of the USA prose content back into " List of fatal dog attacks in the United States" from " Fatal dog attacks", whether it remains named "List of" or not. Veritas Aeterna ( talk) 22:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no! 09:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Maybe criteria for notability of the cases and attacks should be that they were fatal in the end and involved dogs- notability on Wikipedia means WP:N. It's typically about having enough coverage for a wide audience and over a period of time for a Wikipedia article. Most lists on Wikipedia that constitute lists of examples are lists of notable examples. Some lists aim to be exhaustive (discographies, lists of presidents of a particular country, lists of cars made by Audi, etc.). Fatal dog attacks is not one such list where I think we should aim to be exhaustive. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article. . .A list isn't needed for this topic and has only been causing problems with the tensions it causes with WP:NLIST. Instead, let secondary sources do the broad-level summarizing for us in a regular article where we aren't forced into having a list, but still have the option for a focused one if needed in that article.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More discussion on whether clearer
selection criteria would ameliorate the concerns about INDISCRIMINATE and NOTNEWS would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 01:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't find the WP:LISTN issues that you mention.And that's the underlying problem here that editors are not engaging with the LISTN issues and just keep broadly insisting the topic is notable. Denialism about that is not helpful here if any of us outside editors are going to be helpful in addressing the underlying problems at the article. That's already been addressed above though ad nauseum, so please be mindful of WP:BADGERING at this point.
Delete per Rhododendrites and KoA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 06:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete, or Keep but remove breed. There are several studies, some listed here [89] [90] [91], that have determined breed identification by visual inspection to be unreliable. News report what Animal Control states, and if its known their staff can't reliably determine breed, then the news is just reporting unreliable information too. There really isn't an argument for keeping data on Wikipedia that is already known to be unreliable, so I would say to either delete it, or remove breed from it and keeping a list of incidents with no breed listed. The exception, would be where DNA tests were done, but those are in the minority. This would also detract from users who go there for advocacy on either side. Removing inaccurate information and reducing POV is a double-win for Wikipedia. Also will sign myself as an SPA for disclosure.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiased6969 ( talk • contribs) 07:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC) — Unbiased6969 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was redirect to Montserrat Championship. Closing as redirect to Montserrat Championship. History is preserved under redirect, which can be used for merge or expansion, if required. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Contested PROD. No real indication that this is a notable team. The League they played in was short lived and no longer active. The only found references was a listing of previous champions of the now defunct Montserrat Championship. I can't see this passing WP:GNG. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 01:20, 12 April 2024 (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! 00:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:OR + fails WP:GNG. Virtually WP:UNSOURCED except 1 dead link since creation in 2008. (Edit: the archived link only mentions Argentina and provides no WP:SIGCOV.) It amounts to little more than Music of Argentina + Music of Chile + Music of Uruguay, with every example being country-specific rather than cross-border between the 3 countries. WP:BEFORE done: no single book on Google Books mentions it. NLeeuw ( talk) 00:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTDIRECTORY/ WP:NLIST. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 00:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
This list comprises significant works and figures in the study of English grammar and rhetoric, ranging from early comprehensive guides to modern analytical texts. The authors listed have contributed foundational texts that have shaped teaching practices and linguistic understanding in English-speaking academies and beyond.However, there are no sources to support that any given entry is a significant work or figure, or that those listed are considered foundational texts, or that any given entry has "shaped teaching practices and linguistic understanding". The list contains non-neutral, unsourced, and unattributed commentary such as
Not worth a pin,
A miserable jumble, and
This is a curious work, and remarkably well-written. Several entries are noted for plagiarism, so why are they included? Rather than being carefully curated, this appears to be a data dump of 18th and 19th century grammar books. Schazjmd (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
non-neutral, unsourced, and unattributed commentaryderives from the original work from which the text is copied, The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown ( wikisource). IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Living person, claiming to hold a world record of degrees, but world recodmaking organizing is... not exactly reputable, I don't see a strong case for this being a notable individual. Sadads ( talk) 00:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs) 00:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)