The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Contested BLAR. Article created by a blocked sockpupeteer evading a salting of Francisco Javier Gómez. Cites no sources containing significant coverage. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are made of entirely of announcments, just not worthy of an encyclopaedic value. Those arguing for a keep must be advised of WP:USEFUL. I also advise those to create a Fandom page for your favorite sport if you want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 23:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already nominated in an AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep must be advised of WP:USEFUL. I also advise those to create a Fandom page for your favorite sport if you want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 23:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already been nominated at an AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:14, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Sources on page do not appear to be reliable (except maybe LA Weekly, though it is a blog), and I couldn't find any other coverage aside from this very brief AllMusic bio. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 23:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSKATE; any medal placements are at the junior level. PROD was removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:49, 31 March 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, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:06, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
No reliable sources Sohom ( talk) 20:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:06, 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 00:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NGEO, no reliable sources. Google tells me https://guj-nwrws.gujarat.gov.in/showpage.aspx?contentid=1845&lang=english should be a source, however that appears to be statistics and a dead link. Sohom ( talk) 20:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:06, 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 00:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NGEO, no reliable sources. Google tells me https://guj-nwrws.gujarat.gov.in/showpage.aspx?contentid=1845&lang=english should be a source, however that appears to be statistics and a dead link. Sohom ( talk) 20:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, no source whatsoever. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 16:32, 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! 22:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Model isn't notable in its own right to warrant an article, Each Golf article has a Variant section (and and none of the Golf articles even mentions this article ( /info/en/?search=Special:WhatLinksHere/Volkswagen_Golf_Variant), It would be like creating Volkswagen Golf Cariolet or Volkswagen Golf 3-door etc if that makes sense, no evidence of any notability, Fails GNG – Davey2010 Talk 19:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus to delete for non-notability. Valereee ( talk) 14:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPRODUCT. Admittedly, the name doesn't make searching the easiest, but I haven't found any significant coverage. ARandomName123 ( talk)Ping me! 20:47, 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! 22:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the only notable source for this is Mashable. Hence, it currently fails WP:GNG. I did a quick search and didn't really find any sources more notable. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 22:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 21:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
You can go ahead and try our Blisk for Windows right now.Did they even bother paraphrasing the email they got before publishing it? The state of available sourcing is unacceptable, it fails independence requirements. Other, more exhaustive software directories (like, I don't know, Softpedia, where it's already at) may be an appropriate home for this, but Wikipedia is not that. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 12:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Carrot cake. Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable cookie that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. Should be merged into Carrot cake#UK and US if not deleted outright. BaduFerreira ( talk) 21:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Also, "Checking notability" is not a deletion rationale. Please do not bring articles to an AFD if you just want to check them out. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Checking notability. Dejaqo ( talk) 20:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Not playing in professional division, does not appear to meet WP:SIGCOV under WP:GNG, not being regularly maintained Crowsus ( talk) 20:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:EVENTCRIT: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news...whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Per WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" AusLondonder ( talk) 20:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Contested prod. Fails WP:LISTN: one album listed has a review in Allmusic, everything else is covered only by streaming services, catalog listings, and eBay listings. Since the prose is mostly WP:OR, I don't see anything worth merging. hinnk ( talk) 20:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Main claim to fame in lede appears to be winning an Chandigarh Sahitya Akademi, but that's not supported by the refs (one ref just mentions that she was selected to give away the award), and her name is not mentioned anywhere here (in the English or Hindi sections, at least). I don't see WP:SIGCOV and any other reliable sources in the article, just bibiographies and mentions. Was deleted previously by AfD and quickly recreated by the original author soon after. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/AnuradhaAuthor Beside that, subject article fails WP:GNG.-- Meligirl5 ( talk) 17:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Despite being a good article, not a single source has WP:SIGCOV of this specific cake. The majority of sources are recipes which is fine if they're accompanied by significant coverage and discussion of the dish, but there isn't any. The only shred of notability that I'm seeing comes from being a minor plot in a 2013 film and supposedly being an adaption of an ancient Jewish cake. The sources for this second claim are a personal blog (which isn't a reliable source) and the Encyclopedia of Jewish Food which makes no mention of an orange cake that this article claims Clementine cake was adapted from. We need sources that speak about this cake's notability (not just more recipes) and if that doesn't exist, I believe a selective merge to Fruitcake#United States is the best option. BaduFerreira ( talk) 20:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. I failed to search for results using his nickname. ( non-admin closure) JTtheOG ( talk) 22:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was moved to
Draft:Amelia Hamer, as an
alternative to deletion, per request.
BD2412
T 15:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Only claim to notability is being a candidate for the next Australian federal election. Sources cover her in the context of winning a party selection process. She is not notable by virtue of connection with notable family members. It is long-standing practice that we don't create articles for unelected election candidates. AusLondonder ( talk) 19:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
such people can still be notable. In connection with GNG, a range of sources from both within the article already, and from a Google Search show the article's subject meets the GNG criteria. — GMH Melbourne ( talk) 00:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
the article's topic is unnotable, the aricle contains 0 references, and is only 1 sentence long. Gaismagorm ( talk) 19:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
the article seems to be promotional in nature, with it's only two references being from the publisher of the book, and the other being a website about the book. the articles creator has only only one edit, with it being the creation of this article. Gaismagorm ( talk) 19:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Sourcing is exclusively interviews, with no critical commentary in sight. Metacritic turns up no critic reviews, and searches per WP:BEFORE don't turn up much. It's an interesting subject, but it does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines. λ Negative MP1 18:43, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 20 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. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that I found was this coverage for winning a club player of the year award. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is clear.
BD2412
T 15:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Cuban women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. The ideal redirect would be List of Cuba women's international footballers, which doesn't exist, but another user suggested a redirect to Cuba women's national football team. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:17, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I am struggling to find any recent information about Volunthai. Their website - volungthai.com - widely quoted in older online pages and previously in their wiki page (until I removed the reference) - points to a 'free hookup' site. The organisation appears to have always been very small. Can't find any associated organisations that I can link it with. Newhaven lad ( talk) 17:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Little evidence of NPROF: citation record is wholly inadequate, and student awards don't count for much. There is some human-interest type coverage in conjunction with an ancient whale he was involved in studying, but I think that it is at best a WP:BLP1E, with coverage all around Aug/Sep 2023. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 15:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Pretty random artist; article authored by a suspected paid editor. Biruitorul Talk 15:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The book provides 664 words of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "Pierre Gervois is an artist, author, teacher, and entrepreneur. He grew up in a conservative, traditional French family in Paris. When Pierre told his parents that he wanted to study modern art, they insisted he pursue a more predictable career in business, law, or engineering. He followed their wishes, earning a master's degree in political science and constitutional law at Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris. Unknown to them, though, during those years he also created 500 paintings and drawings."
The book notes: "In addition to his entrepreneurial venture, Pierre rekindled his passion for art. With downtime during the 2020 pandemic, he created a website to show his paintings, drawings, and digital artwork. Within six weeks, he sold five pieces. The website also caught the attention of a New York City art gallery that wanted to exhibit his work."
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
The article on this guy’s company, RELEX Solutions, just got speedily deleted as spam. The article’s author is a suspected paid editor. I think I know where this is headed. Biruitorul Talk 15:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Usimite ( talk) 16:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Pretty random company; article authored by a suspected paid editor. Biruitorul Talk 14:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN too soon. Theroadislong ( talk) 14:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. A possible merge target, if applicable, can be discussed on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 20:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Ehrmagerd, werds! As interesting as I find this, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PepperBeast (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 14:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
This contains potential copyright violations, it is not adequately sourced, it provides more ambiguity than guidance, lack of provenance Keith H99 ( talk) 12:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 14:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 13:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. After discussion rough consensus developed that the sourcing failed WP:NCORP and associated subguidelines. This is a case in which I found the delete arguments as whole to be more policy compliant. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage from independent sources. The coverage is routine coverage of funding ( WP:ORGTRIV), reprints of partnership announcements ( WP:ORGIND), or "best startup" type awards that don't convey inherent notability. ~ A412 talk! 09:37, 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)
In my experience, three well-chosen sources usually suffice to establish notability WP:NCORP. But your experience is limited by the fact that you have only ever commented on AfDs today. Moreover, rather than giving 3 well chosen sources, you pasted in 8. Source 3 does not mention 5ire, and 3 of these are all from the Economic Times so count as one. They are also not the fruit of new searches but sources already on the page, so already considered. I can put together a source analysis table, but which of these do you actually think are secondary sources that meet WP:CORPDEPTH? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 13:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It appears that sourcing is beginning to be discussed in earnest, this is to give that process more time. A source analysis would helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Xymmax
So let it be written
So let it be done 13:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Secondary? | Overall value toward ORGCRIT |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Economic Times [12] [13] [14] | Indian financial paper, part of the Times of India group. | There are three links, the second has no coverage and the third is not significant, just reporting, along with others, the high valuation. It is the first of these that goes beyond that. Note that the first is also occasioned by the same issue - the valuation - but it leads the writer to dig out additional history and analysis and is significant and useful. The piece raises queries about the high valuation as no product is yet released. Note that my evaluation is based only on what I can see in preview as the content is paywalled and when I attempted to pay it told me that readers in Europe and California are prevented from making payments for their content. This is an Indian news source but I have no access to the content. However, my evaluation of the depth is based on the claim it is a 10 minute read, suggesting 1000-1500 words. Coupled with what I see, I believe this is significant analysis, but I could, in fact, be wrong. ETA, in light of the analysis below by Highking, I am unable to refute that analysis as I have not read the full text and cannot read it. I would have paid, but the content is geographocally restricted. I cannot therefore verify my view and could well be wrong. I am updating this to unkown. 17 April 16:28 | |||
Tech in Asia [15] | Probably reliable, I just haven't checked. | "And that brings us to today’s two-part Big Story. 5ire, a blockchain company that few had ever heard of a year ago, rocketed to unicorn status in July. On closer inspection, the deal seems doubtful, given it hasn’t yet launched a product or gotten significant traction." | It is occasioned by news but the quoted paragraph, just about all it says on 5ire, is analysis. Extremely brief analysis. | ||
inc 42 [16] | Is this off the back of a press release? | Probably. I haven't verified. | There is some coverage, but it is all company supplied history and no analysis. Does not meet CORPDEPTH. | Partial. Inasmuch as it is news reporting, it is a primary source. | |
Business Standard [17] | Is this off the back of a press release? | Probably. I haven't verified. | There is some coverage, but it is all company supplied history and no analysis. Does not meet CORPDEPTH. | Partial. Inasmuch as it is news reporting, it is a primary source. | |
Money Control [18] | Is this off the back of a press release? | Probably. I haven't verified. | There is some coverage, but it is all company supplied history and no analysis. Does not meet CORPDEPTH. | Report of becoming unicorn. Primary news reporting | |
Mint [19] | Is this off the back of a press release? | Unclear. If this is Mintpress news, then this is no. Mintpress news are a deprecated source. But I think they may be different. | There is some information about 5ire but does not meet CORPDEPTH. It is all company supplied history and no analysis. | Report of acquisition of a stake in Network Capital. This is primary news reporting. |
Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.
This company has a track record of providing service.No it doesn't. The example you cite is a Memorandum of Understanding to assist Goa police with something that is, in any case, unrelated to the blockchain. It is an MoU. They haven't done anything yet. This all looks like press release and vapourware. To be honest, at this point I am concerned this looks like an investor scam and we are being made participants in it. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 07:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Secondary? | Overall value toward ORGCRIT |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Economic Times [20] | |||||
Economic Times [21] | This article refers to the award of this company, but it also deals with other issues | ||||
Tech in Asia [22] | I checked this from WP:CORPDEPTH and the entire article consists of more than ten paragraphs focusing on the company | ||||
Tech in Asia [23] |
For now, these 4 cases are enough for analysis. Gedaali ( talk) 05:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
For notability purposes, sources must be unrelated to each other to be "multiple".per WP:MULTSOURCES. So your table simply repeats Economic Times that I felt did meet SIRS, and disagrees with my analysis on Tech in Asia based on a paragraph count rather than the content. The content on the first link to Tech in Asia does not meet CORPDEPTH, but I don't think you can have read that site very well because the 10 paragraphs are nothing much, but there are links in the article to two longer articles, which, along with your link [15], paint a picture that might suggest possible fraud. If there is a notable subject here, it is not the company itself, which doesn't seem to do anything at all. It is about a possible fraud. Citing also notices this in the comment above. Are we WP:TOOSOON for an article about the alleged fraud? Or could we be looking at renaming this article and repurposing based on reliable secondary coverage of alleged fraud? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 07:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Having multiple ref yet its not indepth- That is not an NCORP pass. if a reference does not have significant coverage, it does not count towards notability. You can't aggregate lots of passing mentions. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 20:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 13:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 14:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 12:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Máté played 67 mins of professional football then completely disappeared. I can't even find evidence of any statistical coverage of an amateur career. The best that I could find were Nemzeti Sport and Rangadó, both being trivial mentions and far from WP:SIGCOV. Also per WP:SPORTBASIC, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:31, 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 14:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Played in 2 matches 15 years ago but has only played in the lower tiers since and does not seem to have any WP:SIGCOV. The best that I could find in Hungarian sources were HEOL, Rangadó and Nemzeti Sport, none of which are even close to being in-depth coverage. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails GNG and NORG. Sources in article and BEFORE did not support notability. Found routine mill news, database records, etc, nothing establishing notability.
Being the "is the closest junior school in the United Kingdom to an airport" is not a basis for notability. // Timothy :: talk 11:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Procedural close, this is a redirect not an article. It needs to be nominated at WP:RFD. Liz Read! Talk! 06:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
It's a typing error. Title doesn't make any sense. — Hemant Dabral ( 📞 • ✒) 11:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 13:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
The article doesn't cite any sources (only linking the subject's MySpace profile and a music project's website) and I was unable to find significant coverage. There's an interview with the Dogs of Winter where Grosz speaks for the band, but interviews don't contribute to notability. Grosz is, of course, mentioned at least a few times on the website of the college he went to ( Vassar College), but that's not really anything either. I don't see an alternative to deletion. This is the page creator's only article, and it was previously speedy-deleted. toweli ( talk) 11:30, 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 11:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Unreferenced article since 2012. Being the backing band of someone with a Wikipedia page and having members with Wikipedia pages does not make this band notable as notability is not inherited. A look online for significant coverage doesn't yield much - a post on jericsmith.com is a self-published blog, and I'm unable to find anything else substantial. InDimensional ( talk) 11:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Nothing of notability in the article, a single TV appearance isn't enough for WP:BAND criteria. One member was in another band of notability, however notability is not inherited. A look online brings up no coverage whatsoever. InDimensional ( talk) 11:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Only notability is having a song featured on a DVD release, they seem to not pass WP:BAND. Both references in the article are from very local news sources, and an online search brings up no additional coverage. InDimensional ( talk) 11:11, 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 11:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Unsourced since 2011, some moderate achievements in the lead section but not sure if enough to pass WP:BAND. A search on the web for references brings up nothing on them, even when including band members names into the search. InDimensional ( talk) 11:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was Speedy keep. WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) GRuban ( talk) 13:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
This individual is of little notability. Barely covered in any media. He only recently resurfaced due to being missing. Definitely does not deserve his own article. BeŻet ( talk) 10:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to CID (Indian TV series)#Cast. ✗ plicit 14:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Everything mentioned here (and more) is (or can be) covered in CID (Indian TV series)#Cast. Recommend redirect. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 09:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Desertarun ( talk) 16:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:CORP. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep ( talk) 09:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The review notes: "I decide to celebrate with breakfast; there are three restaurants - Bella Singaraja, Jimbaran Gardens and KO - as well as poolside service. The scrambled eggs are light and fluffy and the coffee is good. I wish I could fit in more. Tomorrow morning, perhaps. Next stop is the Club InterContinental pool. I don't have far to go and there are plenty of lounges or, if you want some privacy, you can stake your claim on a bungalow. I can see Jimbaran Bay from the pool and know I should drag myself off my lounger to check it out."
The review notes: "The Imperial is the flagship of a premium collection of rooms at InterContinental Bali, including five categories of suites designed to replicate the villa experience that has become so popular on this Indonesian holiday island. These suites are located within Club InterContinental, a collection of 110 elegant rooms that operates as a hotel within a hotel supporting its own management, housekeeping and engineering teams. ... The new-look guestroom decor (the hotel was renovated last year) features indigenous timbers and batiks, gorgeous marble bathrooms, flat-screen tellies and all the latest whiz-bangery. The value-added nature of the club is popular with Australian travellers; it's excellent for families, given the free kids' club, beachfront locale and enormous complex of swimming pools. But the resort is just as delightful for couples, who can enjoy the privacy of the Club wing."
The review notes: "Originally opened in 1993, InterContinental Bali was one of the first luxury properties built on the coastline of Jimbaran Bay (in southern Bali), a stunning stretch of clean, white-sand beach that hotel guests have direct access to from the resort grounds. ... A guestroom renovation project took place from 2017 to 2019 and was followed by a second phase that updated public areas, including its multiple pools, restaurants, the lobby and the ballroom, which was transformed into meeting space in 2022. During my stay, the main Nirvana pool was also undergoing a since-completed refresh to be in tip-top shape for the coming high season."
The review notes: "The property is immaculate - so much so it feels cleverly art directed - with traditional style fountains, bridges and so many pools and koi ponds that we stopped counting after a bit. As far as facilities and activities go, the Planet Trekkers kids club has a distinct eco focus, there's a Technogym laden fitness centre, tennis courts, yoga, kite making and bike tours of the local markets."
The review notes: "The resort itself is a large property stretching all the way down to Jimbaran Beach. With six pools, multiple restaurants and expansive immaculately manicured gardens it can take a little while to get your bearings, but friendly staff are always nearby should you need assistance. In the notoriously high turnover hospitality industry, I met several staff that had worked there since the resort opened in 1993 - after 25 years of working there, these staff were still passionate, friendly, knowledgeable and service-driven, which was a pleasant surprise."
The review notes: "The InterContinental Resort looks out across Jimbaran Bay to the distant airport. This means that the ride to the property is much shorter than to Nusa Dua or Ubud, making it popular with shorter-stay or late night-arriving guests. Its architecture was designed to honor the sacred axis between the mountain and sea. In a recent makeover, decorators followed the tri hita karana principle that balances the ideals of God, nature, and humanity."
The review notes: "On Bali's Jimbaran Bay, the glamorous InterContinental Bali Resort operates one of the best children's clubs on the island. Dubbed Club J, this extensive facility functions as a resort within a resort replete with large airconditioned clubhouse, outdoor swimming pool, climbing frame, mini basketball compound and a popular internet cave."
The review notes: "A luxurious take on a traditional Balinese fishing village, the 430-room InterContinental Bali Resort in Jimbaran has all the mod cons you’d expect of a five-star hotel. But the resort’s activities, a deep-dive into Balinese culture, make it a standout. Families can learn traditional net fishing and kite-making, and when the grown-ups need a break, the Planet Trekkers kids’ club instructs four- to 12-year-olds in Balinese dance, Bahasa language and the art of preparing traditional Balinese offerings. There’s also a professional nanny service for children under four. "
The result was keep. PhantomSteve/ talk¦ contribs\ 10:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:CORP. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep ( talk) 08:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 08:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:CORP. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep ( talk) 08:40, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 08:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
The content of this article seems to be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK that entirely overlaps with information already on the Civic nationalism page. Is there any appetite for deletion on this, or perhaps any other, basis? Yr Enw ( talk) 08:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. CBE meets weak sourcing. No indication a 3rd relist would change the split here. Star Mississippi 01:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of WP:notability under SNG or GNG. Basically a promotional -resume. The lead just says that he is a British brand and communications expert.
The references are just a collection of mentions / announcements on him. Nothing anywhere near even one GNG source.
Some concern that the creator has 28 lifetime edits, all on this article. Article was tagged for UPE concern by somebody else and the tag was quickly removed by an IP. The IP that removed it has 2 lifetime edits...one removing the tag and the other putting a link at another article to this article. North8000 ( talk) 03:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
asilvering (
talk) 04:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I still do not see a consensus here. Either a being award a CBE is sufficient or it isn't. Is there any specific guideline on honors such as this and notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:56, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Cannot find any sources proving notable, other than advertising. Not to be confused with the UK company "Dial Direct". GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk) 05:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just noting that the nominator is now indefinitely blocked for copyright problems.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
A newly created band consisting of notable members fails to establish independent notability. I tried, but couldn't find significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. A Google News search yielded some sources, but they mostly consist of passing mentions or routine coverage. IMO, it fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:NBAND and is a possible case of WP:NOTINHERITED. GSS 💬 07:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Throughout this article, the band's name is mentioned only five times, excluding the title and image description, and often in passing} is nonsensical, the term "passing mention" refers to coverage 1-2 sentences long in an article. Obviously, an article about the band is not a passing mention of them.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:42, 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 00:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Another case of WP:INVALIDBIO. Child's notability is solely attributed to their parent, and it's highly unlikely for a two-year-old to have achieved notable accomplishments. Ckfasdf ( talk) 09:34, 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! 06:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 00:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Ehrmagerd, werds! As interesting as I find this, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PepperBeast (talk) 12:35, 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! 06:35, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Currently unreferenced save for an arstechnica piece written by the creators of the framework. Searches on Google result in either Yellowpages-style listings or Githubs. Books return in trivial mentions in author biographies. The fact that the author was SPA on this topic does not help. For these reasons I believe it fails GNG. Good day— RetroCosmos talk 04:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Article was incorrectly PRODed [32] after being through an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mayoral_elections. I WP:REFUNDed it and brought it here. While incorrectly applied, the PROD put it best: "Routine election in suburban city, local coverage of routine results only without evidence of notability." Nickps ( talk) 20:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input would be helpful given the context nom identifies in their comment of 30 March.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 00:59, 6 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) 02:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. revised article per the improvements made during this discussion. As for whether this should be subsequently moved or split, that's editorial and doesn't need a relist. Star Mississippi 01:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
This is an extreme (almost 400kb) case of fancrufty "list of appearances of foo topic in every imaginable work" (books, comics, games...). The topic may be notable (recent talk discussion suggests User:TompaDompa, who has an established record of getting similar topics to Good Article and beyond, tried to rewrite this but was thwarted - reverted - at some point and possibly gave up), Our execution is abysmally bad and begs for WP:TNT - after tiny prose lead, this is just a WP:IPC-violating list of random examples. I.e. this is another de facto list that fails WP:LISTN, a simple WP:INDISCRIMINATE listing of all instances a star or planet appeared in a work of fiction ( WP:NOTTVTROPES). If we were to approach it as an article, beyond its lead, it is a major fail of WP:V and WP:OR). No prejudice to this being turned into a prose-based stub or start-class if anyone (TompaDompa?) wants to work on this, otherwise we may have to redirect it or just delete it, I am afraid. Note that this list is still growing with unrerenced ORish content (see diff from late March). Sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
*Delete as it currently is. The current article is rife with a multitude of pretty major issues as described already - poor sourcing,
WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and content that blatantly goes against
WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. If the current content was replaced by the draft shared by TompaDompa above, then I would be happy to keep that version, but this current list should absolutely not be retained as it is.
Rorshacma (
talk) 03:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
A "no there there" intersection, there's a single house and that's it. Searching is masked by the place in Mississippi but turned up nothing. Mangoe ( talk) 02:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 05:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
The cricketer does not even have the most number of first class cricket centuries. For example, Jack Hobbs does not have a page for his fc centuries. For convention, this has beend done for cricketers having more than 25 international centuries. Hence, this article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharaoh496 ( talk • contribs) 06:27, 12 April 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. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 08:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 05:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, most of these sources barely seem to qualify this person as notable. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 01:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
:*Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done
WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page
[34]. He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian subject and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created
[35]
[36].
202.43.93.9 (
talk) 03:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 01:23, 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! 01:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Contested BLAR. Article created by a blocked sockpupeteer evading a salting of Francisco Javier Gómez. Cites no sources containing significant coverage. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are made of entirely of announcments, just not worthy of an encyclopaedic value. Those arguing for a keep must be advised of WP:USEFUL. I also advise those to create a Fandom page for your favorite sport if you want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 23:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already nominated in an AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep must be advised of WP:USEFUL. I also advise those to create a Fandom page for your favorite sport if you want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 23:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already been nominated at an AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:14, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Sources on page do not appear to be reliable (except maybe LA Weekly, though it is a blog), and I couldn't find any other coverage aside from this very brief AllMusic bio. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 23:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSKATE; any medal placements are at the junior level. PROD was removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:49, 31 March 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, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:06, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
No reliable sources Sohom ( talk) 20:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:06, 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 00:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NGEO, no reliable sources. Google tells me https://guj-nwrws.gujarat.gov.in/showpage.aspx?contentid=1845&lang=english should be a source, however that appears to be statistics and a dead link. Sohom ( talk) 20:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:06, 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 00:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NGEO, no reliable sources. Google tells me https://guj-nwrws.gujarat.gov.in/showpage.aspx?contentid=1845&lang=english should be a source, however that appears to be statistics and a dead link. Sohom ( talk) 20:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, no source whatsoever. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 16:32, 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! 22:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Model isn't notable in its own right to warrant an article, Each Golf article has a Variant section (and and none of the Golf articles even mentions this article ( /info/en/?search=Special:WhatLinksHere/Volkswagen_Golf_Variant), It would be like creating Volkswagen Golf Cariolet or Volkswagen Golf 3-door etc if that makes sense, no evidence of any notability, Fails GNG – Davey2010 Talk 19:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus to delete for non-notability. Valereee ( talk) 14:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPRODUCT. Admittedly, the name doesn't make searching the easiest, but I haven't found any significant coverage. ARandomName123 ( talk)Ping me! 20:47, 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! 22:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the only notable source for this is Mashable. Hence, it currently fails WP:GNG. I did a quick search and didn't really find any sources more notable. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 22:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 21:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
You can go ahead and try our Blisk for Windows right now.Did they even bother paraphrasing the email they got before publishing it? The state of available sourcing is unacceptable, it fails independence requirements. Other, more exhaustive software directories (like, I don't know, Softpedia, where it's already at) may be an appropriate home for this, but Wikipedia is not that. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 12:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Carrot cake. Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable cookie that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. Should be merged into Carrot cake#UK and US if not deleted outright. BaduFerreira ( talk) 21:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Also, "Checking notability" is not a deletion rationale. Please do not bring articles to an AFD if you just want to check them out. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Checking notability. Dejaqo ( talk) 20:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Not playing in professional division, does not appear to meet WP:SIGCOV under WP:GNG, not being regularly maintained Crowsus ( talk) 20:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:EVENTCRIT: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news...whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Per WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" AusLondonder ( talk) 20:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Contested prod. Fails WP:LISTN: one album listed has a review in Allmusic, everything else is covered only by streaming services, catalog listings, and eBay listings. Since the prose is mostly WP:OR, I don't see anything worth merging. hinnk ( talk) 20:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Main claim to fame in lede appears to be winning an Chandigarh Sahitya Akademi, but that's not supported by the refs (one ref just mentions that she was selected to give away the award), and her name is not mentioned anywhere here (in the English or Hindi sections, at least). I don't see WP:SIGCOV and any other reliable sources in the article, just bibiographies and mentions. Was deleted previously by AfD and quickly recreated by the original author soon after. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/AnuradhaAuthor Beside that, subject article fails WP:GNG.-- Meligirl5 ( talk) 17:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Despite being a good article, not a single source has WP:SIGCOV of this specific cake. The majority of sources are recipes which is fine if they're accompanied by significant coverage and discussion of the dish, but there isn't any. The only shred of notability that I'm seeing comes from being a minor plot in a 2013 film and supposedly being an adaption of an ancient Jewish cake. The sources for this second claim are a personal blog (which isn't a reliable source) and the Encyclopedia of Jewish Food which makes no mention of an orange cake that this article claims Clementine cake was adapted from. We need sources that speak about this cake's notability (not just more recipes) and if that doesn't exist, I believe a selective merge to Fruitcake#United States is the best option. BaduFerreira ( talk) 20:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. I failed to search for results using his nickname. ( non-admin closure) JTtheOG ( talk) 22:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was moved to
Draft:Amelia Hamer, as an
alternative to deletion, per request.
BD2412
T 15:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Only claim to notability is being a candidate for the next Australian federal election. Sources cover her in the context of winning a party selection process. She is not notable by virtue of connection with notable family members. It is long-standing practice that we don't create articles for unelected election candidates. AusLondonder ( talk) 19:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
such people can still be notable. In connection with GNG, a range of sources from both within the article already, and from a Google Search show the article's subject meets the GNG criteria. — GMH Melbourne ( talk) 00:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
the article's topic is unnotable, the aricle contains 0 references, and is only 1 sentence long. Gaismagorm ( talk) 19:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
the article seems to be promotional in nature, with it's only two references being from the publisher of the book, and the other being a website about the book. the articles creator has only only one edit, with it being the creation of this article. Gaismagorm ( talk) 19:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Sourcing is exclusively interviews, with no critical commentary in sight. Metacritic turns up no critic reviews, and searches per WP:BEFORE don't turn up much. It's an interesting subject, but it does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines. λ Negative MP1 18:43, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 20 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. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that I found was this coverage for winning a club player of the year award. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is clear.
BD2412
T 15:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Cuban women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. The ideal redirect would be List of Cuba women's international footballers, which doesn't exist, but another user suggested a redirect to Cuba women's national football team. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:17, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I am struggling to find any recent information about Volunthai. Their website - volungthai.com - widely quoted in older online pages and previously in their wiki page (until I removed the reference) - points to a 'free hookup' site. The organisation appears to have always been very small. Can't find any associated organisations that I can link it with. Newhaven lad ( talk) 17:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Little evidence of NPROF: citation record is wholly inadequate, and student awards don't count for much. There is some human-interest type coverage in conjunction with an ancient whale he was involved in studying, but I think that it is at best a WP:BLP1E, with coverage all around Aug/Sep 2023. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 15:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Pretty random artist; article authored by a suspected paid editor. Biruitorul Talk 15:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The book provides 664 words of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "Pierre Gervois is an artist, author, teacher, and entrepreneur. He grew up in a conservative, traditional French family in Paris. When Pierre told his parents that he wanted to study modern art, they insisted he pursue a more predictable career in business, law, or engineering. He followed their wishes, earning a master's degree in political science and constitutional law at Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris. Unknown to them, though, during those years he also created 500 paintings and drawings."
The book notes: "In addition to his entrepreneurial venture, Pierre rekindled his passion for art. With downtime during the 2020 pandemic, he created a website to show his paintings, drawings, and digital artwork. Within six weeks, he sold five pieces. The website also caught the attention of a New York City art gallery that wanted to exhibit his work."
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
The article on this guy’s company, RELEX Solutions, just got speedily deleted as spam. The article’s author is a suspected paid editor. I think I know where this is headed. Biruitorul Talk 15:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Usimite ( talk) 16:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Pretty random company; article authored by a suspected paid editor. Biruitorul Talk 14:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN too soon. Theroadislong ( talk) 14:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. A possible merge target, if applicable, can be discussed on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 20:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Ehrmagerd, werds! As interesting as I find this, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PepperBeast (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 14:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
This contains potential copyright violations, it is not adequately sourced, it provides more ambiguity than guidance, lack of provenance Keith H99 ( talk) 12:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 14:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 13:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. After discussion rough consensus developed that the sourcing failed WP:NCORP and associated subguidelines. This is a case in which I found the delete arguments as whole to be more policy compliant. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage from independent sources. The coverage is routine coverage of funding ( WP:ORGTRIV), reprints of partnership announcements ( WP:ORGIND), or "best startup" type awards that don't convey inherent notability. ~ A412 talk! 09:37, 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)
In my experience, three well-chosen sources usually suffice to establish notability WP:NCORP. But your experience is limited by the fact that you have only ever commented on AfDs today. Moreover, rather than giving 3 well chosen sources, you pasted in 8. Source 3 does not mention 5ire, and 3 of these are all from the Economic Times so count as one. They are also not the fruit of new searches but sources already on the page, so already considered. I can put together a source analysis table, but which of these do you actually think are secondary sources that meet WP:CORPDEPTH? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 13:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It appears that sourcing is beginning to be discussed in earnest, this is to give that process more time. A source analysis would helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Xymmax
So let it be written
So let it be done 13:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Secondary? | Overall value toward ORGCRIT |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Economic Times [12] [13] [14] | Indian financial paper, part of the Times of India group. | There are three links, the second has no coverage and the third is not significant, just reporting, along with others, the high valuation. It is the first of these that goes beyond that. Note that the first is also occasioned by the same issue - the valuation - but it leads the writer to dig out additional history and analysis and is significant and useful. The piece raises queries about the high valuation as no product is yet released. Note that my evaluation is based only on what I can see in preview as the content is paywalled and when I attempted to pay it told me that readers in Europe and California are prevented from making payments for their content. This is an Indian news source but I have no access to the content. However, my evaluation of the depth is based on the claim it is a 10 minute read, suggesting 1000-1500 words. Coupled with what I see, I believe this is significant analysis, but I could, in fact, be wrong. ETA, in light of the analysis below by Highking, I am unable to refute that analysis as I have not read the full text and cannot read it. I would have paid, but the content is geographocally restricted. I cannot therefore verify my view and could well be wrong. I am updating this to unkown. 17 April 16:28 | |||
Tech in Asia [15] | Probably reliable, I just haven't checked. | "And that brings us to today’s two-part Big Story. 5ire, a blockchain company that few had ever heard of a year ago, rocketed to unicorn status in July. On closer inspection, the deal seems doubtful, given it hasn’t yet launched a product or gotten significant traction." | It is occasioned by news but the quoted paragraph, just about all it says on 5ire, is analysis. Extremely brief analysis. | ||
inc 42 [16] | Is this off the back of a press release? | Probably. I haven't verified. | There is some coverage, but it is all company supplied history and no analysis. Does not meet CORPDEPTH. | Partial. Inasmuch as it is news reporting, it is a primary source. | |
Business Standard [17] | Is this off the back of a press release? | Probably. I haven't verified. | There is some coverage, but it is all company supplied history and no analysis. Does not meet CORPDEPTH. | Partial. Inasmuch as it is news reporting, it is a primary source. | |
Money Control [18] | Is this off the back of a press release? | Probably. I haven't verified. | There is some coverage, but it is all company supplied history and no analysis. Does not meet CORPDEPTH. | Report of becoming unicorn. Primary news reporting | |
Mint [19] | Is this off the back of a press release? | Unclear. If this is Mintpress news, then this is no. Mintpress news are a deprecated source. But I think they may be different. | There is some information about 5ire but does not meet CORPDEPTH. It is all company supplied history and no analysis. | Report of acquisition of a stake in Network Capital. This is primary news reporting. |
Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.
This company has a track record of providing service.No it doesn't. The example you cite is a Memorandum of Understanding to assist Goa police with something that is, in any case, unrelated to the blockchain. It is an MoU. They haven't done anything yet. This all looks like press release and vapourware. To be honest, at this point I am concerned this looks like an investor scam and we are being made participants in it. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 07:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Secondary? | Overall value toward ORGCRIT |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Economic Times [20] | |||||
Economic Times [21] | This article refers to the award of this company, but it also deals with other issues | ||||
Tech in Asia [22] | I checked this from WP:CORPDEPTH and the entire article consists of more than ten paragraphs focusing on the company | ||||
Tech in Asia [23] |
For now, these 4 cases are enough for analysis. Gedaali ( talk) 05:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
For notability purposes, sources must be unrelated to each other to be "multiple".per WP:MULTSOURCES. So your table simply repeats Economic Times that I felt did meet SIRS, and disagrees with my analysis on Tech in Asia based on a paragraph count rather than the content. The content on the first link to Tech in Asia does not meet CORPDEPTH, but I don't think you can have read that site very well because the 10 paragraphs are nothing much, but there are links in the article to two longer articles, which, along with your link [15], paint a picture that might suggest possible fraud. If there is a notable subject here, it is not the company itself, which doesn't seem to do anything at all. It is about a possible fraud. Citing also notices this in the comment above. Are we WP:TOOSOON for an article about the alleged fraud? Or could we be looking at renaming this article and repurposing based on reliable secondary coverage of alleged fraud? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 07:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Having multiple ref yet its not indepth- That is not an NCORP pass. if a reference does not have significant coverage, it does not count towards notability. You can't aggregate lots of passing mentions. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 20:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 13:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 14:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 12:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Máté played 67 mins of professional football then completely disappeared. I can't even find evidence of any statistical coverage of an amateur career. The best that I could find were Nemzeti Sport and Rangadó, both being trivial mentions and far from WP:SIGCOV. Also per WP:SPORTBASIC, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:31, 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 14:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Played in 2 matches 15 years ago but has only played in the lower tiers since and does not seem to have any WP:SIGCOV. The best that I could find in Hungarian sources were HEOL, Rangadó and Nemzeti Sport, none of which are even close to being in-depth coverage. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails GNG and NORG. Sources in article and BEFORE did not support notability. Found routine mill news, database records, etc, nothing establishing notability.
Being the "is the closest junior school in the United Kingdom to an airport" is not a basis for notability. // Timothy :: talk 11:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Procedural close, this is a redirect not an article. It needs to be nominated at WP:RFD. Liz Read! Talk! 06:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
It's a typing error. Title doesn't make any sense. — Hemant Dabral ( 📞 • ✒) 11:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 13:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
The article doesn't cite any sources (only linking the subject's MySpace profile and a music project's website) and I was unable to find significant coverage. There's an interview with the Dogs of Winter where Grosz speaks for the band, but interviews don't contribute to notability. Grosz is, of course, mentioned at least a few times on the website of the college he went to ( Vassar College), but that's not really anything either. I don't see an alternative to deletion. This is the page creator's only article, and it was previously speedy-deleted. toweli ( talk) 11:30, 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 11:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Unreferenced article since 2012. Being the backing band of someone with a Wikipedia page and having members with Wikipedia pages does not make this band notable as notability is not inherited. A look online for significant coverage doesn't yield much - a post on jericsmith.com is a self-published blog, and I'm unable to find anything else substantial. InDimensional ( talk) 11:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Nothing of notability in the article, a single TV appearance isn't enough for WP:BAND criteria. One member was in another band of notability, however notability is not inherited. A look online brings up no coverage whatsoever. InDimensional ( talk) 11:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Only notability is having a song featured on a DVD release, they seem to not pass WP:BAND. Both references in the article are from very local news sources, and an online search brings up no additional coverage. InDimensional ( talk) 11:11, 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 11:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Unsourced since 2011, some moderate achievements in the lead section but not sure if enough to pass WP:BAND. A search on the web for references brings up nothing on them, even when including band members names into the search. InDimensional ( talk) 11:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was Speedy keep. WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) GRuban ( talk) 13:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
This individual is of little notability. Barely covered in any media. He only recently resurfaced due to being missing. Definitely does not deserve his own article. BeŻet ( talk) 10:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to CID (Indian TV series)#Cast. ✗ plicit 14:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Everything mentioned here (and more) is (or can be) covered in CID (Indian TV series)#Cast. Recommend redirect. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 09:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Desertarun ( talk) 16:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:CORP. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep ( talk) 09:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The review notes: "I decide to celebrate with breakfast; there are three restaurants - Bella Singaraja, Jimbaran Gardens and KO - as well as poolside service. The scrambled eggs are light and fluffy and the coffee is good. I wish I could fit in more. Tomorrow morning, perhaps. Next stop is the Club InterContinental pool. I don't have far to go and there are plenty of lounges or, if you want some privacy, you can stake your claim on a bungalow. I can see Jimbaran Bay from the pool and know I should drag myself off my lounger to check it out."
The review notes: "The Imperial is the flagship of a premium collection of rooms at InterContinental Bali, including five categories of suites designed to replicate the villa experience that has become so popular on this Indonesian holiday island. These suites are located within Club InterContinental, a collection of 110 elegant rooms that operates as a hotel within a hotel supporting its own management, housekeeping and engineering teams. ... The new-look guestroom decor (the hotel was renovated last year) features indigenous timbers and batiks, gorgeous marble bathrooms, flat-screen tellies and all the latest whiz-bangery. The value-added nature of the club is popular with Australian travellers; it's excellent for families, given the free kids' club, beachfront locale and enormous complex of swimming pools. But the resort is just as delightful for couples, who can enjoy the privacy of the Club wing."
The review notes: "Originally opened in 1993, InterContinental Bali was one of the first luxury properties built on the coastline of Jimbaran Bay (in southern Bali), a stunning stretch of clean, white-sand beach that hotel guests have direct access to from the resort grounds. ... A guestroom renovation project took place from 2017 to 2019 and was followed by a second phase that updated public areas, including its multiple pools, restaurants, the lobby and the ballroom, which was transformed into meeting space in 2022. During my stay, the main Nirvana pool was also undergoing a since-completed refresh to be in tip-top shape for the coming high season."
The review notes: "The property is immaculate - so much so it feels cleverly art directed - with traditional style fountains, bridges and so many pools and koi ponds that we stopped counting after a bit. As far as facilities and activities go, the Planet Trekkers kids club has a distinct eco focus, there's a Technogym laden fitness centre, tennis courts, yoga, kite making and bike tours of the local markets."
The review notes: "The resort itself is a large property stretching all the way down to Jimbaran Beach. With six pools, multiple restaurants and expansive immaculately manicured gardens it can take a little while to get your bearings, but friendly staff are always nearby should you need assistance. In the notoriously high turnover hospitality industry, I met several staff that had worked there since the resort opened in 1993 - after 25 years of working there, these staff were still passionate, friendly, knowledgeable and service-driven, which was a pleasant surprise."
The review notes: "The InterContinental Resort looks out across Jimbaran Bay to the distant airport. This means that the ride to the property is much shorter than to Nusa Dua or Ubud, making it popular with shorter-stay or late night-arriving guests. Its architecture was designed to honor the sacred axis between the mountain and sea. In a recent makeover, decorators followed the tri hita karana principle that balances the ideals of God, nature, and humanity."
The review notes: "On Bali's Jimbaran Bay, the glamorous InterContinental Bali Resort operates one of the best children's clubs on the island. Dubbed Club J, this extensive facility functions as a resort within a resort replete with large airconditioned clubhouse, outdoor swimming pool, climbing frame, mini basketball compound and a popular internet cave."
The review notes: "A luxurious take on a traditional Balinese fishing village, the 430-room InterContinental Bali Resort in Jimbaran has all the mod cons you’d expect of a five-star hotel. But the resort’s activities, a deep-dive into Balinese culture, make it a standout. Families can learn traditional net fishing and kite-making, and when the grown-ups need a break, the Planet Trekkers kids’ club instructs four- to 12-year-olds in Balinese dance, Bahasa language and the art of preparing traditional Balinese offerings. There’s also a professional nanny service for children under four. "
The result was keep. PhantomSteve/ talk¦ contribs\ 10:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:CORP. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep ( talk) 08:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 08:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:CORP. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep ( talk) 08:40, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 08:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
The content of this article seems to be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK that entirely overlaps with information already on the Civic nationalism page. Is there any appetite for deletion on this, or perhaps any other, basis? Yr Enw ( talk) 08:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. CBE meets weak sourcing. No indication a 3rd relist would change the split here. Star Mississippi 01:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of WP:notability under SNG or GNG. Basically a promotional -resume. The lead just says that he is a British brand and communications expert.
The references are just a collection of mentions / announcements on him. Nothing anywhere near even one GNG source.
Some concern that the creator has 28 lifetime edits, all on this article. Article was tagged for UPE concern by somebody else and the tag was quickly removed by an IP. The IP that removed it has 2 lifetime edits...one removing the tag and the other putting a link at another article to this article. North8000 ( talk) 03:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
asilvering (
talk) 04:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I still do not see a consensus here. Either a being award a CBE is sufficient or it isn't. Is there any specific guideline on honors such as this and notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:56, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Cannot find any sources proving notable, other than advertising. Not to be confused with the UK company "Dial Direct". GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk) 05:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just noting that the nominator is now indefinitely blocked for copyright problems.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
A newly created band consisting of notable members fails to establish independent notability. I tried, but couldn't find significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. A Google News search yielded some sources, but they mostly consist of passing mentions or routine coverage. IMO, it fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:NBAND and is a possible case of WP:NOTINHERITED. GSS 💬 07:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Throughout this article, the band's name is mentioned only five times, excluding the title and image description, and often in passing} is nonsensical, the term "passing mention" refers to coverage 1-2 sentences long in an article. Obviously, an article about the band is not a passing mention of them.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:42, 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 00:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Another case of WP:INVALIDBIO. Child's notability is solely attributed to their parent, and it's highly unlikely for a two-year-old to have achieved notable accomplishments. Ckfasdf ( talk) 09:34, 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! 06:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 00:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Ehrmagerd, werds! As interesting as I find this, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PepperBeast (talk) 12:35, 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! 06:35, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Currently unreferenced save for an arstechnica piece written by the creators of the framework. Searches on Google result in either Yellowpages-style listings or Githubs. Books return in trivial mentions in author biographies. The fact that the author was SPA on this topic does not help. For these reasons I believe it fails GNG. Good day— RetroCosmos talk 04:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Article was incorrectly PRODed [32] after being through an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mayoral_elections. I WP:REFUNDed it and brought it here. While incorrectly applied, the PROD put it best: "Routine election in suburban city, local coverage of routine results only without evidence of notability." Nickps ( talk) 20:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input would be helpful given the context nom identifies in their comment of 30 March.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 00:59, 6 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) 02:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. revised article per the improvements made during this discussion. As for whether this should be subsequently moved or split, that's editorial and doesn't need a relist. Star Mississippi 01:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
This is an extreme (almost 400kb) case of fancrufty "list of appearances of foo topic in every imaginable work" (books, comics, games...). The topic may be notable (recent talk discussion suggests User:TompaDompa, who has an established record of getting similar topics to Good Article and beyond, tried to rewrite this but was thwarted - reverted - at some point and possibly gave up), Our execution is abysmally bad and begs for WP:TNT - after tiny prose lead, this is just a WP:IPC-violating list of random examples. I.e. this is another de facto list that fails WP:LISTN, a simple WP:INDISCRIMINATE listing of all instances a star or planet appeared in a work of fiction ( WP:NOTTVTROPES). If we were to approach it as an article, beyond its lead, it is a major fail of WP:V and WP:OR). No prejudice to this being turned into a prose-based stub or start-class if anyone (TompaDompa?) wants to work on this, otherwise we may have to redirect it or just delete it, I am afraid. Note that this list is still growing with unrerenced ORish content (see diff from late March). Sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
*Delete as it currently is. The current article is rife with a multitude of pretty major issues as described already - poor sourcing,
WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and content that blatantly goes against
WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. If the current content was replaced by the draft shared by TompaDompa above, then I would be happy to keep that version, but this current list should absolutely not be retained as it is.
Rorshacma (
talk) 03:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
A "no there there" intersection, there's a single house and that's it. Searching is masked by the place in Mississippi but turned up nothing. Mangoe ( talk) 02:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 05:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
The cricketer does not even have the most number of first class cricket centuries. For example, Jack Hobbs does not have a page for his fc centuries. For convention, this has beend done for cricketers having more than 25 international centuries. Hence, this article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharaoh496 ( talk • contribs) 06:27, 12 April 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. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 08:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 05:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, most of these sources barely seem to qualify this person as notable. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 01:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
:*Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done
WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page
[34]. He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian subject and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created
[35]
[36].
202.43.93.9 (
talk) 03:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 01:23, 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! 01:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)