The result was merge to Muffuletta. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable salad that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. Contents of this article could be covered in 1 or 2 sentences on the Muffuletta article. BaduFerreira ( talk) 23:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Coleslaw#Variations and similar dishes. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable salad that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira ( talk) 23:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Watermelon#Culinary. And Merge to any other relevant articles. Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable salad that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira ( talk) 23:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. This should be a procedural close since there is no deletion nomination statement but given that the nominator eventually gives a rationale, I'll close this as Redirect. But really, you can't just tag an article and be done with it. BEFORE, remember? Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 23:09, 26 March 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, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Their only claim to notability is winning the 'Saturnus Beachbattle' contest in 2013. This award has zero coverage and neither does the band, clearly not passing WP:BAND InDimensional ( talk) 23:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Very little reliable sources and fails WP:SINGER Nagol0929 ( talk) 22:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Tijuana Sweetheart. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be notable. Nothing in her article demonstrates notability, and I couldn't find any meaningful coverage on her elsewhere beyond a source I'm unsure on the reliability of ( [4]). λ Negative MP1 17:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 11:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Per previous PROD: Exists, but doesn't meet WP:N. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting.
Media access controller is a Redirect so not a proper Merge target. Would its target article,
Medium access control be acceptable or are there more arguments to Delete or Keep this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 18:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see previous relisting comment and reply to it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
@
Liz:, I believe
Dimawik already answered that above The proper solution involves a lot of work, as it requires describing the overview of the IEEE 802 stack somewhere, with a diagram and names of service units passing through the interfaces.
There is more than a merge required if we want to cover this subject as part of another article e.g.
Medium access control. ~
Kvng (
talk) 01:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Notability only through her sons, and WP:NOTINHERITED. Present on 2 other projects, but they are entitled to make different decision. There is some evidence of being a benefactor (supporting the local parish), but that itself was inherited. The pages of Wilhelm and Alexander seem sufficiently well-developed that a merge wouldn't be helpful. Klbrain ( talk) 18:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 18:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Marie Elisabeth von Humboldt, was a haughty, cold woman who had little emotional relationship with her children. After the disappearance of her husband, who was a "...man of pleasant trade, of lively and cheerful conversation"... it is on the contrary, "... an atmosphere of compassed formalism and boredom created around her Madame de Humboldt mother".Klbrain ( talk) 23:47, 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! 22:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Subject does not meet the WP:NLIST, lacks any sourcing whatsoever. Let'srun ( talk) 17:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 18:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 00:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Fail WP:GNG. Topic should not have a stand-alone article as WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Zsohl (Talk) 11:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 18:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:07, 26 March 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 12:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
This is one of many Jewish Associations but I cannot find anything particularly notable about it. Suggest delete unless significant events or connections can be found. Newhaven lad ( talk) 19:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I cannot find any references to the Orchestra after 2012 - and the earlier ones are merely passing references to its existence. Newhaven lad ( talk) 18:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 19:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable PlayStation emulator. Lack of SIGCOV. I tried to PROD, but can't becuase a PROD was attempted in 2009. TarkusAB talk/ contrib 19:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
All WP:RAJ era sources (apart from Sharma). Nishant Shashikant Sharma's work was published the International Journal of Research which has been deprecated as a predatory publisher as per here- [11] Southasianhistorian8 ( talk) 20:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Xymmax
So let it be written
So let it be done 21:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:03, 26 March 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! 01:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Russian song. The article currently has one reference: YouTube with Leontiev's performance.-- Анатолий Росдашин ( talk) 21:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:00, 26 March 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! 23:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 21:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn as notability was established. ( non-admin closure) Lenny Marks ( talk) 22:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Article was previously nominated under the name Museo Interactivo Kaná. The result was no-consensus with paltry participation. In my opinion, article clearly fails wp:GNG and wp:NORG. There are only three sources provided two of which are about particular incidents and do not constitute SigCov, and only one of which that might count as SigCov about some new exhibits that were added while the museum was under a different name. The Spanish-language article also lacks sources and after conducting a search I think that it will not be possible to find multiple sources to demonstrate notability. The article has been tagged in CAT:NN for 14 years and I believe it is not notable, and should be deleted. Lenny Marks ( talk) 21:47, 26 March 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! 23:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 21:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Styyx ( talk) 03:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Non notable turksih tv series
LegalSmeagolian (
talk) 21:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (will pursue merger instead). ( non-admin closure) Allan Nonymous ( talk) 19:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
This article barely qualifies as notable, and could be summarized better here. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 20:17, 26 March 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! 23:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
fails to meet relevant WP:POLITICIAN as well basic WP:GNG — Saqib ( talk | contribs) 19:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing RS which could be considered JMWt ( talk) 18:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Green brothers. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Looks to me like WP:GNG just isn't met here. A 2016 AfD resulted in keep based on no credible assertions of GNG-contributing sources. The three that were brought contain no significant discussion of the subject, and as it stands eight years later, there still isn't much media attention on this podcast, and the article's never outgrown largely being based on primary, non-independent sources. If someone finds something I didn't on a WP:BEFORE, awesome, but I don't see it out there. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 18:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing sources which could be considered. JMWt ( talk) 18:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Complex/ Rational 18:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Promotional article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. As the article exists, the only source is an excerpt from the book and a plot that's probably copied straight from the back page. A WP:BEFORE check found one source from The Hindu that may be helpful - [26]. It's not really a review, more of an interview but it's at least better than what's currently there. I don't think it's enough to meet NBOOK though. Ravensfire ( talk) 17:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 11:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Original nomination statement: I couldn't find any significant coverage of this bobsleigh athlete that would meet WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. All news that came up in my searches are passing mentions ( TVP Sport and Wrocław Naszemiasto), as well as silly, random namesakes. Corresponding article on Polish Wikipedia article has been tagged for not having sources except external links for 2010; no major edits since 2022. CuteDolphin712 ( talk) 10:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Revised nomination statement as of 13 March 2024: Despite having achieved two medals, I couldn't find enough significant coverage of this bobsleigh athlete that would meet WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Everything that came up in my searches are brief mentions ( TVP Sport and Wrocław Naszemiasto), as well as silly, random namesakes. Corresponding article on Polish Wikipedia article has been tagged for not having sources except external links for 14 years; no major edits since 2022. CuteDolphin712 ( talk) 10:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 11:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 17:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by DZRH/DZRH News Television#DZRH News Television-produced. ✗ plicit 12:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Unreferenced since 2018. No awards or any good supporting references from GBooks, GNews and GNews Archives. Alternatively, redirect to List of programs broadcast by DZRH/DZRH News Television. -- Lenticel ( talk) 11:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Before we can consider redirecting, the topic should be mentioned in the target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 17:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
@ Sandstein: clarified that Radyo Hataw is the televised adaptation/simulcast of DZRH Hataw in proposed target article. Lenticel ( talk) 23:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. This is not a "Keep" closure, this is not a "Delete" closure, this is a "No consensus" closure because I find no consensus here among editors. Many editors arguing for Delete cite a 2018 RFC decision but I found a number of discussions about policy on having articles with tables of airline destinations including Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive296#Mass deletion of pages - question of protocol, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 141#RFC: Should Wikipedia have lists of transportation service destinations?, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 140#Should Wikipedia have and maintain complete lists of airline destinations?, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 15#Request for comments on the Airlines and destinations tables and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 187#RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles (which concerns Airport articles but on the same subject of tables of airline destinations) which leave a definitive "All" decision impossible, at least for me. Also an "All" decision assumes that the quality of articles is identical or near identical among the nominated articles and it's not clear that is the case here.
Additionally, I haven't done a head count but I believe there are more editors weighing in here in this AFD than editors who participated in most of these past RFCs trying to establish a policy precedent. The 2018 RFC is now six years old, would an updated RFC come to a similar conclusion? I don't know but there are clearly a large number of editors who disagree with its conclusion. Secondly, there are enough editors voicing a preference for Merge that an outright Delete All closure would prevent any Merge from occurring. I also think this difference of policy interpretation is unreconcilable and no additional relists would help reach a firmer consensus. I fully realize that this closure will make all participating editors in this AFD unsatisfied and it is almost certain to go to Deletion review but someone had to close this discussion and so I bit the bullet.
I'm sure that whether this closure was Delete All, Keep All, Merge or No consensus, this AFD would end up at Deletion review given the division of opinion here so I advise those who are invested in this subject to go to DRV and argue whether or not this closure was appropriate. If you believe that the 2018 RFC should be reviewed 6 years later, you can take up that project. Liz Read! Talk! 00:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following 152 lists with the same problems:
Per the 2018 RfC, there is consensus that lists of airline destinations do not belong on Wikipedia. A discussion at AN advised editors to nominate lists for deletion in an orderly manner and recommended that the closer of the AfD take the RfC closure into account. Since then, 24 AfDs have resulted in the deletion of more than 260 lists. I feel it's time to have a few final AfDs on the remaining lists.
The lists run counter to WP:NOT. They are indiscriminate collections of every city that an airline has flown to at any point in its history. All destinations as of this month as well as all past destinations are included. Regarding the current destinations, this is the equivalent of looking at the airline's route map – or if one is unavailable, an aggregator of flight-schedule data like Flightradar24 – copying down all the cities, and pasting them on Wikipedia. The listing of every current destination also creates a catalog of the company's services, in this case all the places that readers can fly to on a given airline. If we try to keep the lists up to date, we'll be running a newsfeed of airline destination updates, which Wikipedia should not be doing.
I am not including the other 34 stand-alone lists of airline destinations in this nomination because those include some prose that has to be copied over to the parent article first. Sunnya343 ( talk) 15:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
"The lists run counter to
WP:NOT. They are
indiscriminate collections[...]"
- Can this be explained more? I'm checking the list now for all listed criteria and I don't see the connection here:equivalent of looking at the airline's route map
" - Explicitly not the case for most of these (properly maintained) lists, route maps do not discuss past/future routes that form a history and detailed description of this specific topic (Airline X)listing of every current destination also creates a
catalog of the company's services
[WP:NOTCATALOG] - How so? Even on Point #1 of
WP:NOTCATALOG - it cites
WP:LISTCRIT which the lists are well suited for based on
WP:CSC. And if it is referring to "company's services", a list of flights no longer operated by a carrier is hardly advertising or promoting sales."[...] or if one is unavailable, an aggregator of flight-schedule data like
Flightradar24
" - I don't see flight schedules mentioned in these lists, rather than destinations served at some point, defining and supporting the history and notability of the airline itself. Two entirely different lists and purposes and not served by flight schedule aggregators."[...]If we try to keep the lists up to date, we'll be running a newsfeed of airline destination updates"
To have lists covering decades of operation, describing and defining the airline through its services is hardly a newsfeed and doesn't meet any of the 4 points of
WP:NOTNEWS, I would suggest showing current active destinations is strongly aligned the opening line of:
Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage"hasn't been a clear and indelible justification for deletion in this AfD". I'm also concerned that your critique zooms in on specific lines of the policy text. Fundamentally we are governed by the five pillars, most of which are explicitly non-negotiable. Due to imperfections in human language and psychology no constitutional text will ever be unequivocal – interpretation is required. Due to our processes interpretation is left to the consensus of the wider community, and the various language versions are given latitude to hash out the specifics. Sometimes these interpretations are codified into WP:PAGs, but consensus is king whether it has been codified or not. The only thing consensus can't do is to establish procedurs clearly against non-negotiable principles (projects that do may attract attention over at meta).
"indiscriminate [collections] of information"and are outside a scope described as analogous to
"specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers"(quoting the first pillar). That this is the correct interpretation of our "constitution" was decided in the RfC (the open discourse you call for already happened six years ago), and as I've stressed before some form of centralized discussion outside the scope of this AFD would be required to overturn that decision. Proponets of inclusion would be wise to explain clearly why these types of lists are actually within the scope of our mission of creating an encyclopedia. Stating that the information is verified, interesting or even citing individual lines of policy text does not cut it. Regards. Draken Bowser ( talk) 11:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
it would actually be of great benefit to that argument if someone would create one of those hypotheticals– List of Braathens destinations (not included in this AfD), which is a former featured list, might be an example. It has a detailed history section and notes the start and stop dates of all destinations. However, one of the reasons it was demoted was that the history section largely repeats prose in the parent article. I would add that the presence of that prose does not change the fact that the list goes against WP:NOTDB. Sunnya343 ( talk) 01:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not saying that this is a bad thing; it's good to have more participation. Though I feel it's important to keep WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in mind. Sunnya343 ( talk) 16:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTRAVEL doesn't apply because no travel guide would list this information.This statement is based on the letter rather than the spirit of the policy. An exhaustive list of cities that people can fly to on an airline as of April 2024 that also informs them when flights to a new destination will start or when service to a particular city will cease, is contrary to the spirit of NOTTRAVEL in my view. This is essentially a case of WP:NOTPRICE (
Listings to be avoided include... products and services), and since the role of the companies in question is transportation, there is overlap with NOTTRAVEL. Sunnya343 ( talk) 05:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Some of the lists include valuable references such as copies of pages in the now-unavailable FlightGlobal archive. I am going to copy them over to the talk pages of the respective parent articles so that they are conserved, regardless of the future of the stand-alone lists. Sunnya343 ( talk) 17:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong; the members of WikiProject Aviation are key stakeholders here. However, when people within a particular community on this site generally have one opinion, and those outside that community generally have another, we have to take WP:LOCALCONSENSUS into account. Sunnya343 ( talk) 20:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
By a wide margin, the AfD close is overturned. Even after identifying a few users who edit mostly in the airline space and discounting their arguments as biased, there's an strong consensus here to overturn.
I'm not saying that as an excuse, though. I apologize for reviewing people's contribution histories, that was not right to do and I went overboard. And you're definitely correct, it's the arguments that matter at the end of the day, not who is making them. I will strike my comment and a related one above. Sunnya343 ( talk) 15:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC) I just realized that it might seem like I was calling out the closer of that deletion review; that was not my intention. Sunnya343 ( talk) 02:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
It’s time to solve the problem in one go and stop pretending there’s anything worth keeping in this category.Sunnya343 ( talk) 20:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Delete per WP:IINFO. The issue is not whether there may be references, the issue is that this is an indiscriminate and ephemeral and trivial. Sunnya343 ( talk) 16:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
No indication of notability. Sources are Google Maps and an insignificant press release, Google hardly finds anything on this organization. Number of members is unsourced. Icodense ( talk) 15:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NSOFT or WP:NPRODUCT. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NSOFT and has been deleted 5 times in the past for not meeting notability or being an advertisement. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Entire article is a mish-mash of WP:SYNTHESIS, seeking to bring disparate events under the Cold War umbrella. See for example many entries at the horrendously bloated infobox such as Wounded Knee Occupation, what does the pre-existing dispute betwen the federal government and native Americans have to do with the Cold War? Then you have the Stonewall riots at "Events and incidents", they are nothing to do with the Cold War either. These aren't isolated examples, there are many, many incidents and groups listed that have have nothing to do with the Cold War. While it's possible a proper article about the subject could be written this definitely isn't it, so per WP:TNT this article shouldn't be allowed to remain. Kathleen's bike ( talk) 14:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Insufficient RSs to establish notability. Searches revealed nothing better. Has published a couple of books and is namechecked in other sources. Not clear where notability lies - probably as an author. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 13:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Agree the notability in theory must come from his work as an author, and he seems to have previously written a successful book but the sources here aren't really about him, and so don't establish his notability. Editing84 ( talk) 14:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Despite a whopping 77 sources, probably still not GNG notable. I can't find a single reliable secondary source independent of the subject covering her in detail. BrigadierG ( talk) 13:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 12:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I've added two refs, but I am afraid this fails WP:GNG. It's a niche meme / anecdote that did not get any WP:SIGCOV. The best source I could find is a PhD thesis that discusses this for about two pages or so; another academic book mentions this in passing and calls it "legendary". There are also WP:OR concerns, such as our article's stress that this was popularized by one "Richard Aronson", sourced to his old post where he focuses on his copyrights for this story - I failed to find any independent source which credits him with "popularizing" this. That said, we are effectively retelling this entire (very short) story, which does raise some copyvio concerns. And then there is the "in popular culture" section which forms half of our article and is pure OR (unreferenced). Sigh. I do find this meme (or anecdote) funny and I've heard it before today, but I am afraid it is not notable. I struggle to suggest where to merge and redirect it. The only page that links to this trivia is Gazebo, where maybe this could be summarized in a few sentences? PS. Last AfD few years ago had a lenghty list of sources about a play called Hannah and the Dread Gazebo, which may be notable, but I am not seeing any evidence that that play was inspired by this anecdote ( this review suggests there may be a connection, but is vague). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🍪
Cookie
Monster 12:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ✗ plicit 14:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails under certain notability guidelines: WP:SIGCOV, GNG, and more 扱. し. 侍. ( talk) 09:25, 12 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) 11:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters#Vaggie. Content can be merged from the history if desired. A 1:1 merger would overwhelm the target article, though. Sandstein 16:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
This article relies mostly about her relationship to Charlie Morningstar. But, despite that, it seems like this [31] is the only good source. BEFORE, most of the sources were from the film reviews and Vaggie was just a passing mention. Fails WP:GNG. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 10:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I couldn't find reliable sources to establish notability, mainly promotional results. Looks like he could be notable, if information is verified, but no evidence of it. Unref blp. Boleyn ( talk) 09:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator, no other delete !votes. (non-admin closure) ~ A412 talk! 19:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
When writing a character article it's important to illustrate what sets the character apart from its base work, and why it's necessary to have a stand-alone article to fully understand it.
Torrent in this case is more of a game mechanic, and even in the sources cited there isn't an indication of importance beyond the game itself. While there is some slight design commentary, the vast majority pertains to Elden Ring itself as a gameplay element to explore the title. It's not a discussion of the horse's character or how players or reviewers reacted to it, but in sources like VG247's there the excitement of riding a horse in a game like this.
Couple it with a dev section that's essentially trivia, and in-universe details to bulk up the "Features" section (why is the exact health regen a thing?) and...yeah. At best, what reception isn't in the Elden Ring article would be better suited there. Kung Fu Man ( talk) 08:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Gillingham F.C. players (1–24 appearances). Liz Read! Talk! 08:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The subject played a very small number of matches for a lower league semi-professional football team. The only sources appear to be databases and club histories. I'm curious to see if others think this person meets the notability criteria. JMWt ( talk) 08:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Nothing definitive has been found to support GNG, therefore the argument analyzing available sources, which finds nomenclature duplicity and nothing supporting GNG for the article topic, is by far the strongest. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Not notable person according to the WP GNG and WP ANYBIO. 扱. し. 侍. ( talk) 10:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Preliminary findings suggest that the subject might meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. However, a more thorough review of the available sources is warranted to ensure all potential coverage has been adequately considered. -- 149.172.122.230 ( talk) 10:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 07:32, 12 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) 11:15, 19 March 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) 08:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. I see a consensus to Keep this article given the sources located (which I hope find their way into the article).
Feel free to disagree with a relisting but please do not go after the non-admin relister, assume good faith. We are very short on admins to close and relist AFD discussions and so any help we can get is appreciated. But we are also seeing fewer editors participating regularly in AFDs so you all are appreciated, too, especially when your efforts lead to an improved article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Not a notable individual. Fails WP:GNG. Possible autobiography. – Muboshgu ( talk) 03:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
opportunities
There are more available. Yolandagonzales ( talk) 16:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source eval for the newly found ones would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk) 08:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NORG, the only sources providing coverage of Incubate Debate itself are local. The reliable sources are generally about the National Speech and Debate Association, with only passing mentions of Incubate Debate. ~ A412 talk! 06:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. People are free to create a redirect later, but for now it's unclear if there is a suitable redirect target. Sandstein 16:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 05:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If you are advocating a Redirect or Merge, you need to identify the target article in each AFD you participate in. One link, and an argument, is what is being looked for. Otherwise, it looks like this article will be Deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of television stations in Colorado#LPTV stations. Liz Read! Talk! 01:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Subject does not meet the GNG. Most references are to the FCC website. Could merge into Dish Network. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 05:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two different proposed Merge target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 16:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
PROD removed. Random name that fails WP:NNAME and WP:NOTDICT. No sources found outside of dictionary definitions, databases and baby name websites. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 03:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD's so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 01:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
[[:ru: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0 Agafonikha (tributary of the Chema) Russian Wikisource: https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%91%D0%AD/%D0%92%D0%A2/%D0%90%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0 (a listing in the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia) Here's a search on Russian Wikinews: https://ru-wikinews-org.translate.goog/?fulltext=1&search=%D0%90%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%BE%CC%81%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0&title=%D0%A1%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F:%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BA&ns0=1&_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp If you suspect that an article with a Russian name is not notable, you need to look at Russian-language sources, starting with the Russian Wikipedia. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 02:57, 12 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) 06:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Bottom line, we need more than two opinions here or this will close as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 16:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Although I found https://newenergy.is/en/portfolio/nordic-hydrogen-partnership/ I doubt there are enough good sources for this to be notable Chidgk1 ( talk) 07:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 06:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Previously declined prod. I could not find coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Note there are other schools in the world with the same name. LibStar ( talk) 04:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 04:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 03:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Colin Goldberg. Per source analysis and strength of arguments, consensus to delete, but a redirect would be helpful for navigation. — Ganesha811 ( talk) 04:53, 2 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}} . |
Techspressionism has no reliable sourcing that it is an art movement or style. The portmanteau coined by an artist, but it entirely his own invention. The references in the article point to interivews, press releases and self created website. There is no reliable sourcing. https://hamptonsarthub.com/2014/10/21/techspressionism-reflects-impact-of-japanese-aesthetics/ is a puff piece on Colin Goldberg. https://www.27east.com/arts/techspressionism-a-global-movement-with-local-roots-1933155/ refers exclusively to Goldberg's self named style. https://www.wired.com/2014/10/if-picasso-had-a-macbook-pro/ has a quote by Goldberg naming his own art. Techspressionism is part of a walled garden created by COI accounts. There is no alternative to deletion. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 22:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:I do think, however, there is a viable alternative to deletion. This article could be redirected to or merged with
Colin Goldberg,
Digital art
Netherzone (
talk) 16:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
"respectfully disagree with your position"is a disingenuous statement after having smeared the nominator's good reputation across multiple off-Wiki online platforms by calling them a "hater" and canvassing a flock of COI single purpose accounts to support your position. That is not how things normally work in this community. There is no hatred going on. Experienced editors like the nominator – who BTW has created over 850 articles most of which are on under-known notable women artists who slipped though the cracks of history – are here to uphold the integrity of the encyclopedia. Challenging the notability of an article is not personal, you only think it is because of your COI and use of undisclosed paid editors in the past to promote yourself and your "movement". Netherzone ( talk) 13:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some input, especially analysis of available source material, from non-canvassed editors would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Seraphimblade
Talk to me 03:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sorry to prolong this discussion but I echo the previous relist and request we get a source analysis here. Consensus is clearly caught between Keeping this article and Merging it and a source review would be helpful. This means listing all sources, in the article and those mentioned here, and assessing their indepdence and reliability, not general statements on how they are insufficient. I just want to note that not all editors arguing to Keep this article are brand new editors who have been canvassed, they may not be proficient editors but they do have some editing experience. Also, aside from the nominator, there is no support for Delete so it looks like this article's content will be somewhere on the project, either Merged to another article or as a standalone article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 03:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Source assessment table: prepared by [[User:
WomenArtistUpdates (
talk) 16:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)]]
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
https://www.wired.com/2014/10/if-picasso-had-a-macbook-pro/ | The source discusses Colin Goldberg | ✘ No | ||
https://www.wliw.org/radio/captivate-podcast/april-19th-2022-colin-goldberg-shirley-ruch/ | This is a local arts listing for WLIR | The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail | ✘ No | |
https://www.danspapers.com/2022/04/techspressionism-movement-southampton/ | This is an local arts listing and interview | non-sig coverage | ✘ No | |
https://aaqeastend.com/commentary/curators-gallery-colin-goldberg-at-glenn-horowitz-bookseller-east-hampton/ | This is an local arts listing and interview | reprint of Colin Goldberg's manifesto | ✘ No | |
https://hamptonsarthub.com/2014/10/21/techspressionism-reflects-impact-of-japanese-aesthetics/ | local coverage | non-sig coverage | ✘ No | |
https://www.pbs.org/video/point-h5mrkp/ | AHA! A House for Arts is a local public television program presented by WMHT. | ✘ No | ||
https://web.archive.org/web/20230112102024/https://www.beyondphotography.online/interviewed-oz-van-rosen/ | ? | interview | interview with Oz Van Rose | ✘ No |
https://www.southamptonartscenter.org/techspressionism | listing for show on the Southampton Arts Center gallery website | promotional material | ✘ No | |
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/editors-picks-may-3-2021-1960431 | listing for lecture “NFT Now” a Techspressionism Zoom | passing mention | ✘ No | |
https://jameslanepost.com/colin-goldberg-curator-of-techspressionism/05/23/2022/Hamptons-News-Happenings/ | local coverage | interview with Colin Goldberg | ✘ 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}}. |
Source assessment table: prepared by
User:WomenArtistUpdates
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
https://hamptonsarthub.com/2014/10/21/techspressionism-reflects-impact-of-japanese-aesthetics/ | local coverage | non-sig coverage | ✘ No | |
https://www.easthamptonstar.com/arts/2022421/expressive-technology | local coverage | non-sig coverage | ✘ 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}}. |
Working on getting the coding right for the 12 citations. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 16:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC) Can't get 12 to show. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 16:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Staraction ( talk | contribs) 01:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Article does not appear to meet WP:NBOOKS; search for sources revealed none to back up notability.
First AfD so if I'm not doing something I'm supposed to please let me know. Staraction ( talk | contribs) 03:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
SourcesA book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
- The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The review notes: "What makes the book so good is the comparative nature of the explanations (because many symbols mean different things in different cultures) which encourages you to look for other links which then takes you on to a different symbol. Soon you're a long way from where you started. Intriguing, informative and thoroughly enjoyable."
The article notes: "And, when the frog croaks, it is claiming divine protection for all living creatures. Gone over the edge? No, I've been reading a dictionary of symbols. If you want to know the significance of everything from an abyss to the zodiac, it's in here."
The article notes: "I think I would call this paperback "fat" rather than "mammoth", but "The Fat Dictionary of Symbols" would not do, and it is actually part of a fairly mammoth series that includes The Mammoth Book of Zombies and The Mammoth Book of Killer Women. It was first published in Belgium in 1989, and contains hundreds of entries on entities of symbolic significance, from "Abyss" to "Zodiac". In her introduction Nadia Julien writes that she has drawn on ..."
This entry verifies that Libraries Unlimited's American Reference Books Annual reviewed this book.
The book notes: "This exceptional source is for those seeking an explanation of signs and symbols found in the majority of works about parapsychology and the occult. Brief entries can be found on the meaning of specific symbols as they are used by both religious and ethnic groups. Illustrations, although in black-and-white, are beneficial."
I don't have access to this review. The Wikipedia article says:
Tim Smith reviewed The Mammoth Dictionary of Symbols for Arcane magazine, rating it a 3 out of 10 overall. Smith comments that "Definitions such as: 'There is a tradition that says that swallows receive the souls of dead kings', or: 'Footwear is an indispensable item of dress in temperate regions', further undermine this as a reference work. That said, it could make a decent enough bog-read if only so you can fill in the gaps yourself."
The result was merge to List of Darkstalkers characters. Even though the related AFD hasn't been closed yet, it looks like it's skewing towards a Keep so I'm moving forward with closing this discussion. If the other article isn't kept, we can change the Merge target article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Going to be direct: this is yet another Niemti effort, and has the same hallmarks as the previous articles: an overreliance on lists that say next to nothing (often how sexy the character is), sources cited for saying more than they actually are, and ultimately nothing said about her character.
Felicia is a very recognizable character. One of the most recognizable ones from the Darkstalkers franchise, alongside Morrigan. However, recognizable does not equate to *discussion*. Even the recently added academic article added has nothing to do with Felicia, but commentary on cosplay in regards to decency laws, and not an examination of Felicia in those regards (Hell even by the article's own admission the cosplay was changed from the character's appearance).
Sadly...you can only say "Felicia is mostly naked" so many times. That alone doesn't merit an article. C. Viper was compared to a King of Fighters character in terms of design by a massive number of publications...and just that. And that didn't survive an AfD. Multiple Dead or Alive female characters also had some variation of "they're sexy" as the crux of their whole article, and they also didn't pass notability standards.
I would really like Felicia to have something, but after extensive searching...all we have is "she's mostly naked and sexy for it" and "she's one of the most recognizable of the lot because she gets reused a lot". That's not a base to build around when all the commentary is the same. Kung Fu Man ( talk) 03:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion as
List of Darkstalkers characters, the proposed Merge target, is also up for a AFD deletion discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 03:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun ( talk) 02:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Can't find anything that would meet WP:SIGCOV online. Fails WP:GNG. ARandomName123 ( talk)Ping me! 02:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. I see a consensus here to Keep this article given the newly found sources. Liz Read! Talk! 23:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Preparatory school lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" required per WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder ( talk) 18:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 18:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
This, I'm afraid, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia.No, I think an argument that GNG is met should be based on some evidence. You will note I specifically asked you "What sourcing have you found that suggests this meets GNG?" (My emphasis). Stating it is met without evidence is not helpful at AfD, and I know you are very experienced with AfD and know how this process works. Thank you for now providing one of your sources. I'll review that. But, of course, GNG requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. So are there any others? I could look myself, of course, and I will. But if you are saying GNG is met, and if you can present your evidence, that could save a lot of duplication of effort. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 20:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Have you even checked the article? A comment like this on an article like this simply discredits you, which certainly implied that only what was already in the article was relevant to an AfD discussion and was verging on a personal attack. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
A comment like this on an article like this simply discredits youare certainly very close to a personal attack. Don't really see how you can deny that. I am not "discredited" by expressing my honest opinion just because you don't happen to agree with it. Just don't make comments like that about other editors and we'll all be happy. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 21:20, 18 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) 01:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
SourcesAll universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)
The article notes: "In 1970, Dr. Barry Tull was a young public school teacher who decided to take a chance on a little private school in Berlin. He’s been at Worcester Preparatory School (WPS) ever since and is marking his 30th year as headmaster. In its 45-year history, the school has had just two headmasters with the other being founding Headmaster Franklin Lynch. ... Today, WPS has more than quadrupled in size, amassing almost 550 students from pre-kindergarten to 12th grade, and its campus on the south end of Berlin’s Main Street has grown to 45 acres and has become a pristine landmark of high quality education in the community. ... While WPS can boast staggering academic achievements, the cost of that education is something that can stop many families from even considering sending their children there."
The thesis says the approvers are:
I agree with Sirfurboy regarding the primary and secondary source analysis. I consider this thesis to be sufficiently reliable as it was reviewed and approved by three senior leaders at the University of Delaware (the guideline mentions "supervised by recognized specialists in the field" as contributing to reliability). The thesis notes on pages 1–2: "Worcester Preparatory School is a private coed preparatory day school. The campus is located on the Eastern Shore of Maryland in the town of Berlin. More than 500 students from Preschool through Grade 12 attend Worcester Preparatory School. The students come from all over Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia. The school is known for high academic standards and preparation for college. ... The teaching of social skills begins in the second grade at Worcester. Second-grade students complete a course called Manners, which includes introductions, telephone manners, how to treat a guest and be a guest, writing invitations and thank-you notes, and table manners. This is a classroom course taught by the second-grade social studies teacher. In addition, Worcester Preparatory School wants a social skills curriculum for the fourth grade, which consists of two classes of eighteen students, for a total of thirty-six students, diversified in gender and race. The fourth-grade faculty at Worcester wants the social skills curriculum to include table etiquette, cell phone etiquette, Internet etiquette (netiquette), social etiquette, and appearance. The faculty wants technology incorporated into the course."</ref>* Dissertations – Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.
The article notes: "There's a new million-dollar Athletic and Performing Arts Center at the Worcester Country School in Berlin. The building is part of the independent school's 20th anniversary celebration and is already in use for indoor sports activities, parent meetings, class sessions and dramatic and musical productions. This building, however, is not the only news at the preschool-through-grade 12 school. ... One of the Worcester Country School teachers was named the top middle school science teacher in the nation by the National Science Teachers' Association; two of the teachers have received commendations from Gov. William Donald Schaefer; several have been honored by computer and software companies; and, the students are continually being recognized for excellence in mathematics, essay writing, community service and computer use. In the past year, WCS teachers received two national awards, and students were honored by Center Stage for play writing, the Daughters of the American Revolution and the American Legion for essay writing, Apple Computer Inc. for community service, the Computer Learning Foundation for a student novel and by the Math Counts competition in Annapolis for having for the highest scoring math team in the region."
The article notes: "On July 26, Academic Dean Dr. Merle Marsh, representing the Worcester Country School, will be honored by President Reagan at a national awards ceremony on the south lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C. The honor is a result of the 1987 project of the school's Computer Club featuring a public information campaign about Assateague National Seashore. Marsh served as the adviser for the student project. Superintendent Rodger Rector of Assateague nominated the school for this national award. ... The Worcester Country School group has already received national awards from Apple Computer Inc. for this project. The students involved which included children in grades 4-6 from the Eastern Shores of Maryland and Virginia and Southern Delaware, were also honored with a plaque presented to them in the Office of the Secretary of the Interior by the Head of the National Parks Bill Mott and the Superintendent of the Assateague National Seashore Rodger Rector. Throughout the Worcester Country School's community service project the students used their computer skills to learn about and inform others about the erosion problems of the beaches."
The book provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "Worcester Country School, the region's independent school, opened in 1970, changing its name to Worcester Preparatory School in 1999 to reflect its college preparatory mission."
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP: N. I can't find any additional sources that would establish notability. Of the four sources on the page, two don't mention the library by name, and the other two are from Microsoft. This apparently had a PROD within an hour of the article's creation in 2013 which is kind of silly, but I'm sending this to AfD just to be safe. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 03:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 00:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 01:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Slackware#Dependency resolution. as an ATD. I don't think this discussion will benefit from an third relisting. Liz Read! Talk! 01:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
A PROD on this article was removed because "Swaret was used" at some point in the past. The justification, based on the edit history, is that a singular user on a public forum said that they used the package some unknown amount of time ago. I'm sending this to AfD because this added source does not establish notability. It's not reliable, does not provide extensive coverage, and it isn't clear whether the source is necessarily secondary. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 03:05, 12 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! 00:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 01:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) microbiologyMarcus petri dish· growths 17:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet the
WP:GNG, though I will note the common name when looking for sources. The bibliography of the article when moved out of the draftspace was extensive,
given here if it aids in anyone's reference search in an attempt to meet
WP:NAUTHOR, but most of those only appear to be chapters in various books. Withdrawn.
microbiologyMarcus
petri dish·
growths 00:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Muffuletta. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable salad that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. Contents of this article could be covered in 1 or 2 sentences on the Muffuletta article. BaduFerreira ( talk) 23:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Coleslaw#Variations and similar dishes. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable salad that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira ( talk) 23:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Watermelon#Culinary. And Merge to any other relevant articles. Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable salad that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira ( talk) 23:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. This should be a procedural close since there is no deletion nomination statement but given that the nominator eventually gives a rationale, I'll close this as Redirect. But really, you can't just tag an article and be done with it. BEFORE, remember? Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 23:09, 26 March 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, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Their only claim to notability is winning the 'Saturnus Beachbattle' contest in 2013. This award has zero coverage and neither does the band, clearly not passing WP:BAND InDimensional ( talk) 23:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Very little reliable sources and fails WP:SINGER Nagol0929 ( talk) 22:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Tijuana Sweetheart. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be notable. Nothing in her article demonstrates notability, and I couldn't find any meaningful coverage on her elsewhere beyond a source I'm unsure on the reliability of ( [4]). λ Negative MP1 17:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 11:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Per previous PROD: Exists, but doesn't meet WP:N. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting.
Media access controller is a Redirect so not a proper Merge target. Would its target article,
Medium access control be acceptable or are there more arguments to Delete or Keep this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 18:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see previous relisting comment and reply to it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
@
Liz:, I believe
Dimawik already answered that above The proper solution involves a lot of work, as it requires describing the overview of the IEEE 802 stack somewhere, with a diagram and names of service units passing through the interfaces.
There is more than a merge required if we want to cover this subject as part of another article e.g.
Medium access control. ~
Kvng (
talk) 01:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Notability only through her sons, and WP:NOTINHERITED. Present on 2 other projects, but they are entitled to make different decision. There is some evidence of being a benefactor (supporting the local parish), but that itself was inherited. The pages of Wilhelm and Alexander seem sufficiently well-developed that a merge wouldn't be helpful. Klbrain ( talk) 18:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 18:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Marie Elisabeth von Humboldt, was a haughty, cold woman who had little emotional relationship with her children. After the disappearance of her husband, who was a "...man of pleasant trade, of lively and cheerful conversation"... it is on the contrary, "... an atmosphere of compassed formalism and boredom created around her Madame de Humboldt mother".Klbrain ( talk) 23:47, 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! 22:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Subject does not meet the WP:NLIST, lacks any sourcing whatsoever. Let'srun ( talk) 17:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 18:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 00:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Fail WP:GNG. Topic should not have a stand-alone article as WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Zsohl (Talk) 11:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 18:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:07, 26 March 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 12:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
This is one of many Jewish Associations but I cannot find anything particularly notable about it. Suggest delete unless significant events or connections can be found. Newhaven lad ( talk) 19:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I cannot find any references to the Orchestra after 2012 - and the earlier ones are merely passing references to its existence. Newhaven lad ( talk) 18:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 19:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable PlayStation emulator. Lack of SIGCOV. I tried to PROD, but can't becuase a PROD was attempted in 2009. TarkusAB talk/ contrib 19:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
All WP:RAJ era sources (apart from Sharma). Nishant Shashikant Sharma's work was published the International Journal of Research which has been deprecated as a predatory publisher as per here- [11] Southasianhistorian8 ( talk) 20:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Xymmax
So let it be written
So let it be done 21:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:03, 26 March 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! 01:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Russian song. The article currently has one reference: YouTube with Leontiev's performance.-- Анатолий Росдашин ( talk) 21:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:00, 26 March 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! 23:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 21:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn as notability was established. ( non-admin closure) Lenny Marks ( talk) 22:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Article was previously nominated under the name Museo Interactivo Kaná. The result was no-consensus with paltry participation. In my opinion, article clearly fails wp:GNG and wp:NORG. There are only three sources provided two of which are about particular incidents and do not constitute SigCov, and only one of which that might count as SigCov about some new exhibits that were added while the museum was under a different name. The Spanish-language article also lacks sources and after conducting a search I think that it will not be possible to find multiple sources to demonstrate notability. The article has been tagged in CAT:NN for 14 years and I believe it is not notable, and should be deleted. Lenny Marks ( talk) 21:47, 26 March 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! 23:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 21:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Styyx ( talk) 03:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Non notable turksih tv series
LegalSmeagolian (
talk) 21:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (will pursue merger instead). ( non-admin closure) Allan Nonymous ( talk) 19:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
This article barely qualifies as notable, and could be summarized better here. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 20:17, 26 March 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! 23:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
fails to meet relevant WP:POLITICIAN as well basic WP:GNG — Saqib ( talk | contribs) 19:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing RS which could be considered JMWt ( talk) 18:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Green brothers. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Looks to me like WP:GNG just isn't met here. A 2016 AfD resulted in keep based on no credible assertions of GNG-contributing sources. The three that were brought contain no significant discussion of the subject, and as it stands eight years later, there still isn't much media attention on this podcast, and the article's never outgrown largely being based on primary, non-independent sources. If someone finds something I didn't on a WP:BEFORE, awesome, but I don't see it out there. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 18:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing sources which could be considered. JMWt ( talk) 18:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Complex/ Rational 18:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Promotional article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. As the article exists, the only source is an excerpt from the book and a plot that's probably copied straight from the back page. A WP:BEFORE check found one source from The Hindu that may be helpful - [26]. It's not really a review, more of an interview but it's at least better than what's currently there. I don't think it's enough to meet NBOOK though. Ravensfire ( talk) 17:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 11:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Original nomination statement: I couldn't find any significant coverage of this bobsleigh athlete that would meet WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. All news that came up in my searches are passing mentions ( TVP Sport and Wrocław Naszemiasto), as well as silly, random namesakes. Corresponding article on Polish Wikipedia article has been tagged for not having sources except external links for 2010; no major edits since 2022. CuteDolphin712 ( talk) 10:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Revised nomination statement as of 13 March 2024: Despite having achieved two medals, I couldn't find enough significant coverage of this bobsleigh athlete that would meet WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Everything that came up in my searches are brief mentions ( TVP Sport and Wrocław Naszemiasto), as well as silly, random namesakes. Corresponding article on Polish Wikipedia article has been tagged for not having sources except external links for 14 years; no major edits since 2022. CuteDolphin712 ( talk) 10:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 11:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 17:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by DZRH/DZRH News Television#DZRH News Television-produced. ✗ plicit 12:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Unreferenced since 2018. No awards or any good supporting references from GBooks, GNews and GNews Archives. Alternatively, redirect to List of programs broadcast by DZRH/DZRH News Television. -- Lenticel ( talk) 11:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Before we can consider redirecting, the topic should be mentioned in the target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 17:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
@ Sandstein: clarified that Radyo Hataw is the televised adaptation/simulcast of DZRH Hataw in proposed target article. Lenticel ( talk) 23:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. This is not a "Keep" closure, this is not a "Delete" closure, this is a "No consensus" closure because I find no consensus here among editors. Many editors arguing for Delete cite a 2018 RFC decision but I found a number of discussions about policy on having articles with tables of airline destinations including Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive296#Mass deletion of pages - question of protocol, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 141#RFC: Should Wikipedia have lists of transportation service destinations?, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 140#Should Wikipedia have and maintain complete lists of airline destinations?, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 15#Request for comments on the Airlines and destinations tables and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 187#RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles (which concerns Airport articles but on the same subject of tables of airline destinations) which leave a definitive "All" decision impossible, at least for me. Also an "All" decision assumes that the quality of articles is identical or near identical among the nominated articles and it's not clear that is the case here.
Additionally, I haven't done a head count but I believe there are more editors weighing in here in this AFD than editors who participated in most of these past RFCs trying to establish a policy precedent. The 2018 RFC is now six years old, would an updated RFC come to a similar conclusion? I don't know but there are clearly a large number of editors who disagree with its conclusion. Secondly, there are enough editors voicing a preference for Merge that an outright Delete All closure would prevent any Merge from occurring. I also think this difference of policy interpretation is unreconcilable and no additional relists would help reach a firmer consensus. I fully realize that this closure will make all participating editors in this AFD unsatisfied and it is almost certain to go to Deletion review but someone had to close this discussion and so I bit the bullet.
I'm sure that whether this closure was Delete All, Keep All, Merge or No consensus, this AFD would end up at Deletion review given the division of opinion here so I advise those who are invested in this subject to go to DRV and argue whether or not this closure was appropriate. If you believe that the 2018 RFC should be reviewed 6 years later, you can take up that project. Liz Read! Talk! 00:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following 152 lists with the same problems:
Per the 2018 RfC, there is consensus that lists of airline destinations do not belong on Wikipedia. A discussion at AN advised editors to nominate lists for deletion in an orderly manner and recommended that the closer of the AfD take the RfC closure into account. Since then, 24 AfDs have resulted in the deletion of more than 260 lists. I feel it's time to have a few final AfDs on the remaining lists.
The lists run counter to WP:NOT. They are indiscriminate collections of every city that an airline has flown to at any point in its history. All destinations as of this month as well as all past destinations are included. Regarding the current destinations, this is the equivalent of looking at the airline's route map – or if one is unavailable, an aggregator of flight-schedule data like Flightradar24 – copying down all the cities, and pasting them on Wikipedia. The listing of every current destination also creates a catalog of the company's services, in this case all the places that readers can fly to on a given airline. If we try to keep the lists up to date, we'll be running a newsfeed of airline destination updates, which Wikipedia should not be doing.
I am not including the other 34 stand-alone lists of airline destinations in this nomination because those include some prose that has to be copied over to the parent article first. Sunnya343 ( talk) 15:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
"The lists run counter to
WP:NOT. They are
indiscriminate collections[...]"
- Can this be explained more? I'm checking the list now for all listed criteria and I don't see the connection here:equivalent of looking at the airline's route map
" - Explicitly not the case for most of these (properly maintained) lists, route maps do not discuss past/future routes that form a history and detailed description of this specific topic (Airline X)listing of every current destination also creates a
catalog of the company's services
[WP:NOTCATALOG] - How so? Even on Point #1 of
WP:NOTCATALOG - it cites
WP:LISTCRIT which the lists are well suited for based on
WP:CSC. And if it is referring to "company's services", a list of flights no longer operated by a carrier is hardly advertising or promoting sales."[...] or if one is unavailable, an aggregator of flight-schedule data like
Flightradar24
" - I don't see flight schedules mentioned in these lists, rather than destinations served at some point, defining and supporting the history and notability of the airline itself. Two entirely different lists and purposes and not served by flight schedule aggregators."[...]If we try to keep the lists up to date, we'll be running a newsfeed of airline destination updates"
To have lists covering decades of operation, describing and defining the airline through its services is hardly a newsfeed and doesn't meet any of the 4 points of
WP:NOTNEWS, I would suggest showing current active destinations is strongly aligned the opening line of:
Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage"hasn't been a clear and indelible justification for deletion in this AfD". I'm also concerned that your critique zooms in on specific lines of the policy text. Fundamentally we are governed by the five pillars, most of which are explicitly non-negotiable. Due to imperfections in human language and psychology no constitutional text will ever be unequivocal – interpretation is required. Due to our processes interpretation is left to the consensus of the wider community, and the various language versions are given latitude to hash out the specifics. Sometimes these interpretations are codified into WP:PAGs, but consensus is king whether it has been codified or not. The only thing consensus can't do is to establish procedurs clearly against non-negotiable principles (projects that do may attract attention over at meta).
"indiscriminate [collections] of information"and are outside a scope described as analogous to
"specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers"(quoting the first pillar). That this is the correct interpretation of our "constitution" was decided in the RfC (the open discourse you call for already happened six years ago), and as I've stressed before some form of centralized discussion outside the scope of this AFD would be required to overturn that decision. Proponets of inclusion would be wise to explain clearly why these types of lists are actually within the scope of our mission of creating an encyclopedia. Stating that the information is verified, interesting or even citing individual lines of policy text does not cut it. Regards. Draken Bowser ( talk) 11:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
it would actually be of great benefit to that argument if someone would create one of those hypotheticals– List of Braathens destinations (not included in this AfD), which is a former featured list, might be an example. It has a detailed history section and notes the start and stop dates of all destinations. However, one of the reasons it was demoted was that the history section largely repeats prose in the parent article. I would add that the presence of that prose does not change the fact that the list goes against WP:NOTDB. Sunnya343 ( talk) 01:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not saying that this is a bad thing; it's good to have more participation. Though I feel it's important to keep WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in mind. Sunnya343 ( talk) 16:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTRAVEL doesn't apply because no travel guide would list this information.This statement is based on the letter rather than the spirit of the policy. An exhaustive list of cities that people can fly to on an airline as of April 2024 that also informs them when flights to a new destination will start or when service to a particular city will cease, is contrary to the spirit of NOTTRAVEL in my view. This is essentially a case of WP:NOTPRICE (
Listings to be avoided include... products and services), and since the role of the companies in question is transportation, there is overlap with NOTTRAVEL. Sunnya343 ( talk) 05:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Some of the lists include valuable references such as copies of pages in the now-unavailable FlightGlobal archive. I am going to copy them over to the talk pages of the respective parent articles so that they are conserved, regardless of the future of the stand-alone lists. Sunnya343 ( talk) 17:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong; the members of WikiProject Aviation are key stakeholders here. However, when people within a particular community on this site generally have one opinion, and those outside that community generally have another, we have to take WP:LOCALCONSENSUS into account. Sunnya343 ( talk) 20:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
By a wide margin, the AfD close is overturned. Even after identifying a few users who edit mostly in the airline space and discounting their arguments as biased, there's an strong consensus here to overturn.
I'm not saying that as an excuse, though. I apologize for reviewing people's contribution histories, that was not right to do and I went overboard. And you're definitely correct, it's the arguments that matter at the end of the day, not who is making them. I will strike my comment and a related one above. Sunnya343 ( talk) 15:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC) I just realized that it might seem like I was calling out the closer of that deletion review; that was not my intention. Sunnya343 ( talk) 02:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
It’s time to solve the problem in one go and stop pretending there’s anything worth keeping in this category.Sunnya343 ( talk) 20:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Delete per WP:IINFO. The issue is not whether there may be references, the issue is that this is an indiscriminate and ephemeral and trivial. Sunnya343 ( talk) 16:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
No indication of notability. Sources are Google Maps and an insignificant press release, Google hardly finds anything on this organization. Number of members is unsourced. Icodense ( talk) 15:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NSOFT or WP:NPRODUCT. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NSOFT and has been deleted 5 times in the past for not meeting notability or being an advertisement. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Entire article is a mish-mash of WP:SYNTHESIS, seeking to bring disparate events under the Cold War umbrella. See for example many entries at the horrendously bloated infobox such as Wounded Knee Occupation, what does the pre-existing dispute betwen the federal government and native Americans have to do with the Cold War? Then you have the Stonewall riots at "Events and incidents", they are nothing to do with the Cold War either. These aren't isolated examples, there are many, many incidents and groups listed that have have nothing to do with the Cold War. While it's possible a proper article about the subject could be written this definitely isn't it, so per WP:TNT this article shouldn't be allowed to remain. Kathleen's bike ( talk) 14:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Insufficient RSs to establish notability. Searches revealed nothing better. Has published a couple of books and is namechecked in other sources. Not clear where notability lies - probably as an author. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 13:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Agree the notability in theory must come from his work as an author, and he seems to have previously written a successful book but the sources here aren't really about him, and so don't establish his notability. Editing84 ( talk) 14:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Despite a whopping 77 sources, probably still not GNG notable. I can't find a single reliable secondary source independent of the subject covering her in detail. BrigadierG ( talk) 13:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 12:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I've added two refs, but I am afraid this fails WP:GNG. It's a niche meme / anecdote that did not get any WP:SIGCOV. The best source I could find is a PhD thesis that discusses this for about two pages or so; another academic book mentions this in passing and calls it "legendary". There are also WP:OR concerns, such as our article's stress that this was popularized by one "Richard Aronson", sourced to his old post where he focuses on his copyrights for this story - I failed to find any independent source which credits him with "popularizing" this. That said, we are effectively retelling this entire (very short) story, which does raise some copyvio concerns. And then there is the "in popular culture" section which forms half of our article and is pure OR (unreferenced). Sigh. I do find this meme (or anecdote) funny and I've heard it before today, but I am afraid it is not notable. I struggle to suggest where to merge and redirect it. The only page that links to this trivia is Gazebo, where maybe this could be summarized in a few sentences? PS. Last AfD few years ago had a lenghty list of sources about a play called Hannah and the Dread Gazebo, which may be notable, but I am not seeing any evidence that that play was inspired by this anecdote ( this review suggests there may be a connection, but is vague). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🍪
Cookie
Monster 12:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ✗ plicit 14:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails under certain notability guidelines: WP:SIGCOV, GNG, and more 扱. し. 侍. ( talk) 09:25, 12 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) 11:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters#Vaggie. Content can be merged from the history if desired. A 1:1 merger would overwhelm the target article, though. Sandstein 16:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
This article relies mostly about her relationship to Charlie Morningstar. But, despite that, it seems like this [31] is the only good source. BEFORE, most of the sources were from the film reviews and Vaggie was just a passing mention. Fails WP:GNG. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 10:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I couldn't find reliable sources to establish notability, mainly promotional results. Looks like he could be notable, if information is verified, but no evidence of it. Unref blp. Boleyn ( talk) 09:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator, no other delete !votes. (non-admin closure) ~ A412 talk! 19:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
When writing a character article it's important to illustrate what sets the character apart from its base work, and why it's necessary to have a stand-alone article to fully understand it.
Torrent in this case is more of a game mechanic, and even in the sources cited there isn't an indication of importance beyond the game itself. While there is some slight design commentary, the vast majority pertains to Elden Ring itself as a gameplay element to explore the title. It's not a discussion of the horse's character or how players or reviewers reacted to it, but in sources like VG247's there the excitement of riding a horse in a game like this.
Couple it with a dev section that's essentially trivia, and in-universe details to bulk up the "Features" section (why is the exact health regen a thing?) and...yeah. At best, what reception isn't in the Elden Ring article would be better suited there. Kung Fu Man ( talk) 08:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Gillingham F.C. players (1–24 appearances). Liz Read! Talk! 08:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The subject played a very small number of matches for a lower league semi-professional football team. The only sources appear to be databases and club histories. I'm curious to see if others think this person meets the notability criteria. JMWt ( talk) 08:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Nothing definitive has been found to support GNG, therefore the argument analyzing available sources, which finds nomenclature duplicity and nothing supporting GNG for the article topic, is by far the strongest. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Not notable person according to the WP GNG and WP ANYBIO. 扱. し. 侍. ( talk) 10:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Preliminary findings suggest that the subject might meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. However, a more thorough review of the available sources is warranted to ensure all potential coverage has been adequately considered. -- 149.172.122.230 ( talk) 10:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 07:32, 12 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) 11:15, 19 March 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) 08:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. I see a consensus to Keep this article given the sources located (which I hope find their way into the article).
Feel free to disagree with a relisting but please do not go after the non-admin relister, assume good faith. We are very short on admins to close and relist AFD discussions and so any help we can get is appreciated. But we are also seeing fewer editors participating regularly in AFDs so you all are appreciated, too, especially when your efforts lead to an improved article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Not a notable individual. Fails WP:GNG. Possible autobiography. – Muboshgu ( talk) 03:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
opportunities
There are more available. Yolandagonzales ( talk) 16:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source eval for the newly found ones would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk) 08:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NORG, the only sources providing coverage of Incubate Debate itself are local. The reliable sources are generally about the National Speech and Debate Association, with only passing mentions of Incubate Debate. ~ A412 talk! 06:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. People are free to create a redirect later, but for now it's unclear if there is a suitable redirect target. Sandstein 16:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 05:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If you are advocating a Redirect or Merge, you need to identify the target article in each AFD you participate in. One link, and an argument, is what is being looked for. Otherwise, it looks like this article will be Deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of television stations in Colorado#LPTV stations. Liz Read! Talk! 01:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Subject does not meet the GNG. Most references are to the FCC website. Could merge into Dish Network. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 05:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two different proposed Merge target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 16:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
PROD removed. Random name that fails WP:NNAME and WP:NOTDICT. No sources found outside of dictionary definitions, databases and baby name websites. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 03:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD's so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 01:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
[[:ru: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0 Agafonikha (tributary of the Chema) Russian Wikisource: https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%91%D0%AD/%D0%92%D0%A2/%D0%90%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0 (a listing in the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia) Here's a search on Russian Wikinews: https://ru-wikinews-org.translate.goog/?fulltext=1&search=%D0%90%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%BE%CC%81%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0&title=%D0%A1%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F:%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BA&ns0=1&_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp If you suspect that an article with a Russian name is not notable, you need to look at Russian-language sources, starting with the Russian Wikipedia. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 02:57, 12 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) 06:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Bottom line, we need more than two opinions here or this will close as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 16:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Although I found https://newenergy.is/en/portfolio/nordic-hydrogen-partnership/ I doubt there are enough good sources for this to be notable Chidgk1 ( talk) 07:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 06:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Previously declined prod. I could not find coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Note there are other schools in the world with the same name. LibStar ( talk) 04:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 04:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 03:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Colin Goldberg. Per source analysis and strength of arguments, consensus to delete, but a redirect would be helpful for navigation. — Ganesha811 ( talk) 04:53, 2 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}} . |
Techspressionism has no reliable sourcing that it is an art movement or style. The portmanteau coined by an artist, but it entirely his own invention. The references in the article point to interivews, press releases and self created website. There is no reliable sourcing. https://hamptonsarthub.com/2014/10/21/techspressionism-reflects-impact-of-japanese-aesthetics/ is a puff piece on Colin Goldberg. https://www.27east.com/arts/techspressionism-a-global-movement-with-local-roots-1933155/ refers exclusively to Goldberg's self named style. https://www.wired.com/2014/10/if-picasso-had-a-macbook-pro/ has a quote by Goldberg naming his own art. Techspressionism is part of a walled garden created by COI accounts. There is no alternative to deletion. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 22:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:I do think, however, there is a viable alternative to deletion. This article could be redirected to or merged with
Colin Goldberg,
Digital art
Netherzone (
talk) 16:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
"respectfully disagree with your position"is a disingenuous statement after having smeared the nominator's good reputation across multiple off-Wiki online platforms by calling them a "hater" and canvassing a flock of COI single purpose accounts to support your position. That is not how things normally work in this community. There is no hatred going on. Experienced editors like the nominator – who BTW has created over 850 articles most of which are on under-known notable women artists who slipped though the cracks of history – are here to uphold the integrity of the encyclopedia. Challenging the notability of an article is not personal, you only think it is because of your COI and use of undisclosed paid editors in the past to promote yourself and your "movement". Netherzone ( talk) 13:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some input, especially analysis of available source material, from non-canvassed editors would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Seraphimblade
Talk to me 03:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sorry to prolong this discussion but I echo the previous relist and request we get a source analysis here. Consensus is clearly caught between Keeping this article and Merging it and a source review would be helpful. This means listing all sources, in the article and those mentioned here, and assessing their indepdence and reliability, not general statements on how they are insufficient. I just want to note that not all editors arguing to Keep this article are brand new editors who have been canvassed, they may not be proficient editors but they do have some editing experience. Also, aside from the nominator, there is no support for Delete so it looks like this article's content will be somewhere on the project, either Merged to another article or as a standalone article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 03:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Source assessment table: prepared by [[User:
WomenArtistUpdates (
talk) 16:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)]]
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
https://www.wired.com/2014/10/if-picasso-had-a-macbook-pro/ | The source discusses Colin Goldberg | ✘ No | ||
https://www.wliw.org/radio/captivate-podcast/april-19th-2022-colin-goldberg-shirley-ruch/ | This is a local arts listing for WLIR | The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail | ✘ No | |
https://www.danspapers.com/2022/04/techspressionism-movement-southampton/ | This is an local arts listing and interview | non-sig coverage | ✘ No | |
https://aaqeastend.com/commentary/curators-gallery-colin-goldberg-at-glenn-horowitz-bookseller-east-hampton/ | This is an local arts listing and interview | reprint of Colin Goldberg's manifesto | ✘ No | |
https://hamptonsarthub.com/2014/10/21/techspressionism-reflects-impact-of-japanese-aesthetics/ | local coverage | non-sig coverage | ✘ No | |
https://www.pbs.org/video/point-h5mrkp/ | AHA! A House for Arts is a local public television program presented by WMHT. | ✘ No | ||
https://web.archive.org/web/20230112102024/https://www.beyondphotography.online/interviewed-oz-van-rosen/ | ? | interview | interview with Oz Van Rose | ✘ No |
https://www.southamptonartscenter.org/techspressionism | listing for show on the Southampton Arts Center gallery website | promotional material | ✘ No | |
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/editors-picks-may-3-2021-1960431 | listing for lecture “NFT Now” a Techspressionism Zoom | passing mention | ✘ No | |
https://jameslanepost.com/colin-goldberg-curator-of-techspressionism/05/23/2022/Hamptons-News-Happenings/ | local coverage | interview with Colin Goldberg | ✘ 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}}. |
Source assessment table: prepared by
User:WomenArtistUpdates
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
https://hamptonsarthub.com/2014/10/21/techspressionism-reflects-impact-of-japanese-aesthetics/ | local coverage | non-sig coverage | ✘ No | |
https://www.easthamptonstar.com/arts/2022421/expressive-technology | local coverage | non-sig coverage | ✘ 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}}. |
Working on getting the coding right for the 12 citations. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 16:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC) Can't get 12 to show. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 16:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Staraction ( talk | contribs) 01:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Article does not appear to meet WP:NBOOKS; search for sources revealed none to back up notability.
First AfD so if I'm not doing something I'm supposed to please let me know. Staraction ( talk | contribs) 03:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
SourcesA book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
- The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The review notes: "What makes the book so good is the comparative nature of the explanations (because many symbols mean different things in different cultures) which encourages you to look for other links which then takes you on to a different symbol. Soon you're a long way from where you started. Intriguing, informative and thoroughly enjoyable."
The article notes: "And, when the frog croaks, it is claiming divine protection for all living creatures. Gone over the edge? No, I've been reading a dictionary of symbols. If you want to know the significance of everything from an abyss to the zodiac, it's in here."
The article notes: "I think I would call this paperback "fat" rather than "mammoth", but "The Fat Dictionary of Symbols" would not do, and it is actually part of a fairly mammoth series that includes The Mammoth Book of Zombies and The Mammoth Book of Killer Women. It was first published in Belgium in 1989, and contains hundreds of entries on entities of symbolic significance, from "Abyss" to "Zodiac". In her introduction Nadia Julien writes that she has drawn on ..."
This entry verifies that Libraries Unlimited's American Reference Books Annual reviewed this book.
The book notes: "This exceptional source is for those seeking an explanation of signs and symbols found in the majority of works about parapsychology and the occult. Brief entries can be found on the meaning of specific symbols as they are used by both religious and ethnic groups. Illustrations, although in black-and-white, are beneficial."
I don't have access to this review. The Wikipedia article says:
Tim Smith reviewed The Mammoth Dictionary of Symbols for Arcane magazine, rating it a 3 out of 10 overall. Smith comments that "Definitions such as: 'There is a tradition that says that swallows receive the souls of dead kings', or: 'Footwear is an indispensable item of dress in temperate regions', further undermine this as a reference work. That said, it could make a decent enough bog-read if only so you can fill in the gaps yourself."
The result was merge to List of Darkstalkers characters. Even though the related AFD hasn't been closed yet, it looks like it's skewing towards a Keep so I'm moving forward with closing this discussion. If the other article isn't kept, we can change the Merge target article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Going to be direct: this is yet another Niemti effort, and has the same hallmarks as the previous articles: an overreliance on lists that say next to nothing (often how sexy the character is), sources cited for saying more than they actually are, and ultimately nothing said about her character.
Felicia is a very recognizable character. One of the most recognizable ones from the Darkstalkers franchise, alongside Morrigan. However, recognizable does not equate to *discussion*. Even the recently added academic article added has nothing to do with Felicia, but commentary on cosplay in regards to decency laws, and not an examination of Felicia in those regards (Hell even by the article's own admission the cosplay was changed from the character's appearance).
Sadly...you can only say "Felicia is mostly naked" so many times. That alone doesn't merit an article. C. Viper was compared to a King of Fighters character in terms of design by a massive number of publications...and just that. And that didn't survive an AfD. Multiple Dead or Alive female characters also had some variation of "they're sexy" as the crux of their whole article, and they also didn't pass notability standards.
I would really like Felicia to have something, but after extensive searching...all we have is "she's mostly naked and sexy for it" and "she's one of the most recognizable of the lot because she gets reused a lot". That's not a base to build around when all the commentary is the same. Kung Fu Man ( talk) 03:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion as
List of Darkstalkers characters, the proposed Merge target, is also up for a AFD deletion discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 03:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun ( talk) 02:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Can't find anything that would meet WP:SIGCOV online. Fails WP:GNG. ARandomName123 ( talk)Ping me! 02:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. I see a consensus here to Keep this article given the newly found sources. Liz Read! Talk! 23:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Preparatory school lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" required per WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder ( talk) 18:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 18:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
This, I'm afraid, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia.No, I think an argument that GNG is met should be based on some evidence. You will note I specifically asked you "What sourcing have you found that suggests this meets GNG?" (My emphasis). Stating it is met without evidence is not helpful at AfD, and I know you are very experienced with AfD and know how this process works. Thank you for now providing one of your sources. I'll review that. But, of course, GNG requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. So are there any others? I could look myself, of course, and I will. But if you are saying GNG is met, and if you can present your evidence, that could save a lot of duplication of effort. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 20:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Have you even checked the article? A comment like this on an article like this simply discredits you, which certainly implied that only what was already in the article was relevant to an AfD discussion and was verging on a personal attack. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
A comment like this on an article like this simply discredits youare certainly very close to a personal attack. Don't really see how you can deny that. I am not "discredited" by expressing my honest opinion just because you don't happen to agree with it. Just don't make comments like that about other editors and we'll all be happy. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 21:20, 18 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) 01:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
SourcesAll universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)
The article notes: "In 1970, Dr. Barry Tull was a young public school teacher who decided to take a chance on a little private school in Berlin. He’s been at Worcester Preparatory School (WPS) ever since and is marking his 30th year as headmaster. In its 45-year history, the school has had just two headmasters with the other being founding Headmaster Franklin Lynch. ... Today, WPS has more than quadrupled in size, amassing almost 550 students from pre-kindergarten to 12th grade, and its campus on the south end of Berlin’s Main Street has grown to 45 acres and has become a pristine landmark of high quality education in the community. ... While WPS can boast staggering academic achievements, the cost of that education is something that can stop many families from even considering sending their children there."
The thesis says the approvers are:
I agree with Sirfurboy regarding the primary and secondary source analysis. I consider this thesis to be sufficiently reliable as it was reviewed and approved by three senior leaders at the University of Delaware (the guideline mentions "supervised by recognized specialists in the field" as contributing to reliability). The thesis notes on pages 1–2: "Worcester Preparatory School is a private coed preparatory day school. The campus is located on the Eastern Shore of Maryland in the town of Berlin. More than 500 students from Preschool through Grade 12 attend Worcester Preparatory School. The students come from all over Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia. The school is known for high academic standards and preparation for college. ... The teaching of social skills begins in the second grade at Worcester. Second-grade students complete a course called Manners, which includes introductions, telephone manners, how to treat a guest and be a guest, writing invitations and thank-you notes, and table manners. This is a classroom course taught by the second-grade social studies teacher. In addition, Worcester Preparatory School wants a social skills curriculum for the fourth grade, which consists of two classes of eighteen students, for a total of thirty-six students, diversified in gender and race. The fourth-grade faculty at Worcester wants the social skills curriculum to include table etiquette, cell phone etiquette, Internet etiquette (netiquette), social etiquette, and appearance. The faculty wants technology incorporated into the course."</ref>* Dissertations – Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.
The article notes: "There's a new million-dollar Athletic and Performing Arts Center at the Worcester Country School in Berlin. The building is part of the independent school's 20th anniversary celebration and is already in use for indoor sports activities, parent meetings, class sessions and dramatic and musical productions. This building, however, is not the only news at the preschool-through-grade 12 school. ... One of the Worcester Country School teachers was named the top middle school science teacher in the nation by the National Science Teachers' Association; two of the teachers have received commendations from Gov. William Donald Schaefer; several have been honored by computer and software companies; and, the students are continually being recognized for excellence in mathematics, essay writing, community service and computer use. In the past year, WCS teachers received two national awards, and students were honored by Center Stage for play writing, the Daughters of the American Revolution and the American Legion for essay writing, Apple Computer Inc. for community service, the Computer Learning Foundation for a student novel and by the Math Counts competition in Annapolis for having for the highest scoring math team in the region."
The article notes: "On July 26, Academic Dean Dr. Merle Marsh, representing the Worcester Country School, will be honored by President Reagan at a national awards ceremony on the south lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C. The honor is a result of the 1987 project of the school's Computer Club featuring a public information campaign about Assateague National Seashore. Marsh served as the adviser for the student project. Superintendent Rodger Rector of Assateague nominated the school for this national award. ... The Worcester Country School group has already received national awards from Apple Computer Inc. for this project. The students involved which included children in grades 4-6 from the Eastern Shores of Maryland and Virginia and Southern Delaware, were also honored with a plaque presented to them in the Office of the Secretary of the Interior by the Head of the National Parks Bill Mott and the Superintendent of the Assateague National Seashore Rodger Rector. Throughout the Worcester Country School's community service project the students used their computer skills to learn about and inform others about the erosion problems of the beaches."
The book provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "Worcester Country School, the region's independent school, opened in 1970, changing its name to Worcester Preparatory School in 1999 to reflect its college preparatory mission."
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP: N. I can't find any additional sources that would establish notability. Of the four sources on the page, two don't mention the library by name, and the other two are from Microsoft. This apparently had a PROD within an hour of the article's creation in 2013 which is kind of silly, but I'm sending this to AfD just to be safe. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 03:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 00:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 01:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Slackware#Dependency resolution. as an ATD. I don't think this discussion will benefit from an third relisting. Liz Read! Talk! 01:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
A PROD on this article was removed because "Swaret was used" at some point in the past. The justification, based on the edit history, is that a singular user on a public forum said that they used the package some unknown amount of time ago. I'm sending this to AfD because this added source does not establish notability. It's not reliable, does not provide extensive coverage, and it isn't clear whether the source is necessarily secondary. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 03:05, 12 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! 00:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 01:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) microbiologyMarcus petri dish· growths 17:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet the
WP:GNG, though I will note the common name when looking for sources. The bibliography of the article when moved out of the draftspace was extensive,
given here if it aids in anyone's reference search in an attempt to meet
WP:NAUTHOR, but most of those only appear to be chapters in various books. Withdrawn.
microbiologyMarcus
petri dish·
growths 00:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)