Purge server cache
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
09:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
Louisiana Tech Bulldogs football, 1901–1909 (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
I am also nominating the following related pages:
-
Louisiana Tech Bulldogs football, 1910–1919 (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
-
Louisiana Tech Bulldogs football, 1920–1929 (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
-
Louisiana Tech Bulldogs football, 1930–1939 (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
-
Louisiana Tech Bulldogs football, 1940–1949 (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
-
Louisiana Tech Bulldogs football, 1950–1959 (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
-
Louisiana Tech Bulldogs football, 1960–1969 (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
-
Louisiana Tech Bulldogs football, 1970–1979 (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
-
Louisiana Tech Bulldogs football, 1980–1989 (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
-
Louisiana Tech Bulldogs football, 1990–1999 (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Well-cited individual season articles have been created for every season of the
Louisiana Tech Bulldogs football program. These decade articles no longer serve a useful purpose, and I don't think they would serve a useful purpose as redirects since they are implausible search terms.
Jweiss11 (
talk)
18:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of American football-related deletion discussions.
Shellwood (
talk)
00:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions.
Shellwood (
talk)
00:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep.
Eddie891
Talk
Work
20:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
JPT Scare Band (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Some coverage, but I don't think it passes GNG and they definitely don't meet MUSICBIO.
Boleyn (
talk)
18:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
Shellwood (
talk)
18:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Missouri-related deletion discussions.
Shellwood (
talk)
18:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - The article definitely needs to be cleaned up, but the band has more coverage than currently used in the article. They have a reliable staff-written bio at AllMusic:
[1], and coverage of the "lost classic" variety at these sources of varying reliability:
[2],
[3],
[4],
[5]. They're an obscure cult act but with some cleanup there is enough for a basic article here. ---
DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS)
14:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Weak Keep I think it barely passes
WP:GNG due to articles by
LouderSound,
Decible Magazine, and
Goldmine Magazine. Keeping in mind that
WP:INTERVIEW sources are primary sources not secondary.
TipsyElephant (
talk)
22:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified by Doomsdayer that shows a pass of
WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view,
Atlantic306 (
talk)
23:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I find HighKing's contribution the most persuasive from a policy standpoint, and I also note here that I discounted two contributions (one keep, one comment) on the basis of
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
Daniel (
talk)
22:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
Beam Therapeutics (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
not yet notable -- no products, just raising money.
DGG (
talk )
22:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Companies-related deletion discussions.
Shellwood (
talk)
22:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.
Shellwood (
talk)
22:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete — Per nom rationale by
DGG. Furthermore I don’t see any
WP:ORGDEPTH and needless to say,
WP:ORG isn’t satisfied.
Celestina007 (
talk)
00:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: There are other biotechnology companies with articles, such as
CRISPR Therapeutics, who do not have approved drugs, but whose notability is inferred by sources.
Uhooep (
talk)
12:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Comment as a publicly listed company with a $5 billion market cap, and with notable principles, I would assume it is notable. However, there seems to be almost no public information on this company; their
S-1 is probably the best source for what the company actually is, and that's a primary source.
User:力 (power~enwiki,
π,
ν)
18:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - there are lots of stubs on Wikipedia, what is the problem with including an article like this? Throwing articles like this out of Wikipedia is of no benefit. The fact that the company is worth billions of dollars and the article is building a references list of reliable sources should mean that notability is met. -
Indefensible (
talk)
22:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - Google reports "About 120,000" results mentioning the phrase "Beam Therapeutics"; Bing reports "432,000 Results", which IMHO should pass the notability test by itself. Not only is it publicly traded as
User:力 points out, a NASDAQ.com article from a month ago names it one of the
"5 Gene Editing Stocks To Watch Now" - a secondary source which appears to be independent (given the inclusion of 5 companies, rather than just shilling for one). They have announced human trials of three products (BEAM-101, BEAM-102, BEAM-201), which would seem to contradict the claim of "no products"? And while the article's cited Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News article mostly summarizes the S-1 and company PR, it appears to have additional color and quotes from interviewing a principal (which I found was excerpted from a
longer article in the same publication which covers the academic research on their base editing technology and also mentions Beam Therapeutics in a dozen paragraphs). -
2604:2D80:D90E:7C00:18FB:6657:28FA:F00C (
talk)
14:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with
in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing
"Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either mentions-in-passing standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails
WP:NCORP.
HighKing
++
21:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)
21:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
Columbia University Department of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Lack of independent, significant, and in-depth coverage (like most articles of this sort)
Filetime (
talk)
22:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Education-related deletion discussions.
Shellwood (
talk)
22:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of New York-related deletion discussions.
Shellwood (
talk)
22:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - I really, really tried to find reasons not to delete this, but I failed. This department doesn't seem any more notable than other humanities departments in North America, and academic departments neither inherit the university's notability nor do they generally meet the GNG. Considering the fact that this article is over a decade old and still only sourced by the subject's web site, I think it's fair to say that extensive coverage over time hasn't been established.
MezzoMezzo (
talk)
10:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, any information concerning this department is really about Columbia University. Notability, budgeting, power and decision-making are all done at the University level (in the United States, at least), or by the professors.
Abductive (
reasoning)
19:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete I would urge merging if there were any third party sources, but there are not. Individual departments are not notable.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
13:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Schools-related deletion discussions.
Necrothesp (
talk)
08:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep.
Eddie891
Talk
Work
20:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
William I. Orr (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Doesn't meet
WP:BIO or
WP:GNG. Passed previous AfD, but that was in 2006 - we have moved a long way since then in terms of what we accept.
Boleyn (
talk)
17:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.
Shellwood (
talk)
17:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
Shellwood (
talk)
17:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of New York-related deletion discussions.
Shellwood (
talk)
17:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- weak keep it seems like an important subject in the history of radio with his involvement in
Amateur_radio_satellite#OSCAR_1 and the "Radio handbook" which is cited in the scientific literature I am willing to give this the benefit of the doubt. But I question whether there is enough
WP:RS on this person to really justify an article. --
hroest
- Keep. Notable in his field. I was able to find an online transcription of what appeared to be a printed obituary, and this clearly demonstrated his notability in the area of ham radio. I note that he also appears to have references in the print copies of ham radio magazines, but these do not seem to have been digitised.
RomanSpa (
talk)
21:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Weak keep. I'd be more strong in my support if I could find published reviews for his books (likely in ham radio magazines). But I think the obituaries we have are enough to indicate his significance in the area and pass
WP:GNG. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
06:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The "keep" !votes boil down to
WP:ITSIMPORTANT, without presenting any evidence of that in reliable sources.
Randykitty (
talk)
08:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
Beseh-Rahbari (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Does not meet the criteria of an organization or place.
Persia ☘
08:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Iran-related deletion discussions.
☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (
talk)
08:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (
talk)
08:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Islam-related deletion discussions.
Spiderone
(Talk to Spider)
18:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep This district of Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist representation in the affairs of Hajj and pilgrimage is entirely a known organization, especially by noting that it is related to the highest-ranking position in Iran --i.e. the supreme leader... It has sufficient cover in the media/internet, too.
Ali Ahwazi (
talk)
13:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Media coverage by media outlets that are affiliated with the government itself.--
Persia ☘
15:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Beseh-Rahbari is an institution that represents the Supreme Leader in matters of Hajj and Pilgrimage, but "The Hajj and Pilgrimage Organization" is an "independent state agency" affiliated with the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance responsible for conducting and monitoring pilgrimage trips to Hajj, Umrah and pilgrimage to Iraq and Syria shrines; and they're two difference things.
Ali Ahwazi (
talk)
12:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to
1960 New York mid-air collision. If the merge is attempted and there is a clear consensus at the target to reject mentioning his name, then this page may be speedily deleted per
WP:CSD#G6 as an implementation of the RfD consensus that we shouldn't redirect to a page which doesn't mention the subject.
King of ♥
♦
♣
♠
05:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
Stephen Baltz (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
This is mostly a procedural listing following
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 17#Stephen Baltz. Baltz was the sole survivor of the
1960 New York mid-air collision, but died from his injuries the following day. He is mentioned in the article, but not by name, per an apparently firm consensus against listing such survivors of air disasters. Given this unclear connection, the redirect came up at RfD. I don't necessarily favor deletion; I just oppose reverting this to an undiscussed redirect.
BDD (
talk)
20:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
BDD (
talk)
20:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.
BDD (
talk)
20:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Pinging the RfD participants
108.41.60.144,
Thryduulf,
WilliamJE,
Oiyarbepsy,
Joseph2302,
PEIsquirrel,
Tavix.
Jay
(Talk)
09:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Either Keep or merge with a mention of Baltz to
1960 New York mid-air collision, per Ivanvector in the RfD (
coverage in a major publication 40+ years after the incident (
[6]) and the existence of a memorial plaque (
[7]) demonstrate notability
). The sources make clear that there is still interest in him, so this information needs to exist somewhere. I'm fine with keeping a separate article if that's what it takes to satisfy having him named in the collision article, otherwise I lean more towards a merge (keeping
WP:1E in mind). --
Tavix (
talk)
21:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect without a merge. This is a classic case of a
person known only for a single event, who has no other claim to notability. It is impossible to write an article on this person without the additional context of the plane crash. That said, the content in this article is excessively detailed for an article on the plane crash. Now, while the article doesn't currently give his name, I think that is acceptable in this case, as long as the redirect points to the section that describes him as the lone "survivor" (which I put in quotes because dying the next day instead of at the scene does not make someone a survivor).
Oiyarbepsy (
talk)
22:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- I suppose this is better than a non-section redirect, since readers will probably be able to put two and two together. --
BDD (
talk)
15:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- If readers have to "put two and two together" to get information, then we're not doing our job as an encyclopedia.
Ivanvector's squirrel (
trees/
nuts)
16:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Merge and redirect - in the RfD a point was raised about a manual of style forbidding mentioning non-notable victims of aviation accidents. Baltz is notable in that context, as evidenced by ongoing coverage half a century later (per Tavix, and per my comments in the RfD), and he should be mentioned there. I don't see any reason for there to be a separate article, as Baltz's notability cannot be separated from the accident.
Ivanvector's squirrel (
trees/
nuts)
16:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. As per comments below, nominator has withdrawn. No other editors have voted in favour of deletion.
(non-admin closure)
Spiderone
(Talk to Spider)
22:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
Nishana (1980 film) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Non notable film, appears to fail
WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a
WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Film-related deletion discussions.--
Filmomusico (
talk)
22:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of India-related deletion discussions.--
Filmomusico (
talk)
22:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- So, who will remove the AfD tag?--
Filmomusico (
talk)
19:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
Filmomusico - if you wish to state that you are withdrawing, I or another uninvolved editor can speedy close the AfD.
Spiderone
(Talk to Spider)
22:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- {@
Spiderone: Yes. I'm more then pleased to withdraw the nomination. :)--
Filmomusico (
talk)
22:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Noting also that the nominator has withdrawn their nomination.
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
09:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
Kala Bazaar (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Non notable film, appears to fail
WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a
WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Film-related deletion discussions.--
Filmomusico (
talk)
00:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of India-related deletion discussions.--
Filmomusico (
talk)
00:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Please do not presume to speak on my behalf or know for sure what I was referring to. This film is exactly the film I was talking about. As a matter of fact,
I've added several sources on the article. A very random choice, indeed.
Shahid •
Talk2me
10:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
Keep Notable film.†
Encyclopædius
18:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep.
✗
plicit
12:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
2010 Fox Glacier FU-24 crash (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Tragic but fails
WP:AIRCRASH.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof?
17:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Events-related deletion discussions.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof?
17:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof?
17:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof?
17:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof?
17:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep It may fail to meet the essay of WP:AIRCRASH, but
WP:GNG is easily met, as per the
previous AfD discussion.
Lugnuts
Fire Walk with Me
17:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep It does not fail
WP:AIRCRASH, which states that an aviation accident is notable if "The accident resulted in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, including changes to national or company procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directive (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft)." The article states that "The final report was released in May 2012. It recommended tightened regulation of centre-of-gravity calculations, change of use modifications and parachute pilot monitoring." -
ZLEA
T\
C
18:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - this article passes
WP:EVENT as it did result in permanent changes in procedures. -
Ahunt (
talk)
19:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Meets
WP:GNG. This is not just an article about a plane crash, it is an article about a botched investigation by the New Zealand Transport Accident Investigation Commission that initially came up with a fairly flimsy and unbelievable cause of the crash, having botched the investigation, allowing key parts of the plane wreckage to be buried a mere three days after the accident. After public protests and pressure, the commission admitted that it had mishandled the investigation, and that the conclusions in the original accident report were unlikely to have caused the accident. The scandal resulted in more than a million dollars of new funding and additional investigators added to the New Zealand Transport Accident Investigation Commission. Sadly, this information was removed from the article shortly before it was nominated for deletion.
RecycledPixels (
talk)
00:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - Seems to fairly easily meet
WP:GNG.
HumanBodyPiloter5 (
talk)
23:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. This was a very big deal when it happened, considering it claimed nine lives which is fairly significant for airtime disasters that happened in New Zealand. Passes
WP:GNG.
Ajf773 (
talk)
00:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - the botched investigation pushes this one high up the notability scale.
Mjroots (
talk)
04:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep and
WP:SNOWBALL as it meets
WP:GNG.—
NZFC
(talk)
(cont)
00:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Noting that the nominator has withdrawn their nomination also.
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
10:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
Poola Rangadu (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Non notable film, appears to fail
WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a
WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.
PROD removed because "Declined g11", but it have no other sources other then external links which are used as sources..--
Filmomusico (
talk)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Film-related deletion discussions.--
Filmomusico (
talk)
15:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of India-related deletion discussions.--
Filmomusico (
talk)
14:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. I declined the G11. There was no PROD. The movie looks notable enough, although the Plot section is gibberish.--
Bbb23 (
talk)
00:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- @
Bbb23: We need at least two reliable sources to make it worthwhile of inclusion. Reliable sources for a Bollywood films are: The Hindu, The Times of India, Deccan Chronicle, and Bollywood Hungama. I see non of those sources listing specifically this film or even mentioning it. A review from those publications would be enough, I just don't see it. Maybe there are reviews in Telugu, Tamil, Malayalam, or Hindi, but I know none of those tongues.--
Filmomusico (
talk)
16:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Doesn't qualify
WP:NFILM. I won't even count Bollywood Hungama as a good enough source for films. But I am surprised to find no reviews despite having a strong notable casting. Maybe reviews exists in other languages. But we can't assume they do and they must be presented for this page to be included at Wikipedia.
Nomadicghumakkad (
talk)
16:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The Indian Express is also good. @
Bbb23: No. This was something that was stated by a debate participant in this project for the July 13 nomination of one of the articles. I should have provided a source and quote it. :)--
Filmomusico (
talk)
18:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs on Indian films by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --
Finngall
talk
16:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per
WP:NFO.
Mullapudi Venkata Ramana won
Andhra Pradesh state-presented
Nandi Award for Best Story Writer for the film.
[1] Also added a full-length review from Zamin Ryot.
[2] --
Ab207 (
talk)
15:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗
plicit
12:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
Aniela Allotey (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Borderline A7 eligible article on a non notable individual who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus a GNG fail. A before search predominantly search turns up only hits in primary sources and uner generated sources, see
here and and
here and in mere announcements or mention her in passing see
here. Hence ]]WP:SIGCOV]] is definitely not met..
Celestina007 (
talk)
12:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Television-related deletion discussions.
Celestina007 (
talk)
12:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions.
Celestina007 (
talk)
12:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Ghana-related deletion discussions.
Celestina007 (
talk)
12:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Women-related deletion discussions.
Spiderone
(Talk to Spider)
12:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- delete as TooSoon; I think @Celestina is right about sources. All I can find (apart from her degree and social-media sites) are copious nearly-identical announcements that she's to become the host of a show (from March this year; to my mind, these count as a single announcement as they probably all stem from the same press release). She may prove notable when she's been in post for a bit, or later in her career, if more people write about what she does, but it hasn't happened yet.
Elemimele (
talk)
18:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗
plicit
12:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
Geert R. A. Kliphuis (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
No
WP:SIGCOV on his career to determine notability; no chart information for his music to satisfy
WP:NSINGER; does not appear to meet criteria of
WP:NAUTHOR either. –
DarkGlow •
11:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions. –
DarkGlow •
11:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Authors-related deletion discussions. –
DarkGlow •
11:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. –
DarkGlow •
11:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. –
DarkGlow •
11:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- delete, I'm struggling to find anything about him at all. Unless I'm really bad at Google searches (which is quite possible) it's going to be a real stretch to establish any notability whatsoever. The book "Dutch guitarists" which pops up in Google as available from Amazon has a disclaimer that it is made up of Wikipedia articles; all the other things I found were WP articles or mirrors of them; he seems to have called himself Jay Conrad when writing lyrics for an album 'Steeltown girls', in which he hasn't done us any favours as a Google search for 'Jay Conrad' turns up mostly
Jay Conrad Levinson (someone else). Rarely has a potentially-notable person managed to remain so firmly below Google's radar. Can anyone find anything Dutch?
Elemimele (
talk)
18:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete.
Elemimele, I could find a Dutch-language column that Kliphuis wrote for the distinguished NRC Handelsblad. I have added it as a reference, unformatted as this this article most likely will go do the drain. As far as I can tell, Kliphuis made a decent contribution to several media products and services, still fails the
WP:GNG and
WP:NCREATIVE.
WP:NOTINHERETED also applies to this article in its current state.
gidonb (
talk)
23:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗
plicit
12:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
Cow Creek, Florida (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Another seemingly non-existent community with very little references. There is nothing showing a community on topos or aerials, just empty land. There are only two relevant Newspaper pings- a 2011 obituary that notes a woman was born in Cow Creek, FL in 1914, and a Discovery Channel special that visited a ranch in Cow Creek in 1968 (that I can't make out on period aerials). Only relevant Google Books result is a listing for that same Discovery special. Additionally, on topos, "Cow Creek" is not marked as separate from the actual creek Cow Creek that runs alongside it until 2012, which, funnily, is a year after this Wikipedia article was made...
Pokemonprime (
talk)
11:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Geography-related deletion discussions.
Pokemonprime (
talk)
11:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
Pokemonprime (
talk)
11:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Florida-related deletion discussions.
Pokemonprime (
talk)
11:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗
plicit
12:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
Contemporary Wales (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Doesn't meet
WP:N. Possible
WP:ATD is redirect to publisher, but not mentioned in that article. Also a potentially ambiguous term - could just as well be redirected to the Wales page's sectino covering modern history.
Boleyn (
talk)
11:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions.
Shellwood (
talk)
11:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Wales-related deletion discussions.
Shellwood (
talk)
11:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Move to draft. Quite an old article and clearly unacceptable in its present form but could possibly be rescued.
Deb (
talk)
08:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
Move to draft. Concur with
Deb
Sheijiashaojun (
talk)
22:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC) Later convinced by comments below, so Delete. 23:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. This article has been around since 2009 and I don't see why moving it to draft would suddenly motivate editors to go out looking for sources. As the nom mentions, the title is an ambiguous search term and not surprisingly a Google search gives lots of hits but nothing about this journal. MIAR does
not list any database including this journal. I also failed to find a current homepage for the journal. It's not on the website of its publisher (University of Wales Press) nor can I find a website for the "Board of Celtic Studies", even though the
Welsh National Library says that it is still published (but only lists issues until 2000). As I cannot even verify that the journal still exists, I see no other option than deletion. --
Randykitty (
talk)
07:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as an apparently-defunct minor journal (last issue I can find 2014
[8]) with no sourced evidence of greater significance or in-depth coverage. I don't see the point in moving to draft; that's just a way of saying "delete by the back door in six months". If you want to fix it up so that it can be saved from deletion, do it now, don't just hope that someone else might find the interest to rescue it. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
22:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Vanamonde (
Talk)
10:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
Adem Ayral (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Some coverage but I couldn't find enough to show he meets
WP:NACTOR or
WP:GNG. Has been in
CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. It doesn't have a Turkish article, but has in two other languages, neither of which have convincing evidence of notability. I may be missing something due to language.
Boleyn (
talk)
09:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.
Shellwood (
talk)
10:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.
Shellwood (
talk)
10:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
user:BookwormbilgeliK, it isn't acceptable to just unilaterally recreate if articles are deleted at AfD. You give your opinion here, and accept the general consensus, even if you disagree with it.
Boleyn (
talk)
10:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. No viable claims for deletion.
(non-admin closure) ––
𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲
talk
19:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
Grace Randolph (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Extreme lack of
Notability to the point where not even a single reputable source is available to verify the age or the birthday of the
living person. Most cited sources are
WP:PSEUDO and highly
WP:NOTRELIABLE.
Jaconsarto (
talk)
06:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Women-related deletion discussions.
Spiderone
(Talk to Spider)
11:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Internet-related deletion discussions.
Spiderone
(Talk to Spider)
11:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.
Spiderone
(Talk to Spider)
11:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy Keep Clearly notable. The mention of
WP:NOTRELIABLE is just ridiculous (sources include Inverse, USA Today, Bleeding Cool, the Austin Chronicle, the Comics Bulletin, etc.), and per
WP:PSEUDO, while some of the sources merely mention her, others are articles about her. If we deleted pages just because we didn't have a source for someone's birthdate, we'd be deleting hundreds of pages each day of prominent actors.
Grandpallama (
talk)
14:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy Keep The article already overcame one nomination for deletion many years ago when it had far fewer references. Significant news sources like The Hindustan Times, New York Post, Vanity Fair, Yahoo! Movies, and AV Club have used her for legitimate entertainment industry information. Several local American news channels have regularly had her on air for her movie industry knowledge. She is the most-watched female film critic and reporter on Youtube. If people like Chris Stuckmann, Andy Signore, and Lindsay Ellis qualify for a Wikipedia entry, Grace Randolph certainly does.
AWildAppeared (
talk)
11:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I manually removed India, Indonesia, and Philippines for which there is no consensus to delete, I am deleting the rest. I will be happy to recreate individual articles on case-by-case basis, though.
Tone
08:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
France at major beauty pageants (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
At the advice of
Dream Focus (
talk ·
contribs) at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denmark at major beauty pageants, there is no real point in nominating these articles in batches anymore — the contents are pretty much identical (side-by-side presentation of data on participants at the
Big Four international beauty pageants, even with identical formatting and all) consensus is pretty much rock solid for deleting them as
WP:IINFO and
WP:SYNTH, and due to the
User:Asartea/Pageants AFD, 129 countries and territories will be covered by
G4 should they get recreated. So goes 88 more articles as presented here. Big
WP:AWBREQ excercise coming up. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
78 delsorts
|
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Events-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Africa-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Japan-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Laos-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Israel-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of India-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Europe-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of France-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Germany-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Greece-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Italy-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Norway-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Russia-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Spain-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Wales-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of South America-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Grenada-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Panama-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Peru-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
|
- EDIT: Adding the following 3 articles and their delsorts:
-
Curaçao at major beauty pageants (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
-
Poland at major beauty pageants (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
-
Singapore at major beauty pageants (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
–
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Poland-related deletion discussions. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete all of them. These are not articles in the sense that a human being wrote them: they could perfectly well be "written" by a computer program, and maybe they were.
Athel cb (
talk)
06:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Neutral comment A good number of these articles were human-written years ago, then had this ghastly grid pasted onto them. It may be best to look at each one individually to see if they worked in a previous form rather then yet another kitchen-sink pageant nom like this. It really feels like we have a hostility to them that's been over-trebled by a minority of editors who could do better to fix things and help editors rather than continuing to micro-manage
WP:PAGEANTS (and a note to noms; start notifying that project of pageant-related deletion discussions. I don't care about its semi-active state. It's the proper and polite thing to do. I'll do it this time, but just del-sorting is not enough).
Nate • (
chatter)
08:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. If by "ghastly grid" you mean the table of years and competitors, it was already there on 1st April 2014 when the France page was created. It may be worth noting the editor who created it is now blocked indefinitely for suspected sockpuppetry. The same editor created a great many other beauty-related articles, such as
Miss Honduras.
Athel cb (
talk)
08:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions.
Spiderone
(Talk to Spider)
13:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete all, not encyclopedic.--
Hippeus (
talk)
13:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete all per
WP:NOTSTATS and
WP:FANCRUFT; since that is exactly what those pages are. Also Not really relevant since
WP:DINC, but nvm; urgh; some people just have no taste at all as far as aesthetics are concerned...
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
15:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Comment The sheer amount of data is striking, should be an external database or private wiki. Unfortunate, someone(s) put a lot of effort into it. Would like to see the pages recoverable should anyone in the future choose to move it elsewhere. --
Green
C
15:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The user doing this was blocked for sockpuppets.
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrdhimas/Archive Anyone can use
/info/en/?search=Special:Export and
https://list.fandom.com/wiki/Special:Import
Dream Focus
17:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Just did it. Everything in the category I did port over fast and easy.
https://list.fandom.com/wiki/Special:Log/import list them all.
Dream Focus
17:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- delete alll. There is waste of time to handle them individually. If someone wants to undelete any of them individually, citing serious reasons, then let the ball be on their side.
Lembit Staan (
talk)
19:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - all - as in other Afd.
Onel5969
TT me
23:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete All Per the last AfD and everything stated above. ––
𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲
talk
19:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete all considering the consensus was already well in favour to remove the first few alphabetic bundles.
Ajf773 (
talk)
00:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
Delete all As per nom in their current state as
WP:TNT, though If anyone wants to salvage a country or two with proper articles (ex. describe the selection process, or notable events that only concern the country itself), I'd say let them have a go at it. Also noting that
Template:Countries at major beauty pageants will need to be TfD as well.
Jumpytoo
Talk 03:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC
- Dushan is right in that a few of these articles do have some depth to them. I only initially checked the big western countries and I assumed the rest were similar. I skimmed through every article and these 3 have enough that at least they should be sent individually, if not outright kept:
- There might be a few more that I missed (I only focused on the part above the table), but other than those 3, delete the rest.
Jumpytoo
Talk
21:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete all per
WP:TNT. As people do watch and follow this kind of talent shows, I would not be against a well-balanced and written country series. The current articles, however, are really bad so we're better off with all gone.
gidonb (
talk)
16:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete all. blablabla
WP:INDISCRIMINATE blablabla
WP:LISTN.
JBchrch
talk
21:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I don't think we would delete the
Indonesia_at_major_beauty_pageants page if it was not part of a mass deletion. The list could be deleted from this article and it would still stand. I only looked at three pages, has anyone looked at all 87, are we deleting pages without looking at them. Don't mistake me for someone who cares, but first they came for the pageant lists and next they will be after earthquake lists, I didn't want to say nothing.
Dushan Jugum (
talk)
09:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete all per
WP:NOTSTATS.
SBKSPP (
talk)
00:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete all per
WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There is no use of making these kind of article on
Wikipedia.
Lara (
talk)
03:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete articles with no in-depth coverage, and Keep the few as per Dushan and Jumpytoo (Indonesia, India, Philippines). Not a pageant fan myself but it would be easy to create an article that would pass
WP:GNG in countries where these pageants are taken seriously (e.g. Philippines).
Hariboneagle927 (
talk)
10:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - I agree with the others that have singled out India, Philippines and Indonesia as ones that should not be deleted as part of this AfD.
Spiderone
(Talk to Spider)
23:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - upon reviewing all the articles in question, I concur to Keep India, Philippines and Indonesia; these articles contain third party reliable sources and should not be deleted as part of this AfD.---
Richie Campbell (
talk)
02:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep for
Philippines at major beauty pageants. Beauty pageants in the Philippines is just like the
Olympics or
Superbowl according to the articles indicated below. If you only look closely at the article,
Philippines at major beauty pageants or search for reliable sources online, you'll find a plethora of third party reliable sources to support and to improve the article. Below are just some examples and you can search for more through google:
---
Richie Campbell (
talk)
03:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep All and create more similar articles. These articles are basically a list of womens, almost all of whom will qualify for
WP:BIO if sufficinet research is done using local media. Having a historic record of people who took part in world wide compitition is useful not only for now, but for future generations. Also these articles will be a good starting point for researchers. Having something is better than nothing. Also respect the authours and their contribution who created those articles.
nirmal (
talk)
04:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Why do we need to create even more articles that violate
WP:NOT? Please can you tell me which Wikipedia inclusion guideline
Gibraltar at major beauty pageants meets? Also
WP:ITSUSEFUL,
WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST and
WP:IWORKEDSOHARD are classic examples of arguments to avoid at AfD. It is not Wikipedia's place to be a starting point for researchers, we should only be publishing research that has already been done by established people in the field.
Spiderone
(Talk to Spider)
08:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to
Ang Dalawang Ikaw. The basic question here is not one of notability, but of whether we need one large article, or an article and a list. With respect to this question, the argument that there isn't enough content to necessitate a split is persuasive, and has not been rebutted.
Vanamonde (
Talk)
13:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
List of Ang Dalawang Ikaw episodes (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Poorly referenced
TheHotwiki (
talk)
05:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Television-related deletion discussions.
Shellwood (
talk)
08:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Lists-related deletion discussions.
Shellwood (
talk)
08:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.
Shellwood (
talk)
08:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- What?
TheHotwiki (
talk)
12:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Striking
AnsrieJames9's second vote and restoring the first vote he erased. You can comment anytime you want, but you can vote only once.
ASTIG😎 (
ICE T •
ICE CUBE)
11:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- @
Superastig: When do we expect to see these reliable sources? The article has been proposed for deletion for days and nothing has been done to the article especially with reliable references.
TheHotwiki (
talk)
08:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
Hotwiki, I just added one. Given that these sources are hard to find or occasionally posted, anyone (even I) can add any of them by the following days or weeks. It's
no big deal at all. Like I said,
there is no deadline.
ASTIG😎 (
ICE T •
ICE CUBE)
11:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- @
Superastig: If you can't find enough sources and then you shouldn't have made a separate article for episodes.
Ang Dalawang Ikaw isn't a big article to begin with.
TheHotwiki (
talk)
12:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
Hotwiki, there's really nothing wrong with creating a separate article for a list of episodes days after a certain series was premiered. Shows like this don't usually have a fixed duration. I don't mind if it's tagged as a stub. Anyone like me can add some more by the following days or weeks if they have found some. I have explained more than enough. And I won't reply to this post again. My keep stands.
ASTIG😎 (
ICE T •
ICE CUBE)
15:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- There's also nothing wrong by merging to another article, as the article for The Dalawang Ikaw isn't big.
TheHotwiki (
talk)
18:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Lists have to be well sourced which
List of Ang Dalawang Ikaw episodes isn't. It is also borderline
Wikipedia:Fancruft. Also
Ang Dalawang Ikaw is not a big article to warrant a separate episode list article. Also the episode list article was made before the series aired more than five episodes. I hope editors will read
Wikipedia:Article size before making another list of episodes article.
TheHotwiki (
talk)
09:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Regardless of it being started when there were 5 episodes, there are very clearly more than 5 episodes as of now.
matt91486 (
talk)
16:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Again, there's no
WP:DEADLINE. This is not bordering on fancruft, as it it's not about an obscure or esoteric part of the show, it's about its episodes. By that logic, every single episode list of an underseen Filipino television show is fancruft. The relevant guideline here is
WP:Merging which states that merges are to be avoided if 1. The resulting article would be too long or "clunky" (I think that's the case here), 2. The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles (I think that's the case here) and 3. The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short (I think that's the case here).
Koikefan (
talk)
16:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Both
Ang Dalawang Ikaw and
List of Ang Dalawang Ikaw episodes aren't long articles. An example of a long article is
COVID-19 pandemic.
TheHotwiki (
talk)
19:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Despite multiple relists, participants do no seem to agree on whether the sources covering this group are sufficient to establish notability. Although there are two independent sources, it is not clear whether they satisfy
WP:AUD or if they are too limited in audience (one being local and the other a specialized newsletter).
RL0919 (
talk)
10:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
Nottingham University Society of Change Ringers (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Doesn't meet
WP:ORG or
WP:GNG and not worth the
WP:ATD of a merge/redirect to
University of Nottingham Students' Union.
Boleyn (
talk)
21:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of England-related deletion discussions.
Spiderone
(Talk to Spider)
18:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
Spiderone
(Talk to Spider)
18:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Schools-related deletion discussions.
Necrothesp (
talk)
10:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Music-related deletion discussions.
Necrothesp (
talk)
10:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.
Necrothesp (
talk)
10:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. There are some
WP:RS, including Ringing World and several articles from Nottingham Evening Post (AGF) that would qualify notability under
WP:GNG. However, the preponderance of the text is woefully bereft of references. If there are not independent, reliable, secondary sources to support at least each paragraph, as tagged now, the article needs to be trimmed back to what is reliably sourced, not deleted entirely.
Grand'mere Eugene (
talk)
22:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep and rewrite as suggested above using the aforementioned reliable sources such as Ringing World and Nottingham Evening Post, imv
Atlantic306 (
talk)
23:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- It certainly needs a massive rewrite that should remove a lot off non-wikipedian material as well as adding sources. I am inclined to suggest Delete, but allow a new article to be created using reliable sources and proper Wikipedian language. --
Bduke (
talk)
08:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- In view of the comments below, I now move to Keep. --
Bduke (
talk)
23:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - there seems to be general consensus that the subject is notable. Without a
WP:COPYVIO or
WP:BLP issue, I don't see any reason why we should
blow it up and lose the article history. Replace the bad writing with good writing, by all means. But bad writing is a
fixable problem.
St★lwart
111
05:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete -- A NN student society. The fact that it is well verified does not make it notable. It would be a rare student society that was WP notable.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. The sources fall short of the provision about significant coverage, owing to the fringe status of outlets such as Ringing World or local newspapers.
Geschichte (
talk)
20:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. I searched for sources myself, and found nothing that's both substantive and reliable. Verifiability isn't enough; coverage also needs to cover the topic in minimal detail, and I see no evidence of that. Furthermore, I don't see how the Ringing World source contributes toward notability; as its own article documents, it has fairly trivial circulation. The other local sources are also questionable in this respect. At the very least, this needs to be turned into a stub.
Vanamonde (
Talk)
13:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- It's linked in the references list as the publication of the
Central Council of Church Bell Ringers. Niche, certainly, but I can't see why it wouldn't be considered a reliable source for our purposes here. It doesn't seem to be connected to this subject in a way that would make it not independent.
St★lwart
111
05:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- It isn't only a question of reliability, but also of what sort of
audience the source is reaching. Coverage in a magazine with very little circulation does not tell us that the subject of that coverage is very significant.
Vanamonde (
Talk)
05:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. NN. "Nottingham Evening Post" is clearly local, and there's no indication what "Ringing World" even is and why it is supposed to be a reliable source.
Sandstein
15:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. We do have
The Ringing World as a subsection of another article, and also we are enjoined to assume good faith when a source is not available online and may have only have a weekly circulation of 2,627. To the best of my knowledge, GNG and NORG criteria do not include that a source must be mainstream rather than "fringe". This article does appear to meet
WP:AUD, as The Ringing World does appear to have a national circulation of bellringers across the UK, and its 100th anniversary celebration in 2011 included a a service at
Westminster Abbey. As I said above, all of the unreferenced text should be cut, but not the whole article.
Grand'mere Eugene (
talk)
17:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
- The Ringing World does have a website with issues back to 2001 behind registration and a paywall, and issues farther back are available for purchase on a DVD. The 2006 issue cited in the article is advertised
here.
Grand'mere Eugene (
talk)
17:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus.
No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation.
North America
1000
12:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
Danger Boy (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
I don't think this article about a book series meets
WP:NBOOK. In carrying out
WP:BEFORE I found and added an interview with the author, but I still think this is too thin.
Tacyarg (
talk)
22:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Literature-related deletion discussions.
Tacyarg (
talk)
22:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
Tacyarg (
talk)
22:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Comment, first, the books (including e-versions) in this series are still held in around 200 libraries (
Ancient Fire,
Dragon Sword,
Trail of Bones,
City of Ruins), second, there are enough reviews of a couple of them to meet
WP:NBOOK ie. multiple reviews, entitling them to standalone articles; Ancient Fire - by
Publishers Weekly
here,
Booklist
here,
School Library Journal
here; City of Ruins by School Library Journal, and
Horn Book
here, and the
Jewish Book Council
here, alternatively, these reviews could be used to flesh out this series article.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
16:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗
plicit
09:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
Batt, Virginia (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Topos show a rural crossroads with basically nothing there. Searching is surprisingly hard due to this being a fairly common surname in Va., and due to a lot of old newspapers sources using "batt." as an abbreviation for battery. From what I can turn up, the 4th-class postmaster was replaced in 1901, and I found a source from 1904 calling it a "post village", but
I'm not sure that that term has a set meaning. If anyone can find some significant coverage, that would be appreciated, but I found nothing besides the two passing mentions about postal stuff.
Hog Farm
Talk
04:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Geography-related deletion discussions.
Hog Farm
Talk
04:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Virginia-related deletion discussions.
Hog Farm
Talk
04:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus (
WP:NPASR).
King of ♥
♦
♣
♠
05:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
Sam Radwan (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
This article doesn't make the case for its own existence. The subject is noted as having been published and quoted in major media, but not themselves being the subject of reporting by that media. A Google News search seems to confirm this. The subject is quoted in snippets in articles that are about other things.
BD2412
T
02:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.
BD2412
T
02:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Egypt-related deletion discussions.
Curbon7 (
talk)
03:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Weak Keep: The person is mentioned in numerous reliable sources in the US including CNBC, The Financial Times, WSJ, etc. These are high profile sources where he is being quoted on the subject as an expert. I note that he is not the main subject of any of these articles and this page needs substantial improvement. My vote is to keep since as per
WP:GNG, these qualify as reliable sources, there are 5+ of them, and to qualify for significant coverage the subject "does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
CosmicNotes (
talk)
09:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete – I think BD2412 is correct here. My searches find nothing that goes beyond the sort of trivial mentions that don't count toward the GNG; interviewing and being interviewed don't move the notability needle.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
00:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep.
✗
plicit
02:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
Natural Snow Buildings (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Doesn't meet
WP:NBAND or
WP:GNG
Boleyn (
talk)
21:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (
talk)
09:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Music-related deletion discussions.
☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (
talk)
09:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of France-related deletion discussions.
☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (
talk)
09:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete The article reads like a promotional writeup than anything, and I concur that it does not
WP:NBAND or
WP:GNG.
TH1980 (
talk)
14:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep as they do have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as this AllMusic staff written bio
here and two staff written album reviews there, also coverage in Pitchfork
here. Haven't done a full search yet,
Atlantic306 (
talk)
01:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Strong keep Album Of The Year lists 6 critic reviews for them, including
Sputnikmusic,
[10]
[11]
[12] and
Mojo,
[13]. I also found others like
Brainwashed,
[14]
Tiny Mix Tapes,
[15]
Impose,
[16] and
Uncut,
[17] among others. Whoever made the page just didn't include them for some reason, maybe they didn't know it was necessary.
BuySomeApples (
talk)
07:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (
non-admin closure)
4meter4 (
talk)
15:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
Abrigael Bohórquez (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Article is supported by a single offline source. I was unable to locate any other sources in a
WP:BEFORE search. Not clear that the subject meets any criteria at
WP:SIGCOV,
WP:NAUTHOR,
WP:CREATIVE,
WP:NACADEMIC, or
WP:ANYBIO.
4meter4 (
talk)
02:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Mexico-related deletion discussions.
Eastmain (
talk •
contribs)
02:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
Eastmain (
talk •
contribs)
02:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks. That's probably why my search didn't turn up anything.
Cullen328 You might consider moving the article and adding that source as well. I'll take some time later today to search for sources under the correct spelling. Best.
4meter4 (
talk)
12:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
4meter4 Done.
Cullen328
Let's discuss it
17:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks for doing that. I'm going to withdraw the nomination, because under the correct spelling there are plenty of quality sources available.
4meter4 (
talk)
18:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗
plicit
02:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
Boden, Florida (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Doesn't appear to have ever been an actual community. GNIS reference is bare, and a Newspapers.com search, a Google Books search, and a cursory Google search reveal nothing relevant either. Historic aerials only go back to 1952, and in that aerial there appears to be nothing there, though there's a slim chance it existed before hand.
Pokemonprime (
talk)
01:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Geography-related deletion discussions.
Pokemonprime (
talk)
01:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
Pokemonprime (
talk)
01:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Florida-related deletion discussions.
Pokemonprime (
talk)
01:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗
plicit
02:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
BeFrugal.com (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Fails ORGCRITE, SIRS, and CORPDEPTH. Lacking sources with independent and significant coverage. Also see,
ADMASQ.
Steve Quinn (
talk)
00:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Comment from nom. Previous AfD in 2012 resulted in delete. According to the nom of that AfD this page was speedily deleted, recreated, and was still SPAM. It failed "...wp:corp or any other WP:N you want to use."
- Two and one half years later, this page was re-created in July 2014
[19]. ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
00:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Websites-related deletion discussions.
Spiderone
(Talk to Spider)
06:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Companies-related deletion discussions.
Spiderone
(Talk to Spider)
06:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.
Spiderone
(Talk to Spider)
06:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: Concur with nom; there's only the one short article in the Globe that gives any coverage at all to the subject, and that's just a pop culture piece because this outfit's CEO popped off as a publicity stunt.
Ravenswing
18:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with
in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing
"Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. Topic fails
WP:NCORP.
HighKing
++
21:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to
Canard (aeronautics)#Computer control.
✗
plicit
02:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
Eurocanard (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
This is not an encyclopedic topic, being a neologistic nickname used by some in the aviation trade publications, and more broadly by amateur fan-people. It's not subject that should be covered separately, but probably only warrants one paragraph, if that, in another article such as
Fighter aircraft.
BilCat (
talk)
00:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
I just updated the article with more information showing that the Eurocanards have a common design origin in the 1970s-1980s.
Real Live Plutarch (
talk)
00:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Military-related deletion discussions.
Shellwood (
talk)
08:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.
Shellwood (
talk)
08:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗
plicit
02:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
Roland Stevenson (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Has been in
CAT:NN's backlog for 12 years! No indication of notability.
Boleyn (
talk)
21:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (
talk)
09:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.
☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (
talk)
09:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Artists-related deletion discussions.
☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (
talk)
09:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (
talk)
09:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Brazil-related deletion discussions.
☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (
talk)
09:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Chile-related deletion discussions.
☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (
talk)
09:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete There is a British researcher, who was either a linguist or an anthropologist, named Roland C. Stevenson. He "was trained both in linguistics and social anthropology , having studied in the University of London at King's College , the School of..." according to a Google books snippet. There are a lot of Google books sources for Roland C. Stevenson. For this one, the Chilean Roland without the "C", I found and added a couple of namecheck sources, but there is not really much out there. ---
Possibly
☎
09:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- There's a short
documentary on him on Youtube, which shows him painting mostly naked women on horses. That's the only 'in-depth' source I saw. ---
Possibly
☎
09:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Weak keep Having seen the Portuguese language article, it seems the subject may be notable. I'm not proficient enough in that language, however, to make a translation and add the sources there are. --
Kuatrero (
talk)
20:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - I found more sources and expanded the article after using Google's translation button. The subject received numerous awards and is well known for his archaeological work as well as his artwork. There is clear evidence of notability. Sources can be found by searching just his first and last name. Passes
WP:BIO and meets
WP:GNG. -
AuthorAuthor (
talk)
18:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Weak delete. While I am wary of
WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, I am not seeing any in-depth source about his life or contributions. The best source here as far as I can tell is some announcement from a non-notable gallery that exhibited his works. Do correct me if I missed some betters source. Other than that we have a totally unreferenced list of awards that don't appear to be significant (at least, as judged by the fact none have an article on English or Portuguese wikis). The only reason I am not voting delete but weak delete is due to systemic bias - maybe he got some coverage in non-digitized Chilean sources? But that's just speculation (per
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES). --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
02:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom. That there might be offline sources is not sufficient reason to keep, and nothing in the article as it is establishes notability. --
SilverTiger12 (
talk)
23:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete not enough citations to show notability.
Peter303x (
talk)
00:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.