This page transcludes all of the deletion debates opened today on the English-language Wikipedia, including articles, categories, templates, and others, as a convenience to XfD-watchers.
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Please note that because this material is transcluded, watchlisting this page will not provide you with watchlist updates about deletions; WP:DELT works best as a browser bookmark checked regularly.
Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted |
He's a TV host but he fails to meet relevant WP:JOURNALIST as well WP:GNG —Saqib (talk | contribs) 20:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Can we get some more participation here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Wiki is not a dictionary.
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
PepperBeast (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
If we were to delete this one, we'd also have to delete all similar articles, and there's a lot (five just for the lists of English of French origin). I've never encountered such lists on the Wiktionary, but it would indeed maybe make more sense to have these there. But in the end it wouldn't make any major difference. Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Nevermind they do exist on Wiktionary actually! https://www.duhoctrungquoc.vn/dict/en/Category:English_terms_derived_from_French Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Same for French words https://www.duhoctrungquoc.vn/dict/en/Category:French_terms_derived_from_English Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet to take any particular action with this bundled nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Sources are just a couple routine local notices plus coverage on a couple criminal charges against associated individuals North8000 (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewed during NPP. A combination of wp:Not for a stats-only article (and inherently subject) combined with no evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. There have been in-depth discussions on articles of this type which led to deletion. North8000 (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
There seems to be nothing that proves this is notable. The internet verifies it exists, but that's about all. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a South African rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Not to be confused with the author of the same name. JTtheOG (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a South African rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT, or much coverage at all past trivial mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all South African rugby league players who played at the same qualifying tournament and were created by the same user under now-deprecated WP:SNGs, with little to no chance of ever receiving WP:SIGCOV:
I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a French rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The best I could find was this from Treize Mondial, which is only a couple of sentences. JTtheOG (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
No notability in the article beyond a dubious 'guitar picking' statement and no significant coverage to be found on the web. InDimensional (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has been through PROD. Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The source cited as being the source for the entire text portion of the article is an obituary which makes only a brief mention of the company. And so the text of the article is about the person who died, not the company. The other refs are about films, not the company. North8000 (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Nothing appears to have changed since the last AfD a month ago. WP:NOTGUIDE applies. signed, Rosguill talk 18:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
A missionary in Africa but no evidence of any notability. Many of the sources are family tree/ genealogy sources which attest to facts but not notabiity. He gets a mention in source 4 as a young man with an eye to an attractive daughter of a missionary family but nothing here speaks of notability and the source is highly affiliated. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 18:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Initially proded with the reason 'This church is not notable enough (WP:GNG). Doesn't even exist in Italian Wikipedia'. I do think that English Wikipedia notability guidelines are among the strictest out of all Wikipedias, namely because English is a common internet language. Therefore, I am not sure if it can pass, given that no other Wikipedia (even Italian) has this. Per WP:NBUILD:
Buildings 'may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. Also, are sources only in Italian (or only in a language other than English) allowed? JuniperChill (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
So in other words, are all National Trust and English Heritage sites are presumed to be notable?Yes, of course they are, per WP:GEOFEAT. Houghton Mill is a Grade II*-listed building.
I know that non English sources are allowed, but how about an article that only has English sources like the case here?Yup.
This basically means it is notable in Wikipedias eyes, but not in mine. Ie i dont see it as notable.That's not really relevant to Wikipedia notability. Others do. This article could certainly do with more sourcing, but buildings of this age are definitely notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Buildings ... may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability(my emphasis). The Keep !votes above recognise that Santa Maria Murella might have historic/architectural importance, but ignore the lack of coverage, which is a case exactly anticipated by the relevant notability guideline here. Nobody has presented any "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources", and the best I could find was an entry from an office of the Episcopal Conference of Italy, which I'm not sure whether we can regard as "third-party".
the church...was located at the site of the Roman city of Laurum, which seems to be its most important feature according to previous !votes, the church is probably easier understood in the context of Montasola's history. In my experience, this is not uncommon for non-notable churches (and let's be honest: many places have churches that date back several centuries, though the current buildings might not be the original ones).
significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sourcesemerge per WP:NBUILDING.
aim for new entries is to try to have at least two "independent" sources, so I suspect this collection of articles results from inexperienced editing, and may also need to be reviewed. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 15:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Wiki editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals and our readers and potential readers include everyone on the planet. Any subject or topic may be of interest to someone, somewhere.IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 15:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Promotional/UPE. Engineer did engineering things. UtherSRG (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The article is a stub article that doesn't explain it's notability. As it stands, it appears to qualify for AfD. Nigel757 (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Contested PROD. No refs on the page for many years and appears to be a WP:DICDEF with little way to expand or cite properly. There are related ideas such as Beaker (laboratory equipment) and Bell Beaker culture but I'm not seeing the RS for this term. JMWt (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Micro-denomination of six churches. All sources in article are primary sources direct to the subject's own webpage. WP:BEFORE search is tricky because of the common name (similarly named churches in Cuba, Africa, etc.) but turns up nothing to validate notability under WP:NORG Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The article doesn't show any reason for notability and reads as an advertisement. Nigel757 (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Nominating following contested PROD. Micro-denomination of (perhaps) six congregations; PROD contestor said poor sourcing is not a reason to delete, but no existing sources are valid for establishing notability, and WP:BEFORE searches provide no additional evidence of notability under WP:NORG.
Review of existing sources:
I cannot identify any other independent, secondary, reliable sources that verify the notability of this denomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence of lasting coverage. Not notable. PROD template was removed with ZERO improvement. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 17:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Edit summaries are not there to just test your typing and should be read, not dismissed
Doesn't meet GNG or WP:NMMA, as refs are either his personal page or sports results Nswix (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Completely unsoured article that doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic). Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable.
Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider ... [the] existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article.NOPAGE is about whether it is best to cover a subject at another topic because sufficient content about the subject for a standalone cannot be added; it is not meant to get rid of articles solely because they are short. Although, if an expansion is all it takes for you to change your !vote, I can almost certainly do that. Is that what you'd like me to do? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
because sufficient content about the subject for a standalone cannot be added: I think it applies even when such content can be added. Nor do I have any issue with WP:NEXIST: topics are notable; articles aren't. The sources you've brought forward suggest that the notability hurdle is likely to be met, and a redirect isn't meant to preclude the article's creation (cf. Category:Redirects with possibilities). While I haven't looked at the sources, my !vote isn't about notability; rather, it's about how Wikipedia should organise its current encyclopedic coverage of the topic. Indeed, as WP:NOPAGE says:
at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic(my emphasis).
if an expansion is all it takes for you to change your !vote, I can almost certainly do that→ Yep, this is a fairly accurate summary of my position: redirect until it's sourced enough to show it meets GNG and goes beyond the ABL article. So, please, BeanieFan11, go for it, but only if this is genuinely interesting to you and how you wish to spend your wikiediting time before this AfD closes. As far as I'm concerned, there's no deadline, which is why this can close as Redirect and the article can be recreated from the page history whenever an editor is sufficiently interested to complete this task. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 20:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it is sane to believe that, if this is redirected, anyone will ever turn this into something. There just isn't the interest.→ Yes, I agree. But that also means you shouldn't feel burdened as
the only hope this article has for existence. Nobody will miss this article if it is redirected: crucially, none of its content will be lost, because the ABL article already contains it; and the page history is always there anyway. You shouldn't feel any more obligated to expand it as a standalone article than as a redirect. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Nobody will miss this article– Actually, 318 people a year will miss it. I also am unaware of anyone outside of Wikipedia editors themselves who know how to use the page history function in that manner. I should feel much more obligated to expand it now as otherwise, without my intervention, there is no hope of the full story ever being developed here, because no one ever will if its a redirect, as you have agreed yourself. But I'm in the process of expanding it anyways so... BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Such a wide concept, not sure its point is clear in this unreferenced article. Boleyn (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
No useful secondary sources. Very little content. Per WP:PRIMARY: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Amounts to a Pseudo-biography: "An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's public life" AusLondonder (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Software. No assertion of notability, no third party references, tagged since 2019. Sandstein 16:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Virtually no actual content and been like this for 12 years. No credible claim to notability - the chairman of a regional branch of a business unit of a larger company. No secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Sources are largely routine transactional coverage, not in-depth and independent. No evidence of notability. Previously deleted and salted at PROS * Pppery * it has begun... 16:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Not playing in professional division, does not appear to meet WP:SIGCOV under WP:GNG. Already deleted for same reasons in 2020. Crowsus (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCER. Sources are either passing mentions, interviews, PRs, or not even mentioning the subject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Textbook WP:BLP1E; subject does not have any notability beyond the Rust shooting incident, which is where this target was originally redirecting to. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Small defunct school. Zero secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The article does not really focus on "Buffer theory" and only mentions it once. It would probably be best if this were merged or redirected to another article. Shadow311 (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
A wholly unsourced, out of date list of mostly non-notable trustees. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. AusLondonder (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
It exists but there is limited coverage (article currently unreferenced, with some possible sources which could be added). I couldn't see that it meets WP:ORG / WP:GNG in its own right, or a suitable merge target. Boleyn (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
another influencer with no substantial coverage from any reliable source FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already been through PROD. Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The incident is not notable enough for inclusion in Wiki English. Per WP:AIRCRASH, in general, military aircraft incidents are not notable. The accident didn't result in a significant change in the operation of the aircraft or the operation of the Russian Air Force. Thus, the incident failed WP:GNG. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of available reference material would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewed during NPP. This article is about a triple murder rather than about the person who did them. Doesn't meet wp:notability requirements and guidance for events. Nor guidance provided by wp:Not news. North8000 (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear some more opinions, especially on the quality of sources which can determine notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
PROD requested, but denied for being Grammy nominated. However, WP:ANYBIO requires winning once, or being nominated multiple times. Is twice good enough? I read multiple as something greater than two. So, fails ANYBIO. Even more, none of the references pass WP:SIRS, so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
No refs on the page for many years. Nothing much found to show that the story has notability against the inclusion criteria. As ATD we could redirect to William Hope Hodgson but I'm not convinced this is necessary JMWt (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is agreement that this should not be deleted, it is still unclear if the content should remain as a stand-alone article or merged/redirected to List of stories by William Hope Hodgson.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
No notability evident in the article per WP:BAND, mainly just states that they're straight edge and played some concerts. Additionally, I can't find any real coverage on them on the web. InDimensional (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Does not fulfill the requirements for WP:Notability, not enough indepedent sigcov could be found either in the article or through own search. WP:NACADEMICS is not met either. FortunateSons (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
sportsperson stub. fails general notability guideline. ltbdl (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The only claim to notability is being an unelected candidate in a previous Australian federal election. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG. GMH Melbourne (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are nonexistent. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are nonexistent. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm surprised that User:Jamiebuba approved this page because this company has a long and torrid history of COI and uploading promotional pages to Wikipedia and this page seems no different to what has gone before. Sure, we've got Entrepreneur Magazine which might have been published independently of the subject but there are a lot of sources that don't count as RS like press releases, local newspapers and the dreaded TechCrunch the least independent source in the history of business journalism. I think it's safe to say that this one-man band, run of the mill, stock image supplier fails WP:NCORP and is hardly notable so fails WP:GNG. I am interested to see what crawls out of the woodwork in the ensuing discussion, though.Dafydd y Corach (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
No refs on the page for many years, not seeing much which could be considered against the notability criteria for inclusion. It certainly exists, the trouble is finding substantial reliable sources about it. As an ATD we could merge to the reservoir section on Severn Trent JMWt (talk) 07:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any comments on the improvements to the article since its nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't believe these groups meet the notability criteria for organisations, there is limited in-depth coverage of the phenomena. This is too soon for this to be an article, and borderline promotional of the advocacy group. JeffUK 06:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Appears to be an autobiography, and in a WP:BEFORE search the only secondary coverage I can find is what's cited here. The rest is primary sources and passing mentions. The only mention I can find of awards is on primary sources like her website, with no mention of her on the Emmys or AP websites. Wikishovel (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO and criteria 4 of WP:JOURNALIST as the winner of a Rocky Mountain Emmy Award in 2007. The website archives are incomplete, going back only to 2011. She is widely cited though in RS as an Emmy winner in passing (for example https://www.local10.com/news/2014/01/10/teacher-charged-with-having-sex-with-student/ ) The off-hand mentions of awards from the associated press also occur. It would be career suicide to lie about that kind of thing for a journalist. So all and all, not seeing a good argument here for not passing the criteria for those WP:SNGs.4meter4 (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Although he was memorable for his collaborations with John Singleton, none of his roles are significant enough per WP:NACTOR. The Film Creator (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSICIAN or WP:ACTOR. zoglophie•talk• 10:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
This popped up while I was trying to verify a different place, and one look at the topos shows that it is a creek crossing, not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Unreferenced since 2019. No good references obtained in GSearch, GBooks, GNews and GNews Archives. Suggest List of programs broadcast by People's Television Network as plausible WP:ATD --Lenticel (talk) 03:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
No secondary sourcing--and none that I can't find. Google News offers nothing but Facebook and Wikipedia (GNews, how you have fallen), but there's nothing else I can find, not in the regular search and not in books. It's unfortunate but not all scouting organizations are notable per WP:NCORP. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Tagged as unreferenced since 2009 but was actually unreferenced since 2006. No good hits on GNews and GBooks. GNews archives only turned out two ads related to it. Alternatively, Redirect to List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN. --Lenticel (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Questionable notability; lack of WP:RS to establish notability Amigao (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More review of new sources would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Despite being a large article, it appears to have been mostly edited by COI editors and contains original research that isn't backed up by sources. The far majority of references are simply from the university's website, and as such notability isn't proven due to the lack of outside sourcing. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails GNG, and appears to be a WP:COATRACK article. The War Zone is the only reference that even mentions this tank in any level of detail, and even then, in an article that only relies on Twitter and Telegram posts, so no RS has covered the subject of this article to any significant degree. Loafiewa (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
simply needsexist? If yes, then please present them here.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we get a review of the sources brought to this discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Nothing in the article or my BEFORE suggests this meets WP:GNG (or WP:NFILM). Nothing in GBooks or GScholar (well, one mention in a German book?). Maybe there is some coverage in National Lampoon (magazine) ( September/October 1994), but it is a parody magazine, so not sure if it is reliable, and even if there is something there, GNG requires multiple sources (so at least one more). Can anyone find anything to rescue this - or failing that, suggest a valid redirect target? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The source within the entry is the player database, I couldn't find other sources, and the player actually only kicked one season. 日期20220626 (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The sources here are primary and there is only sources about quotes online. I think this is not enough to scratch notability yet. Cleo Cooper (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Last AfD was no consensus. Created by a single purpose editor. An orphan article. I don't see his achievements adding to notability. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO. Article claims he's a musician but I don't see evidence of that. LibStar (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Potentially un-notable, does not cite any sources (and has not since 2021), uses the wrong tone. Though tone is less of an issue, and non-notability and no sources are the big one thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/ $ 00:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Again, I don't see how a bunch of bored academics+A bunch of very bored journalists with nothing better to write about+a bunch of very bored people with nothing better to talk about=The sex lives and proclivities of a bunch of imaginary people. Americanfreedom (talk) 04:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
A cropped lower resolution version of File:Sikhs aboard Komagata Maru.jpg. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
De-PRODding reason from an admin was this: The article states that this is one of the greatest guitar solos of all time. It IS the song, the heart of it.
This implies that, per WP:NFC#Audio clips, critical commentary should suffice to save the sample from deletion. However, even with critical commentary, I still doubt that the whole sample itself is significant contextually to the whole nine- or ten-minute song.
The whole sample sure is a portion of "one of the greatest guitar solos", but the whole song (recording) is not about that guitar solo, even as "greatest" as it may have been. The song has lyrics lasting five, six, or seven minutes.
Furthermore, the phrase "one of the greatest guitar solos" and the whole sample provide the same role: driving a reader into seeking the whole, full studio recording... or live one of the same song and letting the reader decide for oneself. Moreover, the 30-second sample either doesn't fully explain why the whole guitar solo is the "greatest" or is more about the portion itself than about the whole guitar solo (or the whole song).
Or, words are enough per WP:FREER to explain (what) the whole song (is about) or... (that) the whole song (is more than just the "greatest guitar solo"), and the sample itself doesn't need to be in the project. Speaking of "greatest", "greatest" can be subjective, yet the sample isn't that adequate, in my opinion. The whole recording at any length does the better explanation than any sample/portion.
In short, even meeting "critical commentary" rule doesn't absolve the sample's potential failures to comply with the whole NFCC, especially the "contextual significance" one. George Ho (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
De-PRODded for this reason: Annulation de suppression d'audio. L'audio permet au lecteur de connecter la chanson avec l'article en associant le titre à un extrait de la chanson.
Helping readers identify the James Brown song It's a Man's Man's Man's World isn't sufficient to absolve the sample's potential failures to be contextually significant the whole song (recording). Rather it does the same thing that free text can do: drive readers into seeking and listening the whole song.
Furthermore, nothing in the sample indicates why omitting the sample from the article would harm readers' understanding of the whole song, honestly. Regardless of familiarity and legacy, I hear lyrics, and music simultaneously, and I hear performance. However, the content given is all I hear, and I still haven't found the sample to fulfillingly help me understand the whole song. Oh, and understanding ≠ identifying. George Ho (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
De-PRODding rationale was this: Music sample should NOT be deleted as it is necessary to understand the article.
Unfortunately, necessity rationale doesn't absolve the sample's potential failure to prove why omitting the sample harms the understanding of the whole song, the omission one part of WP:NFCC#8. The song was initially a composition, but then lyrics were added in another recording.
The whole sample is just music with one spoken line, and its role is the same as what free text already does: drive readers into seeking and then listening (versions of) the whole song. Furthermore, it doesn't fully represent (what) the whole song/composition (is about) and (how) the whole song/composition (had been done). George Ho (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
There is a version below TOO in the file history. Surely if the album can be represented by something non-copyrightable then the recent non-free upload with the same name fails WP:NFCC#1. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Could be from https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/news-photo/ike-and-tina-turner-backup-singers-and-recording-artists-news-photo/117646990 because it is in the same format but covered with a watermark. May fail WP:GETTY. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
File was de-PRODded per "critical commentary" rationale. However, per WP:NFC#Audio clips, NFCC also applies. As far as the sample is concerned, I hear lyrics, vocal performances, and music. Nothing within the sample indicates why, per WP:NFCC#8, omitting the whole portion harms understanding of the whole song, which has been redone a few or several times by later artists. Furthermore, the free text already helps readers learn what the whole song is about, meaning the sample fails to be irreplaceable by free text. Furthermore, the sample might also fail WP:NFCC#3a for doing the same role that free text does: drive readers into seeking and then listening various recordings of the same song. George Ho (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
1.The term self-identify as proposed is unmistakably negative, intentionally so. It’s negative in that it’s divisive, exclusionary, and demeaning. It attacks a significant part of Indian Country, like Lily Gladstone, by claiming they’re not real Native Americans, only pretending to be ones (of course there’s a page for that). No, it’s not racism, certainly not colorism. It’s crude chauvinism. It says that on one hand there are normal real Native Americans and on the other there are abnormal people who illegitimately and with no more foundation than their own volition identify as Native Americans, on no better basis than folks who identify as attack helicopters (credit Persus). Everybody hates attack helicopter wannabes. Native American, normal, positive. Self-identify Native American, abnormal, negative. The dots connecting the term as proposed to its pejorative roots couldn’t be drawn closer.
2.It effaces the concept of indigeneity. It says Native American is an identity established, not by self-identity, but by the US govt through a CDIB card. It says that Native Americans are creations not of thousands of years of independent existence and identity, but of the power that recently in their history came to occupy their land. Further, that occupying power can take back the identity only it, nobody and nothing else, can confer, as it has demonstrated in the past it can do.
3.The question is much bigger than this discussion setting can possibly do it justice. It’s not just a matter of slightly adjusting the name of a WP page. It’s a matter of possibly stumbling into a big philosophical and political decision due to a slight of hand; that self-identity is just a clearer way of saying not acknowledge by the US. No scholarly citations. No peer-reviewed article(s), it would never cut muster in that environment-- that's why there's none (I checked). Just the argument that, you know, it’s neater to say self-identify than non-recognized. And should it be done, a micro-minority POV has been imposed on a long-settled question of who decides who's Native American. From that point on, Native American identity means US citizenship and a CDIB. Born and raised in Paris and just found out you had a % grandparent with a CDIB, you're in. Born and raised in a historical Indigenous community in, say, Guatemala or Canada and migrated to an enclave of your community in Miami or LA where everybody still speaks your native language, you're out. Of course, it's a settled question that Indian Country is no bigger than the United States and Native American identity is entirely a Unitedstatean question. Not.
4.It goes against a vast and longstanding consensus on the concept of indigenous identity. This discussion has already been had over a much longer period, involving many many more participants, in a much more transparent and deliberative fashion. And a consensus was reached. Then instead of being shelved or secreted away, it was announced to the world and has been in place for years, known today as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UN). This widely publicized consensus speaks directly against the proposal to change the name of this page by declaring that indigenous identity is necessarily self-identify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsideh (talk • contribs) 05:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC) There are more, but I'll stop here for now. Tsideh.:Tsideh Tsideh (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC) — Tsideh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will note the TfD was closed as delete, FWIW.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Acronym not mentioned at target. Both redirects are edit protected, which is why I couldn't tag them. CycloneYoris talk! 21:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Was BLAR'd after a discussion held not on its own talk page, not on AfD, but on the talk page of Neutering, at the tail end of a merge discussion that only ever got a single vote for "Yeah no, don't merge, just delete "Entire (animal)" as it'd only ever been a WP:DICDEF."
Term was never added to the article-- the edit that happened the day Entire was BLAR'd only served to remove the merge-discussion notification. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Sam Malone no longer works for KSEV and I am not sure if there is enough to put together a standalone article for him or his current self-produced show. spryde | talk 20:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
No evidence the current target is referred to as "The F bomb". Could just as reasonably refer to The F Word (2005 film), but there's no evidence that's called this either. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
This film released just about 4 months ago and is no longer upcoming. Plenty of time has past to the point that there is no more confusion for a 2023 movie, as it's well into 2024 now. Nobody ending up here who sees "upcoming film" in the title would be surprised by it's removal for a movie releasing last year. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Related meme not mentioned at target. Implausible to be searched on Wikipedia, not including people going onto Google and asking "what's the beach that makes you old", after which point one would find the source film for the topic; also, the Wikipedia page pops up there too. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
This is an inaccurate redirect. Paradise Airport is a small airfield in Paradise, California, nowhere near Paradise, Nevada (and nowhere near the size or importance of Las Vegas' international airport). Mistaken redirect that should just be deleted; the airport itself is non-notable so its article was converted to redirect in 2022. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Between Corseque, Spetum, and the fact that this redirect is not mentioned in the current target, it's not clear which subject readers are desiring to locate when searching this term. (However, used to be a section at Polearm#Winged spear, a section which was present in 2012, but was removed at some point that year.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Not a synonym for this brand, and not useful as a search term. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Deletion, link baiting differs from clickbait to the degree that the redirect is misleading. Link baiting does not have the deceptive nature of clickbait. Acalc79 (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Romanian Institute in Albania was originally created under this title. The author, blocked since 2019, appears to have misread the sources he used. Albania granted a Romanian historian property in Sarandë and he established an institute on it and granted half of the land to the Romanian state, but this does not mean a part of Sarandë stopped being a sovereign part of Albania to become part of Romania. The "concession" thing is original research. No sources talk about this using the word "concession" [30]. This is ultimately a hoax. Draft:Romanian concession in Sarandë should be deleted too. Super Ψ Dro 13:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
This seems overly technical. Nobody would really refer to smartphones as a phone computer outside of drawing some comparisons between smartphones and computers. Okmrman (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I just created this. But to be on the safe side, I wanted to ask for opinions, as this is actually a psychological term that does not appear in the given target as such, in fact. Hildeoc (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
this is actually a psychological termCan you provide a source defining this psychological term? The only uses I could find were all literal uses, i. e. talking about thinking that is faulty.
two [...] conceptions of faulty thinkingThat's two different terms. So we'd need to a) disambiguate, b) find articles to link to, which are defining these idioms. Alternatively a set index article would also be conceivable, though this would require a whole lot more sources.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is the best target for this redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Dabify or retarget? If dabify, anyone want to draft a dab up?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk page of the suggested targets Illegal immigration to Russia and Main Directorate for Migration Affairs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Not mentioned at target. Though retargeting to Pepito as a {{R from plural}} also seems viable. CycloneYoris talk! 06:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
{{R from avoided double redirect|Pepita}}
and {{R from misspelling}}
#REDIRECT [[Pepita]] {{R from misspelling}}
Couldn't find Wiren Dale Becker referred to with only his middle name, anywhere. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Target article doesn't mention Japanator. Anyone has any idea? Neocorelight (Talk) 01:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Propose merging Template:Major Leagues with Template:Top-level sport leagues in the United States.
Redundant and could be easily incorporated. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
2 articles. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 15:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Nothing to navigate --woodensuperman 15:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Presumably Template:Walt Disney Studios Park will be moved to this space once the park is officially renamed in 2025. This is 100% jumping the gun. GSK (talk • edits) 00:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:COPIES of list of the tallest people Flounder fillet (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Appears to be WP:COPIES of Salsa (dance) Flounder fillet (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Appears to be partial WP:COPIES of an old version of historical fiction. (paragraph about Pharaoh is still present in current revision of that page) Flounder fillet (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:FAKEARTICLE, possibly WP:COPIES of an ancient version of chip tuning. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Over a decade old one-edit wonder Ctrl+a ctrl+c copy of Abraham Lincoln. WP:COPIES Flounder fillet (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:COPIES. Copy of Pape Latyr N'Diaye. Flounder fillet (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Old partial copy of mainspace article. WP:COPIES Flounder fillet (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:FAKEARTICLE Flounder fillet (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Appears to be an old copy of a mainspace article. WP:COPIES Flounder fillet (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:COPIES. Old copy of Virat Kohli. Flounder fillet (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
This article uses material from the Wikipedia English article Wiki:XfD today, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license ("CC BY-SA 3.0"); additional terms may apply (view authors). Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
®Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wiki Foundation, Inc. Wiki English (DUHOCTRUNGQUOC.VN) is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wiki Foundation.