Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 26: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I-recycle}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grind (board game)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grind (board game)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of submerged places in France}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of submerged places in France}}<!--Relisted-->

Revision as of 01:02, 26 December 2021

< December 25 December 27 >

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. ✗plicit 01:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I-recycle

I-recycle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unclear notability since September 2010; Article itself notes that as of February 2011, the domain had become parked, and I'm struggling to find any reference to it, though this may be muddled by it's rather generic name.

Either way, it appears that this website never seems to have gotten off the ground, and hasn't received any notable coverage from outside sources. Pokemonprime (talk) 01:02, 26 December 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 Warmachine. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grind (board game)

Grind (board game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged as Unclear Notability since September 2010; only references I can find are either the game for sale, or reviews from around the time of release, with no indication it's made a notable or lasting impact. Pokemonprime (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are the reviews you found? Depending on what kind they are, they can count toward notability. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added two recent reviews, indicating that the game is still around. I've also added some detail about the game itself that readers may find useful. If the nominator is aware of reviews from 2009-2010, those should be added as well. Guinness323 (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 02:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There Will Be Games solicits content - including reviews and blog posts - from users, describing itself on its submissions page as a "volunteer, non-profit site". We don't accept user-generated sites as indicators of notability for obvious reasons. I don't see any indication that Bell of Lost Souls is any more reliable - no editorial policy or about page, and the post itself is credited to "guest columnist". TV Tropes and Board Game Geek are, of course, user-generated and shouldn't even be cited. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being non-profit doesn't make a source unreliable. Neither does the pay rate of the writers. What does is editorial control. Their solicitation makes it clear they have editorial standards and they have a editorial staff. Further, this article was written by one of their (former) associate writers. Bell of Lost Souls is, I agree, quite similar but better known and respected IME. [1] shows a strong editorial team. Hobit (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the reasons those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Those arguing for keep need to show why the sources in the article should be accepted as indicating notability with reference to our guidelines WP:N and why the source review by PMC is not correct. Or else produce sources that are acceptable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 12:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:11, 26 January 2022 (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 11:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of submerged places in France

List of submerged places in France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A somewhat odd list that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NLIST. There are no sources at all in the article, which makes the current contents WP:OR. None of the actual "submerged" places listed seem to be notable enough to have their own articles. A couple of them are briefly mentioned in broader articles, but most don't even have that. I tried to locate sources on the overall topic, using a number of different search terms, and was unable to find anything. I was originally going to PROD it, but then figured it would be a better fit at AFD, in case someone would be able to find French language sources on the topic I could not during the discussion period. Rorshacma (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to this it was partially submerged or perhaps partially demolished in order to build the dam. https://www.envie-de-serre-poncon.com/guide/rousset Mccapra (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:16, 26 December 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. Only one person believes that coverage is sufficient for notability. Sandstein 09:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Ona Paukstelis

Tina Ona Paukstelis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An actor which does meet the inclusion criteria of WP:NACTOR as they do not have significant roles multiple notable productions or made any sort of innovative contribution to their industry. I don't see any evidence they meet WP:GNG either. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 19:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Re sigcov and Kenosha news articles: this is what WP:GNG has to say about sources: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." So having a dozen articles from Kenosha News is not necessarily helpful for determining if GNG is met. Samsmachado (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is, I think, an over-interpretation of the rules. If one author writes multiple times about someone, it remains one opinion. But it's natural that newspapers write multiple articles about notable people: there is only one Washington Post, and if you do three things in your life that attract the attention of the Washington Post, those three articles all count towards your notability: taken together, they mean you have sustained appearances in the public sphere, and you're not a one-off flash in the pan. The key thing is that the newspaper is independently triggered to write about different events in your life, and that the articles aren't all published in quick succession based on a single event. I assume the Kenosha news is a local newspaper; three references separated by a number of years therefore indicate sustained (but possibly local) notability. But I know nothing about this actress and have no plans to form an opinion. Elemimele (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here's some other things I found:
I tried to get a copy of the Femme Fatales article, but it's one of the issues that isn't on the Internet Archive, annoyingly. SilverserenC 21:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Fails WP:NACTOR. I don't recognise any films or series. They are small films. The coverage is from Kenosha News, is that is her home town newspaper. Where is the other coverage? Where is the national or international converage? Newspaper interviews. Seems to be a bit part actor, and seems to have barely done any acting at all. Its not even in WP:NACTOR. Not notable in the least. scope_creepTalk 09:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable independent sources with the very limited and not contributory exception of a hometown paper. Local coverage of local actors in very small productions does not help establish notability in terms of the general notability guideline nor for the specific subject matter guideline for actors. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:37, 12 January 2022 (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:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 00:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doom9

Doom9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The forum fails WP:N and WP:WEB - especially on the term of WP:INHERITWEB. Notable information about projects they helped developed such as Media Player Classic, x264, ffdshow, VirtualDubMod should be kept to their respective articles. – The Grid (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 26 December 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 Jakks Pacific#Plug It In & Play TV Games. ✗plicit 00:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atari Plug and Play TV Game

Atari Plug and Play TV Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article consists of a game listing for two entirely non-notable plug and play consoles, which just repackage existing games. Only references are a store page and a dead Cnet link, which looks to have just been a specifications page. Pokemonprime (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-HenryMP02 TALK 01:09, 26 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_December_26&oldid=1062062328"