===[[PageName]]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|?}}
<div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}</ul></div>
:{{la|PageName}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName <(2nd nomination)>|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/YYYY Monthname DD#{{anchorencode:PageName (2nd nomination)}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks">[https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PageName_(2nd_nomination) Stats]</span>)
:({{Find sources|PageName}})
:'''Alternative searches''':
:''intitle:''name and modifier: ({{Find sources|intitle:SUBJECT NAME|MODIFIER}})
::Results: Nothing with quote marks. Without quote marks, only the company's ....
:''intitle:''name: ({{Find sources|intitle:SUBJECT NAME}})
::Results: No Google News search-results, no Google Books search-results. No useful search-results found.
:''intitle:''alt. name and modifier: ({{Find sources|intitle:ALT SUBJECT NAME|MODIFIER}})
::Results: No Google News search-results, no Google Books search-results. No useful search-results found.
:''intitle:''alt. name: ({{Find sources|intitle:ALT SUBJECT NAME}})
::Results: No Google News search-results, no Google Books search-results. No useful search-results found.
:''intitle:''initialised name and modifier: ({{Find sources|intitle:INIT. SUBJECT NAME|MODIFIER}})
::Results: No Google News search-results, no Google Books search-results. No useful search-results found.
:''intitle:''initialised name: ({{Find sources|intitle:INIT. SUBJECT NAME}})
::Results: No Google News search-results, no Google Books search-results. No useful search-results found.
:''intitle:''maiden name and modifier: ({{Find sources|intitle:MAIDEN SUBJECT NAME|MODIFIER}})
::Results: No Google News search-results, no Google Books search-results. No useful search-results found.
:''intitle:''maiden name: ({{Find sources|intitle:MAIDEN SUBJECT NAME}})
::Results: No Google News search-results, no Google Books search-results. No useful search-results found.
:''intitle:''short name and place: ({{Find sources|intitle:SHORT SUBJECT NAME|PLACE}})
::Results: No Google News search-results, no Google Books search-results. No useful search-results found.
:''intitle:''short name: ({{Find sources|intitle:SHORT SUBJECT NAME}})
::Results: No Google News search-results, no Google Books search-results. No useful search-results found.
::Results:
::Google News:
::* trivial mention in non-bylined source: <citation goes here>
::* trivial mention in: <citation goes here>
::* trivial mention in: <citation goes here>
::Google Books:
::* snippet view, looks like an advertisement: <cite book goes here>
::Spot checking the first five pages of general search-results, I have found no useful links to reliable sources.
:name and modifier: ({{Find sources|SUBJECT NAME|MODIFIER}})
::Results: No Google News search-results, no Google Books search-results. No useful search-results found.
:name: ({{Find sources|SUBJECT NAME}})
::Results: No Google News search-results, no Google Books search-results. No useful search-results found.
::Results:
::Google News:
::* trivial mention in non-bylined source: <citation goes here>
::* trivial mention in: <citation goes here>
::* trivial mention in: <citation goes here>
::Google Books:
::* snippet view, looks like an advertisement: <cite book goes here>
::Spot checking the first five pages of general search-results, I have found no useful links to reliable sources.
Pages which contain "Godzilla" and "Rodan", and excluding pages that Google might otherwise think you were interested in because they contain "Roman" instead of "Rodan".
Age - [[WP:OLDAGE]] – Just because it's old, that doesn't mean it's notable.
Popularity - [[WP:POPULARITY]] / [[WP:FAVORITE]] / [[WP:EVERYONE]] – Word-of-mouth is not only insufficient for Wikipedia notability, but it may also be original research.
Fame - [[WP:FAME]] / [[WP:REALITYTV]] – Regardless of the degree of fame, a living person or even a deceased person may only have an article about themselves if they meet notability guidelines for biographies. Brief public exposure or word-of-mouth only fame does not make one notable.
Talent - [[WP:TALENT]] – It is nice to have such talent. If you are one of these people, keeping up the hard work may lead you one day to a Wikipedia article. But all too often, one's talent and greatness is a matter of personal taste.
Prestigious position - [[WP:POSITION]] – There are plenty of people out there in these positions who have never received the coverage needed to be given a Wikipedia article. In fact, a very small percentage of those in such positions have accomplished just that.
Non-profit/government operated - [[WP:GOV]] / [[WP:NPROF]] – An entity that is not out there to make a profit, and is funded by taxes or private donations, or does not operate using money at all, can be excluded if it fails to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines.
Just a vote - [[WP:NOREASON]] – Try to present persuasive reasons in line with policy or consensus as to why the article/template/category/whatever should be kept/deleted.
Per nominator - [[WP:PERNOM]] – Participants are always encouraged to provide evidence or arguments that are grounded in policy, practice, or simple good sense to support their positions.
Just unencyclopedic - [[WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC]] – Saying something is "encyclopedic" or "unencyclopedic" are empty arguments.
Just notable/Just not notable - [[WP:ITSNOTABLE]] / [[WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE]] – Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable.
Just does not belong - [[WP:BELONG]] – Such arguments are purely personal point-of-view. They make no use of policies, guidelines, or even logic.
Just pointing at a policy or guideline - [[WP:JUSTA]] – While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand.
Assertion of notability - [[WP:ASSERTN]] – An assertion of importance or significance (not "notability", as such, though these are often and unfortunately conflated) is related to a potential reason to delete an article, but not one that is relevant at Articles for Deletion, where the merits of notability are determined.
Begging for mercy - [[WP:MERCY]] – Such arguments make no use of policy or guidelines whatsoever. They are merely a campaign on the part of the commentator to alter others' points-of-view.
It's interesting / It's not interesting - [[WP:INTERESTING]] / [[WP:NOTINTERESTING]] – Any subject or topic may be of interest to someone, somewhere. And on the converse, there are any number of subjects or topics which an individual editor may not care about. However, personal interest or apathy is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article.
It's useful / It's not useful - [[WP:USEFUL]] / [[WP:USELESS]] – Just saying something is useful or useless without providing explanation and context is not helpful or persuasive in the discussion.
It doesn't do any harm - [[WP:NOHARM]] – While it is certainly a good thing for Wikipedia articles to be aesthetically pleasing or well laid out from a graphic design perspective, the mere appearance of an article is not a factor in whether the subject of the article is justifiably suitable for an article on Wikipedia.
It's funny - [[WP:ITSFUNNY]] – Wikipedia is not the place to seek publicity for a cause, product, individual, ideology, etc. Promotional or partisan "information" in particular generally fails Wikipedia's requirements of neutrality and verifiability.
It contains valuable information - [[WP:VALINFO]] – Value is subjective. Simply saying it has value or no value with out substantiating the position of why or how is not a helpful or persuasive contribution to a discussion.
Poorly written article - [[WP:RUBBISH]] / [[WP:UGLY]] / [[WP:LOUSYTITLE]] – In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion.
There must be sources - [[WP:MUST]] – Our criterion for good articles is to include enough references so that all their content is verifiable. When an editor challenges the verifiability of a claim, the burden of evidence to provide reliable sources is on the editors that include it. Unless you can indicate what and where the sources are, they are not verifiable.
Offline sources only - [[WP:PAPERONLY]] – On Wikipedia, we assume good faith. There is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. Offline sources are just as legitimate as those that are accessible to everyone online.
Nobody's working on it (or impatience with improvement) - [[WP:NOEFFORT]] – The article shouldn't be deleted for its current status only because no one has improved it yet.
Orphan status - [[WP:ORPHS]] – An article being an orphan is not a valid reason for exclusion.
Out of date - [[WP:OUTDATED]] – To consider a page for deletion on the basis that it is not up to date is to demolish the house while it is being built.
Delete this page because the topic isn't notable (I've never heard of merger or redirection) - [[WP:IGNORINGATD]] – The fact that a topic is not notable is not, alone and in of itself, a valid grounds for deleting a page, its content, or its page history. It is at most an argument for merger and/or redirection.
Google test - [[WP:GHITS]] – Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search.
Article age - [[WP:ARTICLEAGE]] / [[WP:NEWARTICLE]] – Having survived a long time on Wikipedia does not guarantee the article a permanent spot. Conversely, being a new creation does not protect an article from being nominated for deletion.
Subject no longer exists - [[WP:DEFUNCTS]] – Notability is not temporary. The continuing existence of an article does not depend on the continuing existence of its subject.
Pageview stats - [[WP:POPULARPAGE]] / [[WP:NOBODYREADSIT]] – Simply because a page is not of interest to Wikipedia readers does not mean it is not notable. Conversely, just because an article is popular does not mean it is within the project scope, although article popularity is likely to correspond with some form of notability which should then be straightforward to verify.
Support for article - [[WP:SUPPORT]] – AfDs are not about voting. The outcome of a deletion discussion is determined on the basis of reference to policies and guidelines, not a simple headcount.
Unreliable sources - [[WP:UNRS]] – News sources that publish in a blog format may be as reliable as a traditional newspaper.
Trivial coverage - [[WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE]] – The general notability guideline stipulates that in order for a subject to be worthy of a standalone article, significant coverage that addresses the subject in detail is required, to the point that original research that involves extracting information is not needed. Merely being mentioned in a source whose primary purpose is to cover an entirely different subject does not necessarily satisfy this guideline. Once notability has been established, some of these sources may be useful in verifying additional information, but they should not be used as a reason why the subject is notable.On the other hand, the notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention. The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view. Critical commentary from reputableprofessional reviewers and prestigious awards are examples of short but significant (i.e. non trivial) mentions that have been used to establish notability and are useful to write Reception sections (see the specific guidelines for books, films, music and artists); common sense and editorial judgement should be used to reach a consensus about the sources available.
Geographic scope - [[WP:ITSLOCAL]] – Notability is not about assigning an elite status to a select group of subjects. It is about having the ability to write neutral, verifiable, encyclopedic-style information about them.
Arbitrary quantity - [[WP:BIGNUMBER]] – A commonly seen argument at AfD is "Subject has X number of Y, that's notable/non-notable". Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources. An article on a topic is more likely to pass the notability test with a single article in Encyclopedia Britannica than because it has 1 million views on YouTube.
Subjective importance - [[WP:IDONTKNOWIT]] – Conversely, some subjects' notability may be limited to a particular country, region, or culture. However, arguments that state that because a subject is unknown or not well known among English readers it should not have an article encourage a systemic bias on Wikipedia.
Lots of sources - [[WP:LOTSOFSOURCES]] / [[WP:SOURCESEARCH]] – Whilst showing the subject is mentioned in a number of sources, not all sources are reliable and may only be trivial mentions.
Wikipedias in other languages - [[WP:OTHERLANGS]] – A notable topic will often be covered by Wikipedia articles in many languages other than English; however, the existence of such articles does not indicate, by itself, that a topic is notable.
What about article x? - [[WP:WAX]] – The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do, or do not, exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article.
Wikipedia should be about everything - [[WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING]] / [[WP:EVERYTHING]] – Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, it should convey information on all branches of knowledge. However, "all branches of knowledge" is not "everything".
Do not lose the information or the effort - [[WP:LOSE]] – It is unfortunate that editors put effort into writing or maintaining articles that do not meet Wikipedia policy or guidelines.
Denying the antecedent - [[WP:FALLACY]] – Denying the antecedent (and its variants, like the fallacy fallacy) is a formal fallacy. It basically consists in confusing a necessary with a sufficient condition. All Wikipedia policies are necessary conditions, not necessarily sufficient.
{{Afdnewuser}} (participant clarification) – When to use: the user commenting has no contributions other than in the discussion and the article(s) being considered for deletion.
Edit summary: Adding {{[[Template:Page creator|Page creator]]}} tag
{{Spa}} (participant clarification) – When to use: the user commenting has few contributions other than in the discussion and the article(s) being considered for deletion.
Tag: {{subst:csp|Username of Sock puppet|Username of Sock master}} – {{Small|{{A note}} Struck above comment from confirmed sock per [[WP:SOCKSTRIKE]]. –– ~~~~}}
Alt. tag if account is blocked: {{subst:csp|Username of Sock puppet|Username of Sock master}} – {{Small|{{A note}} Struck above comment from blocked sock per [[WP:SOCKSTRIKE]]. –– ~~~~}}
Edit summary: Adding {{[[Template:Csp|Csp]]}} tag(s) and striking comment(s) per [[WP:SOCKSTRIKE]]
<div style="margin: auto 2em; border: 1px dashed #AAAAAA; padding: 4px; background-color: white; padding-left: 1em;">
<b><u>References</u></b>
* A
* B
* C
* D
* E
* F
* G
* H
</div>
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Common Keep arguments that can be tweaked to the specific discussion:
* '''Keep''' meets [[WP:GNG]], I have added a couple of English language {{tl|Cite book}}s to sources. [[WP:NEXIST|Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article]]. ~~~~
* '''Keep''': Certainly neither a candidate for speedy deletion, the claims of significance are credible, nor for uncontroversial deletion observing [[WP:PRODNOM]]. I have added 3 {{tl|cite book}}s and 3 {{tl|cite news}}, there's sufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources available to pass [[WP:GNG]]. ~~~~
Keep: Certainly neither a candidate for speedy deletion, the claims of significance are credible, nor for uncontroversial deletion observing WP:PRODNOM. I have added 3 {{cite book}}s and 3 {{cite news}}, there's sufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources available to pass WP:GNG. -- Sam SailorTalk! 08:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
* '''Keep''': sufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is available to pass [[WP:GNG]]. ~~~~
Keep: sufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is available to pass WP:GNG. -- Sam SailorTalk! 20:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
* '''Keep''': sufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is available to pass [[WP:BASIC]]. [[WP:BEFORE|Due diligence]] is not optional. ~~~~
Keep: sufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is available to pass WP:BASIC. Due diligence is not optional. -- Sam SailorTalk! 20:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Common Delete arguments that can be tweaked to the specific discussion:
* '''Delete''': searches suggest that significant coverage in independent, reliable sources sufficient to meet the [[WP:GNG|general notability guideline]] is not found. ~~~~
Delete: searches suggest that significant coverage in independent, reliable sources sufficient to meet the general notability guideline is not found. -- Sam SailorTalk! 09:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
* '''Delete''': searches suggest that significant coverage in independent, reliable sources sufficient to meet the [[WP:BASIC|basic notability criteria for individual persons]] is not found. ~~~~
Rare in-text comment if drive-by, pile-on voting is 100% obvious:
*: {{Note2|Note to closer}}: The above delete opinion was typed in and {{diff}}saved only X minute(s) XX seconds after the user's previous !vote in {{diff}}another deletion debate. ––~~~~
Note to closer: The above delete opinion was typed in and {{diff}}saved only X minute(s) XX seconds after the user's previous !vote in {{diff}}another deletion debate. ––Sam SailorTalk! 19:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Edit summary: Note to closer regarding a delete !vote cast shortly after user's last previous !vote in another AfD debate
Rare in-text comment if drive-by nomination is 100% obvious:
* '''Comment''': This nomination with a spurious boilerplate rationale was filed {{strongbad|only 24 seconds after}} [[User:Example|nominator's]] previous edit. Would nominator please explain which P&Gs they took into consideration before filing here? Should they wish to [[WP:WITHDRAW|withdraw]] the nomination, they may choose to follow [[WP:WDAFD]] and add <code>* {{[[Template:Withdraw|Withdraw]]}} <Brief explanation.> {{4~}}</code> immediately below the nomination statement. ––~~~~
Comment: This nomination with a spurious boilerplate rationale was filed only 24 seconds afternominator's previous edit. Would nominator please explain which P&Gs they took into consideration before filing here? Should they wish to withdraw the nomination, they may choose to follow WP:WDAFD and add * {{Withdraw}} <Brief explanation.> ~~~~ immediately below the nomination statement. ––Sam SailorTalk! 19:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I have edited [[BUNNYBUNNY]], an article you have nominated for deletion, and I believe it should be kept. Please revisit the article and review it again. Also please consider if all mandatory steps of [[WP:BEFORE]] have been performed. Should you thereafter wish to [[WP:WITHDRAW|withdraw]] your nomination, you may choose to follow [[WP:WDAFD]] and add <code>* {{[[Template:Withdraw|Withdraw]]}} <Your brief explanation.> {{4~}}</code> immediately below your nomination statement at the top of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BUNNYBUNNY|the AFD discussion]]. Regards, ~~~~ {{Plsping}}
Your nomination for deletion
I have edited BUNNYBUNNY, an article you have nominated for deletion, and I believe it should be kept. Please revisit the article and review it again. Also please consider if all mandatory steps of WP:BEFORE have been performed. Should you thereafter wish to withdraw your nomination, you may choose to follow WP:WDAFD and add * {{Withdraw}} <Your brief explanation.> ~~~~ immediately below your nomination statement at the top of the AFD discussion. Regards, Sam SailorTalk! 19:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC) (please mention me on reply)
* '''Comment''': I have tried to find sources on this little neighborhood club with 150 members, and I have yet to find 1 single, reliable source that speaks about the club in any detail. The club is currently scraping the bottom as no. 8 and last in the local {{ill|League of Sarajevo Canton|bs|Prva nogometna liga Kantona Sarajevo}} (Group B) that is down on the [[List of football clubs in Bosnia and Herzegovina#Fourth level|fourth level]] of [[Bosnia and Herzegovina]]n football.
{{ assess table |
{{ source_assess
| source = {{cite web | title=Eldin Balihodžić - Stoper | website=FK DOBRINJA | url=http://fkdobrinja.ba/prvi-tim/prvi-tim-2016-2017/item/237-eldin-balihodzic-stoper.html | language=bs | access-date=17 May 2018}}
| ind = n
| ind_just = Club website
| rel = y
| rel_just = Propably
| sig = n
| sig_just =
}}
{{ source_assess
| source = {{cite web | title=FK DOBRINJA | website=FK Dobrinja | date=11 August 2017 | url=http://fkdobrinja.ba/fk-dobrinja.html | archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20170811044550/http://fkdobrinja.ba/fk-dobrinja.html | archive-date=11 August 2017 | dead-url=no | language=bs | access-date=17 May 2018}}
| ind = n
| ind_just = Club website
| rel = y
| rel_just = Propably
| sig = n
| sig_just =
}}
{{ source_assess
| source = {{cite web | author= fsks.ba | title=Kantonalna liga Sarajevo - B grupa | website=FSKS | date=15 May 2018 | url=http://fsks.ba/index.php/takmicenja-meni/kantonalna-liga-sarajevo/kantonalna-liga-sarajevo-pliva-b-grupa | archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20180515185255/http://fsks.ba/index.php/takmicenja-meni/kantonalna-liga-sarajevo/kantonalna-liga-sarajevo-pliva-b-grupa | archive-date=15 May 2018 | dead-url=no | language=bs | access-date=17 May 2018}}
| ind = y
| ind_just = Football Ass. of Canton Sarajevo
| rel = y
| rel_just = Presumably
| sig = n
| sig_just = Pure statistics
}}
{{ source_assess
| source = {{cite web | title=Želimir Vidović Keli je živio za svoje Sarajevo | website=Klix.ba | date=17 May 2012 | url=https://www.klix.ba/vijesti/bih/zelimir-vidovic-keli-je-zivio-za-svoje-sarajevo/120517010 | archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20120520024503/https://www.klix.ba/vijesti/bih/zelimir-vidovic-keli-je-zivio-za-svoje-sarajevo/120517010 | archive-date=20 May 2012 | dead-url=no | language=bs | access-date=17 May 2018}}
| ind = y
| ind_just = Bylined article, internet portal
| rel = y
| rel_just = Presumably, yes
| sig = n
| sig_just = Trivial mention, article is about [[Želimir Vidović]], not the club
}}
{{ source_assess
| source = {{cite web | title=Udruženje Bordo prijatelji 1946: Gradsko vijeće nije prihvatilo naš prijedlog | website=Sport Centar | date=17 May 2018 | url=http://scsport.ba/udruzenje-bordo-prijatelji-1946-gradsko-vijece-nije-prihvatilo-nas-prijedlog/ | archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20180517111510/http://scsport.ba/udruzenje-bordo-prijatelji-1946-gradsko-vijece-nije-prihvatilo-nas-prijedlog/ | archive-date=17 May 2018 | dead-url=no | language=bs | access-date=17 May 2018}}
| ind = y
| ind_just =
| rel = y
| rel_just = Presumably, yes
| sig = n
| sig_just = Trivial mention
}}
}}
* [[WP:FOOTYN]] is repeatedly invoked as a "keep" argument here based on the team's supposed participation in 1 single match almost 20 years ago in the [[1999–2000 Bosnia and Herzegovina Football Cup]]. I say "supposed", because that fact is currently only supported by a reference to a user forum on SportsSport.ba.
: But FOOTYN is a shortcut to the project-specific essay [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability]]. It has not been under community scrutiny, and is in no way a free pass to inclusion. It makes the assumption, that {{tq|All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria.}} And passing [[WP:GNG]] does [[WP:NRVE|require verifiable evidence]]. I hope that sombody ''can'' find better sources. In which case I will gladly change my !vote. '''[[User:Sam Sailor|Sam]] [[User talk:Sam Sailor|Sailor]]''' 14:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Source assessment
Comment: I have tried to find sources on this little neighborhood club with 150 members, and I have yet to find 1 single, reliable source that speaks about the club in any detail. The club is currently scraping the bottom as no. 8 and last in the local League of Sarajevo Canton (Group B) that is down on the fourth level of Bosnia and Herzegovinan football.
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
WP:FOOTYN is repeatedly invoked as a "keep" argument here based on the team's supposed participation in 1 single match almost 20 years ago in the 1999–2000 Bosnia and Herzegovina Football Cup. I say "supposed", because that fact is currently only supported by a reference to a user forum on SportsSport.ba.
But FOOTYN is a shortcut to the project-specific essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. It has not been under community scrutiny, and is in no way a free pass to inclusion. It makes the assumption, that All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. And passing WP:GNG does require verifiable evidence. I hope that sombody can find better sources. In which case I will gladly change my !vote. SamSailor 14:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
* '''Delete''': searches suggest that sources required to meet either [[WP:BASIC]] or any part of [[WP:NACADEMICS]] are not found. ~~~~
Delete: searches suggest that sources required to meet either WP:BASIC or any part of WP:NACADEMICS are not found. -- Sam SailorTalk! 17:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
After 2 relists, this deletion discussion has no additional support - and it's been asserted that [[WP:NASTCRIT]]#2 is met, which is a reasonable argument. ~~~~
After 2 relists, this deletion discussion has no additional support – and it's been asserted that WP:NASTCRIT#2 is met, which is a reasonable argument. Sam SailorTalk! 01:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The [[Wikipedia:Notability (books)|notability guideline for books]] applies, but I have found no sources that suggest this work is notable. Author currently has no individual article.
The notability guideline for books applies, but I have found no sources that suggest this work is notable. Author currently has no individual article.
* '''Keep''' very obviously, as notability is verifiable through references to sources from the last 400 years that are easily found and cited, e.g.
*: a
*: b
*: c
*: d
*: e
: I'm not a big fan of page moves [[WP:AFDEQ|during AfD debates]], so we still have the article at [[BUNNYBUNNY]]. Although this ''part'' of the work maybe is that which gets talked most about, it would makes sense IMHO to move the article to ''[[BUNNYBUNNY]]''. Thoughts?
: This nomination for deletion, despite sources being available, with the argument {{gi|WEAK ARGUMENT GOES HERE}} is a sad disregard of [[WP:BEFORE|due diligence]] and should remind taggers that [[WP:NEXIST|notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article]]. Mentioning that it was previously PRODed and de-PRODed, as well as previously tagged by another user with {{tl|notability}}, does that serve anything but to testify a tripling up on lazy [[WP:DRIVEBY]]-tagging? ~~~~
Keep very obviously, as notability is verifiable through references to sources from the last 400 years that are easily found and cited, e.g.
a
b
c
d
e
I'm not a big fan of page moves during AfD debates, so we still have the article at BUNNYBUNNY. Although this part of the work maybe is that which gets talked most about, it would makes sense IMHO to move the article to BUNNYBUNNY. Thoughts?
An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope. For details, please read the [[Wikipedia:Notability (events)|notability guideline on events]].
An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope. For details, please read the notability guideline on events.
* '''Keep''' per [[WP:NFF]], principal photography has begun, I have added sources to verify that, and the production itself is notable. ~~~~
Keep per WP:NFF, principal photography has begun, I have added sources to verify that, and the production itself is notable. Sam SailorTalk! 11:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
* '''Keep''': I have added further references to reliable sources and the [[Wikipedia:Notability (films)|notability guideline for films]] is met. ~~~~
* '''Merge''' and '''redirect''' to director article <code>[[DIRECTOR NAME]]</code> as a [[WP:RCAT|categorized]] {{tlx|R from film}}, fails the [[Wikipedia:Notability (films)|notability guideline for films]]. ~~~~
* '''Delete''' per [[WP:DEL8]]: no [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] confirm that [[principal photography]] have commenced, thus subject [[WP:TOOSOON|currently]] fails the [[WP:NFF|notability guideline for future films]]. Can be rewritten if and when sources support the [[WP:NFILM|notability guideline for films]] is met. ~~~~
* '''Delete'''. Even short films by notable directors can be hard to source, but short films by non-notable directors are often near-impossible to references in accordance with the [[Wikipedia:Notability (films)|notability guideline for films]]. This short is no exception. ~~~~
Delete. Even short films by notable directors can be hard to source, but short films by non-notable directors are often near-impossible to references in accordance with the notability guideline for films. This short is no exception. Sam SailorTalk! 11:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' per [[WP:GEOLAND]], populated, legally recognized places are typically considered notable. I have cleaned up the article and added a source. ~~~~
Keep per WP:GEOLAND, populated, legally recognized places are typically considered notable. I have cleaned up the article and added a source. -- Sam SailorTalk! 20:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' per [[WP:GEOLAND]] and well established precedent per [[WP:PLACEOUTCOMES]]: populated, legally recognized places are typically considered notable, and the village is located here: {{Coord|55.330519|9.056850|display=inline}}. I have cleaned up the article and added a few sources. ~~~~
2. Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it.
[[WP:BLAR]] subdivision per [[WP:ATD-R|policy]] and [[WP:GEOLAND]] to the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it.
WP:BLAR subdivision per policy and WP:GEOLAND to the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it.
* '''Redirect''' to <code>[[Wellingborough]]</code> as a [[WP:RCAT|categorized]] {{tlx|R to related topic}}, {{Small|(the script [[User:Sam Sailor/Scripts/Sagittarius+|Sagittarius+]] can be useful)}}, the title is a valid search term. Sources exist, but I don't see there is material for a stand-alone article here. It is one of five wells of [[Wellingborough]], none of the four other have stand-alone articles. Per [[WP:GEOLAND]] populated places without legal recognition such as subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it, if a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources. ~~~~
Redirect to Wellingborough as a categorized{{R to related topic}}, (the script Sagittarius+ can be useful), the title is a valid search term. Sources exist, but I don't see there is material for a stand-alone article here. It is one of five wells of Wellingborough, none of the four other have stand-alone articles. Per WP:GEOLAND populated places without legal recognition such as subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it, if a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources. Sam SailorTalk! 20:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' and '''redirect''' to <code>[[BUNNYBUNNY]]</code> as subject lacks non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Per [[WP:GEOLAND]] populated places without legal recognition such as subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it, if a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources. ~~~~
Merge and redirect to BUNNYBUNNY as subject lacks non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Per WP:GEOLAND populated places without legal recognition such as subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it, if a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources. -- Sam SailorTalk! 20:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I have [[WP:R|redirected]] the unsourced [[BUNNYBUNNY]] to [[BUNNYBUNNY-2]] for now. If you think it can be [[WP:V|sourced]] to meeting either [[WP:GEOLAND]] or [[WP:STATION]], feel free to [[WP:PERMASTUB|expand]] it. Have a look at the other 5-7 articles about stops on the [[BUNNYBUNNY-2]] you have created. Would they be better off as redirects for the same reasons? ~~~~
* '''Keep''' per [[WP:GEOLAND]], named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. ~~~~
Keep per WP:GEOLAND, named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. -- Sam SailorTalk! 20:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
1. Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available are presumed to be notable
2. Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.
*:'''Note''' {{Ping|Example}} Claiming it's an historical building is by itself not a valid argument, please see [[WP:OLDAGE]]. ~~~~
Note@Example: Claiming it's an historical building is by itself not a valid argument, please see WP:OLDAGE. -- Sam SailorTalk! 11:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
* '''Delete'''. Non-notable real estate development, sources not available to establish notability per [[WP:GEOFEAT]]. ~~~~
Delete. Non-notable real estate development, sources not available to establish notability per WP:GEOFEAT. Sam SailorTalk! 16:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' per [[WP:GEOFEAT]]. A building is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable sources]] that are [[WP:SECONDARY|independent of the bodies which have a vested interest in them]]. Here the significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources required to establish notability is not present. ~~~~
3. Artificial features related to infrastructure (for example, bridges and dams) can be notable under Wikipedia's GNG. Where their notability is unclear, they generally redirect to more general articles or to a named natural feature that prompted their creation, e.g., to an article about the notable road it carries or the notable obstacle it spans.
* '''Keep'''. Subject can be referenced with [[WP:SECONDARY|independent]], [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable sources]] to meet the requirements of [[WP:NBAND]]. I have added some citations to this effect. ~~~~
* '''Delete''': Article about an unsigned boy-band with no released recordings, presumably written by the band's drummer. Main source is the band's Facebook page. Which is understandable, as no reliable, secondary sources can be found. Fails [[WP:BAND]], delete per [[WP:DEL8]]. ~~~~
Delete: Article about an unsigned boy-band with no released recordings, presumably written by the band's drummer. Main source is the band's Facebook page. Which is understandable, as no reliable, secondary sources can be found. Fails WP:BAND, delete per WP:DEL8. Sam SailorTalk! 09:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
* '''Delete'''. Subject fails the [[WP:BASIC|basic notability guideline for people]], and no sources were found that would likely make subject notable under the [[WP:MUSICBIO|additional criteria for musicians]]. Delete per [[WP:DEL8]]. ~~~~
Singer/musician participating in a TV talent competition, failing GNG and MUSICBIO:
* '''Delete''', then redirect to [[X Factor (Denmark season 9)]] and salt the redirect. I have searched for sources, but subject currently fails [[WP:GNG]]/[[WP:BASIC]] and does not qualify under [[WP:MUSICBIO]]. The title has been redirected multiple times to [[X Factor (Denmark season 9)]], but the article has been resurrected by various users. As subject's name is a plausible search term, and as [[WP:CHEAP|redirects are cheap]], redirecting as a [[WP:RCAT|categorized]] {{tl|R to related topic}} {{small|(or do we have a better rcat template for this case?)}} is a valid solution per [[WP:WINNEROUTCOMES]]. Salting the title is warranted due to the repeated resurrection. Closing admin should consider also salting the former title and now a redirect [[Alex (X Factor Denmark singer)]] as this has previously been hijacked, and retarget it to [[X Factor (Denmark season 9)]]. [[Alex (Danish singer)]], another former title, should be watchlisted if not preemptively salted. ~~~~
* '''Redirect''' to band article <code>[[BAND ARTICLE]]</code> as a [[WP:RCAT|categorized]] {{tl|R from member}}. Subject's name is a plausible search term, [[WP:CHEAP|redirects are cheap]], and redirecting rather than deleting is a [[WP:ATD-R|policy based alternative]] that is supported by [[WP:MUSICBIO]]: ''Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases.'' ~~~~
Redirect to band article BAND ARTICLE as a categorized {{R from member}}. Subject's name is a plausible search term, redirects are cheap, and redirecting rather than deleting is a policy based alternative that is supported by WP:MUSICBIO: Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases.Sam SailorTalk! 20:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
* '''Keep'''. First of all, subject is a member of [[BAND ARTICLE|a notable band]], ''and'' has a solo release, thus he does not fall clearly into a case of deletion pursuant to [[WP:MUSICOUTCOMES]], so ''if'' no sources were available to merit a standalone article, a possible [[WP:ATD|alternative to deletion]] - part of our deletion policy - would be to boldly [[WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT]] per [[WP:ATD-R]] as a [[WP:RCAT|categorized]] {{tl|R from member}}. Uncontroversial deletion via ProD was out of the question, at least. Nominator says that {{tq|"no independent third party reviews [are present]"}}, but that is not correct. We have
:# Bylined article by notable [[Bob Boilen]] published by notable [[NPR]]: {{cite web|last=Boilen|first=Bob|title=On A Break From San Fermin, Allen Tate Sings His Own Song|url=http://www.npr.org/sections/allsongs/2016/08/18/490406417/on-a-break-from-san-fermin-allen-tate-sings-his-own-song|website=npr.org|publisher=[[NPR]]|date=August 18, 2016}}
:# and we have a long, bylined article in ''[[Paste (magazine)|Paste]]'': {{cite web|last=Zimmerman|first=Lee|url=https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/10/a-satisfying-sleepwalk-allen-tate-on-life-within-a.html|title=A Satisfying Sleepwalk: Allen Tate on Life Within and Without San Fermin|publisher=pastemagazine.com|work=[[Paste (magazine)|Paste]]|date=October 28, 2016}}
: and both were present {{oldid|Allen Tate (musician)|762318891|at the time of nomination}}.
: [[WP:BEFORE]] asks us to be sure to perform as the minimum search expected, a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search. Searching for {{mono|"Allen Tate" sleepwalker}} brings up multiple hits, e.g.
:# Bylined article in ''[[Village Voice]]'': {{cite web|url=http://www.villagevoice.com/music/san-fermins-allen-tate-on-solitude-and-his-solo-debut-sleepwalker-9451316|last=Schuh|first=Becca|title=San Fermin's Allen Tate on Solitude and His Solo Debut 'Sleepwalker'|date=12 January 2017|work=[[Village Voice]]|accessdate=29 January 2017}}
:# Bylined article in ''[[USA Today]]'': {{cite web|url=http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/10/allen-tate-sleepwalker-album-stream|last=Scott|first=Nate|title=Album Stream: Allen Tate (of San Fermin) gives us his debut solo LP, ‘Sleepwalker’ - For The Win|work=For The Win|date=24 October 2016}}
: Sorry, but [[WP:VAGUEWAVE]] is not a valid argument for deletion, especially since there's little suggesting that the sources were vetted. The sources provided and the further [[WP:NRVE|existence of suitable sources]] are what we use to determine if notability is met, and [[WP:GNG]]/[[WP:BASIC]] is met here. ~~~~
Keep. First of all, subject is a member of a notable band, and has a solo release, thus he does not fall clearly into a case of deletion pursuant to WP:MUSICOUTCOMES, so if no sources were available to merit a standalone article, a possible alternative to deletion – part of our deletion policy – would be to boldly WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT per WP:ATD-R as a categorized {{R from member}}. Uncontroversial deletion via ProD was out of the question, at least. Nominator says that "no independent third party reviews [are present]", but that is not correct. We have
WP:BEFORE asks us to be sure to perform as the minimum search expected, a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search. Searching for "Allen Tate" sleepwalker brings up multiple hits, e.g.
Sorry, but WP:VAGUEWAVE is not a valid argument for deletion, especially since there's little suggesting that the sources were vetted. The sources provided and the further existence of suitable sources are what we use to determine if notability is met, and WP:GNG/WP:BASIC is met here. Sam SailorTalk! 20:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
* '''Delete'''. Doing some searching unfortunately does not reveal sources that would make him pass [[WP:BASIC]], nor does this young composer yet meet the subject specific guideline [[WP:COMPOSER]]. ~~~~
Delete. Doing some searching unfortunately does not reveal sources that would make him pass WP:BASIC, nor does this young composer yet meet the subject specific guideline WP:COMPOSER. SamSailor 19:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Searches for sources indicate that subject may not meet the inclusion criteria in [[WP:NALBUMS|notability guideline for recordings]] or the [[WP:GNG|general notability guideline]].
* '''Keep''', album meets the criterion in [[WP:NALBUMS|notability guideline for recordings]] by having charted on the [[WP:GOODCHARTS]]-listed [[BUNNYBUNNY]], and by being referenced with citations to reliable, secondary sources. ~~~~
* '''Redirect'''. Even if the [[WP:NALBUMS|notability guideline for recordings]] can not be met - and I can't find sufficient sources - the article title is a perfectly valid search term, and there is no need for deletion. The policy-based solution per [[WP:ATD-R]] is to redirect to the artist article <code>[[ARTIST NAME]]</code> as a [[WP:RCAT|categorized]] {{tlx|R from album}} and {{tlx|R with possibilities}}. {{Small|(The script [[User:Sam Sailor/Scripts/Sagittarius+|Sagittarius+]] can be useful.)}} Redirecting per ATD-R after a proper [[WP:BEFORE]] can always be tried before nominating for deletion. ~~~~
Redirect. Even if the notability guideline for recordings can not be met – and I can't find sufficient sources – the article title is a perfectly valid search term, and there is no need for deletion. The policy-based solution per WP:ATD-R is to redirect to the artist article ARTIST NAME as a categorized{{R from album}} and {{R with possibilities}}. (The script Sagittarius+ can be useful.) Redirecting per ATD-R after a proper WP:BEFORE can always be tried before nominating for deletion. SamSailor 02:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Album to artist's discography article:
* '''Redirect''' to <code>[[BUNNYBUNNY discgraphy#SECTION NAME]]</code> as a [[WP:RCAT|categorized]] {{tlx|R from album}}, {{tlx|R to section}}, and {{tlx|R with possibilities}}. {{Small|(The script [[User:Sam Sailor/Scripts/Sagittarius+|Sagittarius+]] can be useful.)}} Redirecting per [[WP:ATD-R]] after a proper [[WP:BEFORE]] can always be tried before nominating for deletion, if a [[WP:BLAR]] has not been challenged. ~~~~
*'''Redirect''' to album article ''[[ALBUM_TITLE]]'' for now per [[WP:MUSICOUTCOMES]]. Can be rewritten if and when the [[WP:NSONGS|notability guideline for songs]] is met. ~~~~
*'''Redirect''' as a [[WP:RCAT|categorized]] {{tlx|R from song}} to artist article <code>[[ARTISTNAME]]</code> for now per [[WP:MUSICOUTCOMES]]. Can be rewritten if and when the [[WP:NSONGS|notability guideline for songs]] is met. ~~~~
* '''Delete''' Fails [[WP:NSONG]] and [[WP:GNG]]. Could alternatively be redirected to artist article per [[WP:MUSICOUTCOMES]]. Can in any case be rewritten if and when the [[WP:NSONGS|notability guideline for songs]] is met. ~~~~
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (permalink) excludes "non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams". It further says: "This guideline does not cover small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors covered by WP:Notability (people)."
What to type
What it makes
Film production company with no finished projects and one single film, ''[[Budhiparamaaya Neekkam]]'' in the making since 2014. Searching for sources I find nothing worth adding that would make subject meet [[WP:CORP]] or [[WP:GNG]].
Film production company with no finished projects and one single film, Budhiparamaaya Neekkam in the making since 2014. Searching for sources I find nothing worth adding that would make subject meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG.
* '''Keep''' as notable meeting [[WP:ORGDEPTH]] through non-trivial coverage in reliable, secondary sources. I have added a handful:
:* Blah
:* Bleh
:* Blih
:* Bloh
:* Bluh
:~~~~
Keep as notable meeting WP:ORGDEPTH through non-trivial coverage in reliable, secondary sources. I have added a handful:
* '''Keep'''. Very well known chain - any attempts at [[WP:BEFORE]] would have turned up sources to confirm that. Sources are not restricted to site:.se/.no/.dk, and proposing that the claim "largest Nordic coffee house chain" could be a marketing hoax is a misconception that easily could have been avoided with just a Gnews search finding a source such as {{cite web
| url = https://dailycoffeenews.com/2015/06/02/largest-nordic-coffee-chain-espresso-house-bought-by-jab/
| title = Largest Nordic Coffee Chain Espresso House Bought by JAB
}} I have added a few citation to sources, and the available sources show that the company easily meets [[WP:ORGCRIT]]. ~~~~
Keep. Very well known chain – any attempts at WP:BEFORE would have turned up sources to confirm that. Sources are not restricted to site:.se/.no/.dk, and proposing that the claim "largest Nordic coffee house chain" could be a marketing hoax is a misconception that easily could have been avoided with just a Gnews search finding a source such as "Largest Nordic Coffee Chain Espresso House Bought by JAB". I have added a few citation to sources, and the available sources show that the company easily meets WP:ORGCRIT. SamSailor 20:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
After skimming the first 100 Google hits, I find nothing but directory entries and assume that this will not be sourceable to meeting [[WP:NHOSPITALS]].
After skimming the first 100 Google hits, I find nothing but directory entries and assume that this will not be sourceable to meeting WP:NHOSPITALS.
* '''Keep'''. I have made some deep cuts per [[WP:WPSCH/AG]], and would suggest the bulleted § History be reduced to a short prosed section if it can be sourced. As [[WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES]] says: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept ''except'' when zero [[Wikipedia:Independent sources|independent sources]] can be found to prove that the institution [[WP:HOAX|actually exists]]." The institution does exist and sources, albeit maybe not in abundance, exist to verify it. ~~~~
Keep. I have made some deep cuts per WP:WPSCH/AG, and would suggest the bulleted § History be reduced to a short prosed section if it can be sourced. As WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." The institution does exist and sources, albeit maybe not in abundance, exist to verify it. -- Sam SailorTalk! 20:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy.
What to type
What it makes
R to company article
* '''Redirect''' per [[WP:PRODUCT]] as a [[User:Sam Sailor/Scripts/Sagittarius+|categorized]] {{tlx|R from product name}} to the parent company <code>[[COMPANY NAME]]</code>. A redirect in a case like this may always be boldly made per [[WP:ATD-R]] and [[WP:BLAR]]. Unless the redirect is challenged and consensus is not subsequently reached on the talk page, an AFD discussion is not necessarily needed. ~~~~
Redirect per WP:PRODUCT as a categorized{{R from product name}} to the parent company COMPANY NAME. A redirect in a case like this may always be boldly made per WP:ATD-R and WP:BLAR. Unless the redirect is challenged and consensus is not subsequently reached on the talk page, an AFD discussion is not necessarily needed. Sam SailorTalk! 20:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
R to section of company article
* '''Redirect''' per [[WP:PRODUCT]] to <code>[[COMPANY NAME#SECTION NAME]]</code> as a [[User:Sam Sailor/Scripts/Sagittarius+|categorized]] {{tlx|R from product name}} and {{tlx|R to section}}. A redirect in a case like this may always be boldly made per [[WP:ATD-R]] and [[WP:BLAR]]. Unless the redirect is challenged and consensus is not subsequently reached on the talk page, an AFD discussion is not necessarily needed. ~~~~
* '''Delete'''. [[WP:PROD|Proposed for deletion]] with the rationale "Searches for sources indicate that subject may not meet the inclusion criteria in [[Wikipedia:Notability (software)]] or the [[WP:GNG|general notability guideline]]." Article creator has [[WP:DEPROD]]ed, but sourcing issues remain unchanged, and I find nothing that suggests this can be adequately ameliorated. ~~~~
* '''Redirect''' as a [[WP:RCAT|categorized]] {{tlx|R from subtopic}} to <code>[[TARGET ARTICLE]]</code> where I have added a mention. Subject currently does not meet the inclusion criteria in [[Wikipedia:Notability (software)]] or the [[WP:GNG|general notability guideline]]. ~~~~
* A '''redirect''' as a [[WP:RCAT|categorized]] {{tlx|R to related topic}} to the company article at <code>[[BUNNYBUNNYCOMPANYNAME]]</code> where subject is mentioned seems like a good solution. If subject should later meet the inclusion criteria [[Wikipedia:Notability (software)]] or the [[WP:GNG|general notability guideline]], I have no problem with resurrecting the article. ~~~~
* '''Delete'''. [[:zh:<ARTICLE TITLE ON FOREIGN WIKIPEDIA>]] never existed, and that may be an indication that she's not notable although [[WP:OTHERLANGS|it isn't necessarily]]. I did some searching on {{mono|NAME}} but from the little I can understand of the Google translation, there's not much coverage found. From all I can tell, she fails [[WP:GNG]]/[[WP:BASIC]], the prize she won does not make her likely notable per [[WP:ANYBIO]], and the article should be deleted per [[WP:DEL8]]. I am very willing to change my position, if someone fluent in <LANGUAGE> can find a handful of good sources. ~~~~
Delete. [[:zh:<ARTICLE TITLE ON FOREIGN WIKIPEDIA>]] never existed, and that may be an indication that she's not notable although it isn't necessarily. I did some searching on NAME but from the little I can understand of the Google translation, there's not much coverage found. From all I can tell, she fails WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, the prize she won does not make her likely notable per WP:ANYBIO, and the article should be deleted per WP:DEL8. I am very willing to change my position, if someone fluent in <LANGUAGE> can find a handful of good sources. Sam SailorTalk! 20:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Clear A7 material
* '''Speedy delete''' per [[WP:A7]], there is not the slightest credible claim of significance in either "LAME CLAIM" (insert diff) or the updated "EVEN LAMER CLAIM" (insert diff). Comparing the name in the infobox "NAME" with the names of the now sock blocked editors {{User|NAME}} and {{User|NAME}} this is just an autobio. ~~~~
Speedy delete per WP:A7, there is not the slightest credible claim of significance in either "LAME CLAIM" (insert diff) or the updated "EVEN LAMER CLAIM" (insert diff). Comparing the name in the infobox "NAME" with the names of the now sock blocked editors NAME (talk·contribs) and NAME (talk·contribs) this is just an autobio. Sam SailorTalk! 20:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
BLP1E cases that can be redirected or merged:
* '''Redirect''' as a [[WP:RCAT|categorized]] {{tlx|R from person}} to <code>BUNNYBUNNY</code> per [[WP:ATD-R]] (policy). Subject seems to be a [[WP:BLP1E]] case that does not meet the [[WP:BASIC|basic notability guideline for people]], but subject is mentioned in [[BUNNYBUNNY]], and as such the article title nominated for deletion here is a valid search term that would be accepted if it had been requested at [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories]]. [[WP:BLAR]] per ATD-R after a proper [[WP:BEFORE]] can always be attempted before nominating for deletion. If redirection is not contested, there is no need for a discussion at AFD. ~~~~
Non-notable sound engineer and music producer with about three years under his belt. None of the sources currently present in the article are more than trivial mention, see source assessment below. The article on French Wikipedia, [[:fr:Nk.F]], is slightly more bombarded with sources, and there are a few more sources to find searching for his full name, [[Nikola Feve]], but looking through them I find no indication that we have a pass under [[WP:MUSICBIO]] nor under [[WP:BASIC]]/[[WP:GNG]]. PROD was contested by an editor with no prior edits to the article, which of course is their right. '''[[User:Sam Sailor|Sam]] [[User talk:Sam Sailor|Sailor]]''' 18:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
'''Source assessment''':
{{ Source assess table |
{{ Source assess
| source = {{Cite news|url=http://next.liberation.fr/musique/2018/06/14/damso-le-diable-noir_1659141|title=Damso, le diable noir|work=Libération.fr|access-date=2018-09-11|language=fr}}
| ind = y
| ind_just =
| rel = y
| rel_just =
| sig = n
| sig_just = Trivial mention as producer for [[Damso]]
}}
{{ Source assess
| source = {{Cite web|url=https://www.discogs.com/artist/3356498-NKF|title=NK.F|website=Discogs|language=en|access-date=2018-09-11}}
| ind = ?
| ind_just = [[WP:UGC]]
| rel = ?
| rel_just =
| sig = n
| sig_just = User-generated database
}}
{{ Source assess
| source = {{cite news |last1=Menu |first1=Etienne |title=On a soumis notre questionnaire connard à Damso |url=https://noisey.vice.com/fr/article/xyeqyn/on-a-soumis-notre-questionnaire-connard-a-damso |work=Noisey |date=2017-05-02|access-date=2018-10-12|language=fr-FR}}
| ind = y
| ind_just =
| rel = y
| rel_just =
| sig = n
| sig_just = Trivial mention as sound engineer for [[Damso]]
}}
{{ Source assess
| source = {{cite news |last1=Menu |first1=Etienne |title="Dans la légende" : Le nouveau PNL dépasse toutes les attentes |url=https://www.gqmagazine.fr/pop-culture/musique/articles/que-vaut-dans-la-legende-le-nouvel-album-de-pnl-/46216 |work=GQ |date=2016-09-16|access-date=2018-10-12|language=fr-FR}}
| ind = y
| ind_just =
| rel = y
| rel_just =
| sig = n
| sig_just = Trivial mention as sound engineer for [[PNL (band)|PNL]]
}}
{{ Source assess
| source = {{Cite news|url=https://www.thefader.com/2016/06/14/pnl-cover-story-french-rap|title=PNL’s World Or Nothing|work=The FADER|access-date=2018-09-11|language=en}}
| ind = y
| ind_just =
| rel = y
| rel_just =
| sig = n
| sig_just = Trivial mention as sound engineer for [[PNL (band)]]
}}
{{ Source assess
| source = {{Cite news|url=https://www.booska-p.com/new-damso-les-chiffres-de-ventes-de-son-album-ipseiete-n74600.html|title=Damso : Les chiffres de ventes de son album " Ipséïté " !|last=Booska-p|access-date=2018-09-11|language=fr}}
| ind = ?
| ind_just =
| rel = ?
| rel_just =
| sig = n
| sig_just = Not mentioned at all in article; mentioned in the user comments
}}
{{ Source assess
| source = {{Cite news|url=https://www.lesinrocks.com/inrocks.tv/kobo-met-en-scene-la-jeunesse-belge-dans-le-clip-du-puissant-eyes/|title=Kobo met en scène la jeunesse belge dans le clip du puissant "All Eyes On Me"|work=Les Inrocks|access-date=2018-09-11|language=fr-FR}}
| ind = y
| ind_just =
| rel = ?
| rel_just =
| sig = n
| sig_just = Trivial mention as sound engineer
}}
{{ Source assess
| source = {{Cite news|url=http://www.rapelite.com/news/lalbum-commando-de-niska-certifie-double-disque-de-platine|title=L’album COMMANDO de Niska est certifié double disque de platine|work=Rapelite.com|access-date=2018-09-11|language=fr-FR}}
| ind = y
| ind_just =
| rel = ?
| rel_just =
| sig = n
| sig_just = Trivial mention as sound engineer for [[Niska (rapper)]]
}}
{{ Source assess
| source = {{Cite web|url=https://yard.media/siboy-de-maladresse/|title=Siboy, pas de maladresse|website=yard.media|language=fr-FR|access-date=2018-09-11}}
| ind = y
| ind_just =
| rel = ?
| rel_just =
| sig = n
| sig_just = Trivial mention as sound engineer for {{ill|Siboy|fr|Siboy}}
}}
}}
Source assessment
Non-notable sound engineer and music producer with about three years under his belt. None of the sources currently present in the article are more than trivial mention, see source assessment below. The article on French Wikipedia, fr:Nk.F, is slightly more bombarded with sources, and there are a few more sources to find searching for his full name, Nikola Feve, but looking through them I find no indication that we have a pass under WP:MUSICBIO nor under WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. PROD was contested by an editor with no prior edits to the article, which of course is their right. SamSailor 18:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (permalink) excludes "non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams". It further says: "This guideline does not cover small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors covered by WP:Notability (people)."
* I have added one further citation to a review of the company's 2003 production of ''Manhatitlán'' as well as a link to a newsletter (.pdf) from the Hispanic Organization of Latin Actors that mentions the group. An assessment of the current sourcing is found below. We still need significant coverage about the company as such, and those opining "keep" are invited to [[WP:NRVE|show verifiable evidence of notability]]. In case someone will argue that the [[WP:NORG]] → [[WP:NBIO]] loop lands on [[WP:NBIO]], it is still [[WP:BASIC]] that should be met. '''[[User:Sam Sailor|Sam]] [[User talk:Sam Sailor|Sailor]]''' 11:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
{{ assess table |
{{ source_assess
| source = http://www.oobr.com/top/volEight/fourteen/DayYou.htm
| ind = y
| ind_just = Review of a 2001 production of a [[José Ignacio Cabrujas|Cabrujas]] play performed on [[Pulse Theatre]]. Scorching. Reviewer is not [[John Chatterton|this John Chatterton]].
| rel = y
| rel_just = OOBR, the [[Off-Off Broadway Review]], although non-notable, can be presumed to be reliable for what it's worth.
| sig = n
| sig_just = [[WP:INHERITORG]] applies here, the theatre company does not become notable in itself because one of their productions got a short review on a non-notable website.
}}
{{ source_assess
| source = http://www.curtainup.com/fringe2003.html
| ind = y
| ind_just = Short mention of the company's 2003 adaption of a [[Simone Schwarz-Bart|Schwarz-Bart]] play.
| rel = y
| rel_just = Presumably yes, FWIW, although [[CurtainUp]] is not a notable website.
| sig = n
| sig_just = [[WP:INHERITORG]] applies again here.
}}
{{ source_assess
| source = https://www.backstage.com/review/manhatitlan/
| ind = y
| ind_just = Yes, another review of the 2003 adaption of ''Ton Beau Capitaine''
| rel = y
| rel_just = [[Backstage (magazine)|''Backstage'']], a solid source
| sig = n
| sig_just = Again, it is a review of a production, it is not an article about the theatre company.
}}
{{ source_assess
| source = http://latinACEawards.org/index-06.html
| ind = y
| ind_just = Archived [https://web.archive.org/web/20080514002924/http://latinaceawards.org/index-06.html here]
| rel = y
| rel_just = A list of winners of that year's award.
| sig = n
| sig_just =
}}
{{ source_assess
| source = http://www1.aston.ac.uk/clipp/projects/2008/making-short-films-in-the-second-language-classroom/
| ind = y
| ind_just = 404 again, but can be found at http://web.archive.org/web/20120307184039/http://www1.aston.ac.uk/clipp/learning-innovation/project-reports/2008/making-short-films-in-the-second-language-classroom/
| rel = y
| rel_just =
| sig = n
| sig_just = Actors of the World is not mentioned. It is a project announcement {{em|by}} the company's founder [[Marco Aponte]].
}}
{{ source_assess
| source = http://www.actorsoftheworld.com/
| ind = n
| ind_just = Company website, domain has expired.
| rel = ?
| rel_just = Archived at e.g. http://web.archive.org/web/20120210131738/http://www.actorsoftheworld.com/
| sig = ?
| sig_just =
}}
{{ source_assess
| source = https://camdenfringe.com/
| ind = y
| ind_just = URL to [[Camden Fringe|Camden Fringe Festival]]
| rel = ?
| rel_just =
| sig = n
| sig_just = No mention
}}
}}
Source assessment
I have added one further citation to a review of the company's 2003 production of Manhatitlán as well as a link to a newsletter (.pdf) from the Hispanic Organization of Latin Actors that mentions the group. An assessment of the current sourcing is found below. We still need significant coverage about the company as such, and those opining "keep" are invited to show verifiable evidence of notability. In case someone will argue that the WP:NORG → WP:NBIO loop lands on WP:NBIO, it is still WP:BASIC that should be met. SamSailor 11:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
OOBR, the Off-Off Broadway Review, although non-notable, can be presumed to be reliable for what it's worth.
WP:INHERITORG applies here, the theatre company does not become notable in itself because one of their productions got a short review on a non-notable website.
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
* '''Delete'''. Subject fails the [[WP:BASIC|basic notability guideline for people]] and is not found to be likely notable under the [[WP:CREATIVE|additional criteria for creative professionals]]. ~~~~
* '''Keep''' notable author, verifiable through multiple cited references to reliable, independent, secondary sources, of which I have added a dozen citations (plenty of more ''also'' on Highbeam); meets criterion #3 for [[WP:AUTHOR|creative professionals]] as the author of the book ''BOOK_NAME'' that was turned into the Academy Award-nominated film ''[[FILM_NAME]]''.
Keep notable author, verifiable through multiple cited references to reliable, independent, secondary sources, of which I have added a dozen citations (plenty of more also on Highbeam); meets criterion #3 for creative professionals as the author of the book BOOK_NAME that was turned into the Academy Award-nominated film FILM NAME.
* '''Delete'''. It is hard to find sources about subject as opposed to by subject, and he appears to fail [[WP:JOURNALIST]] as well as [[WP:ANYBIO]] or simply [[WP:BASIC]]. --~~~~
Delete. It is hard to find sources about subject as opposed to by subject, and he appears to fail WP:JOURNALIST as well as WP:ANYBIO or simply WP:BASIC. --Sam SailorTalk! 20:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
* '''Delete'''. Subject fails the [[WP:BASIC|basic notability guideline for people]] and is not found to be likely notable under the [[WP:ENT|additional criteria for entertainers]]. --~~~~
* '''Keep'''. Subject is notable under the [[WP:BASIC|basic notability guideline for people]] as can be verified by referencing multiple reliable, secondary sources, and subject meets the additional [[WP:NACTOR|criteria for actors]] as she has had significant roles in multiple notable productions. ~~~~
Keep. Subject is notable under the basic notability guideline for people as can be verified by referencing multiple reliable, secondary sources, and subject meets the additional criteria for actors as she has had significant roles in multiple notable productions. Sam SailorTalk! 01:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
* '''Keep'''. Subject is notable under [[WP:NACTOR]] as having had significant roles in multiple notable films. --~~~~
Keep. Subject is notable under WP:NACTOR as having had significant roles in multiple notable films. --Sam SailorTalk! 01:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
* '''Delete'''. Neither a search on "NAME IN NON-LATIN ALPHABET" or the above INDAFD search or normal searches for sources suggest that there are sources available to meet the [[WP:NACTOR|criteria for actors]] or just the [[WP:BASIC|basic notability guideline for people]]. --~~~~
* '''Redirect''' as a [[WP:RCAT|categorized]] {{tlx|R from person}} to <code>BUNNYBUNNY (TV series)</code> per [[WP:ATD-R]] (policy). Subject does not meet the [[WP:BASIC|basic notability guideline for people]] or can be assumed notable under [[WP:NACTOR]], but subject is mentioned in [[BUNNYBUNNY (TV series)|''BUNNYBUNNY'' (TV series)]], and as such the article title nominated for deletion here is a valid search term that would be accepted if it had been requested at [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects]]. Redirecting per ATD-R after a proper [[WP:BEFORE]] can always be tried before nominating for deletion. ~~~~
* '''Delete'''. Subject does not appear to meet [[WP:POLITICIAN]], and sources to support that [[WP:ANYBIO]] or simply [[WP:BASIC]] is met have not been found. ~~~~
Delete. Subject does not appear to meet WP:POLITICIAN, and sources to support that WP:ANYBIO or simply WP:BASIC is met have not been found. Sam SailorTalk! 20:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources in any language including Swedish that would make subject meet either our [[Wikipedia:Notability (sports)|notability guideline for athletes]] or our [[WP:BASIC|general notability guideline for people]].
* '''Delete'''. Searching for sources, I did not find any that would make subject pass our [[WP:BASIC|general notability guideline for people]] or the subject specific [[WP:NFOOTBALL|notability guideline for association football figures]]. ~~~~
* '''Delete'''. Judging from the lack of sources currently found, the club fails the [[WP:GNG|general notability guideline]] as well as any presumption of notability per the essay [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability]]. ~~~~
Endorsed BLPPRODed autobiography that has had one source added which is hardly a reliable source. Subject claims to have been picked for the [[Jharkhand cricket team]], but I can find no sources to support that. Fails both the specific [[WP:NCRICKET|notability guideline for cricket figures]] and the [[WP:BASIC|general notability guideline for people]].
* '''Delete''': plays in the [[Norwegian First Division (ice hockey)|]], the second level of ice hockey in Norway, and fails [[WP:NHOCKEY]]. Delete per [[WP:DEL8|policy]]. ~~~~
* '''Delete''': searches suggest that significant coverage in independent, reliable sources sufficient to meet the [[WP:GNG|notability guideline for web-specific content]] are not found. ~~~~
* '''Keep'''. Detailed coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources is available to satisfy the the [[WP:GNG|general notability guideline]] as well as [[Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft)]]. --~~~~
* '''Delete'''. Subject seems difficult to reference with citations to [[WP:SECONDARY|independent]], [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable sources]] to a degree that would meet [[WP:GNG]]/[[WP:NAWARD]]. ~~~~
* '''Delete''' per [[WP:NFICT]] and [[WP:GNG]]: lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. ~~~~
Delete per WP:NFICT and WP:GNG: lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Sam SailorTalk! 09:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Fictional character, R to anchor (for main characters):
* '''Redirect''' as a [[WP:RCAT|categorized]] {{tlx|R from fictional character}} and {{tlx|R to anchor}} to <code>[[List of NAMEOFSERIES (TV series) characters#ANCHORNAME]]</code>. The article is poorly sourced, and consists mostly of unsourced plot summary. The essay [[Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)]] asks us to consider the [[WP:GNG|general notability guideline]], and this charater does not seem notable for a stand-alone article. But since HE/SHE is a main character in [[NAMEOFSERIES (TV series)|''NAMEOFSERIES'' (TV series)]], a categorized {{tl|R from fictional character}} to the list of characters in the series is an appropriate policy-based [[WP:ATD-R|alternative to deletion]]. No prejudice against a stand-alone article, if it can be properly sourced. ~~~~
Fictional character, R to section (for minor characters):
* '''Redirect''' as a [[WP:RCAT|categorized]] {{tlx|R from fictional character}} and {{tlx|R to section}} to <code>[[List of NAMEOFSERIES (TV series) characters#SECTIONNAME]]</code>. The article is poorly sourced, and consists mostly of unsourced plot summary. The essay [[Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)]] asks us to consider the [[WP:GNG|general notability guideline]], and this charater does not seem notable for a stand-alone article. But since HE/SHE is a character in [[NAMEOFSERIES (TV series)|''NAMEOFSERIES'' (TV series)]], a categorized {{tl|R from fictional character}} to the list of characters in the series is an appropriate policy-based [[WP:ATD-R|alternative to deletion]]. ~~~~
* '''Redirect'''. The essay [[Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)]] asks us to consider the [[WP:GNG|general notability guideline]]: SUBJECT is not notable for a stand-alone article, but since it is a fictional element in [[TARGET (film)|''TARGET'']], a [[WP:RCAT|categorized]] {{tl|R from fictional element}} to <code>[[TARGET#Production design]]</code> is an appropriate policy-based [[WP:ATD-R|alternative to deletion]]. ~~~~
* Restore '''redirect''' to <code>[[TARGET]]</code> and [[WP:RCAT|categorize]] it as an {{tlx|R comics from related word}}. The essay [[Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)]] asks us to consider the [[WP:GNG|general notability guideline]], but SUBJECT is not notable for a stand-alone article. As a search term the title is valid, and a redirect is thus an appropriate policy-based [[WP:ATD-R|alternative to deletion]].{{pb}}A redirect may always be boldly made per [[WP:ATD-R]] and [[WP:BLAR]], and in a case like this restored. Unless the redirect is challenged and consensus is not subsequently reached on the talk page, an AFD discussion is not necessarily needed. The script [[User:DannyS712/Redirectify.js]] can come in handy in some of these situations (although not this one). ~~~~
Restore redirect to TARGET and categorize it as an {{R comics from related word}}. The essay Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) asks us to consider the general notability guideline, but SUBJECT is not notable for a stand-alone article. As a search term the title is valid, and a redirect is thus an appropriate policy-based alternative to deletion.A redirect may always be boldly made per WP:ATD-R and WP:BLAR, and in a case like this restored. Unless the redirect is challenged and consensus is not subsequently reached on the talk page, an AFD discussion is not necessarily needed. The script User:DannyS712/Redirectify.js can come in handy in some of these situations (although not this one). SamSailor 15:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Fictional place:
* '''Redirect'''. The essay [[Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)]] asks us to consider the [[WP:GNG|general notability guideline]]: SUBJECT is mentioned as part of the ''[[FAMOUS SERIES]]'' franchise, but not nearly enough to suggest it is notable for a stand-alone article. Since it is a fictional place on the fictional planet [[PLANET_NAME]], a [[WP:RCAT|categorized]] {{tl|R from fictional place}}, in this case with the optional parameter set: {{tlx|R from fictional place|FAMOUS SERIES}}, to the article <code>[[PLANET_NAME]]</code> is an appropriate policy-based [[WP:ATD-R|alternative to deletion]]. ~~~~
* '''Delete'''. With only one list-entry that is already in the countrywide list [[List of hospitals in Nigeria]] there is no purpose of keeping this per the [[WP:CLN|guideline on categories, lists, and navigation templates]]. ~~~~
* '''Keep''' per [[WP:LISTOUTCOMES]] pursuant to the [[WP:CLN|guideline on categories, lists, and navigation templates]] with emphasis on [[WP:NOTDUP]]. Readable prose size is {{oldid|List of films about philosophers|720523372|currently}} 378 B (65 words). ~~~~
Closing a debate with a clear keep outcome, and absent any contentious debate among participants per [[WP:NAC]]#1.
Closing a debate with a clear keep outcome, and absent any contentious debate among participants per WP:NAC#1.
Bad faith nomination. AFD is not a weapon to be wielded in personal disputes. This is a procedural close, not based on consensus or an evaluation of the acceptability of the article. If any other editor believes this article legitimately should be AFD'd, there is no objection to starting a new, legitimate AFD.
Bad faith nomination. AFD is not a weapon to be wielded in personal disputes. This is a procedural close, not based on consensus or an evaluation of the acceptability of the article. If any other editor believes this article legitimately should be AFD'd, there is no objection to starting a new, legitimate AFD.
Per [[WP:SK#1]], nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete or redirect !votes.
Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete or redirect !votes.
Per [[WP:SK#1]], no arguments for deletion have been advanced and nobody else recommends deletion or redirection.
Per WP:SK#1, no arguments for deletion have been advanced and nobody else recommends deletion or redirection.
Per [[WP:SK#2a]], a disruptive and obviously frivolous nomination where no uninvolved editor recommends deletion.
Per WP:SK#2a, a disruptive and obviously frivolous nomination where no uninvolved editor recommends deletion.
Per [[WP:SK#2b]], a nomination made solely to provide a forum for disruption.
Per WP:SK#2b, a nomination made solely to provide a forum for disruption.
Per [[WP:SK#2c]], renomination with same arguments as in a recently, strongly rejected, closed discussion.
Per WP:SK#2c, renomination with same arguments as in a recently, strongly rejected, closed discussion.
Per [[WP:SK#2d]], a nomination that clearly is an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course.
Per WP:SK#2d, a nomination that clearly is an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course.
I am early closing this under our [[WP:SNOW|snowball clause]] justified by [[Wikipedia:Ignore all rules|Ignore all rules]] and saving everybody's time as [[WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY|Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy]].
Draft about BUNNYBUNNY. Draft is old? {{checked box}}, unsuitable? {{checked box}}, user is long interactive? {{checked box}}, and draft is not eligible for [[WP:G13|]] since {{tl|AFC submission}} template is absent. '''Delete''' per [[WP:STALEDRAFT]]. ~~~~
Draft about BUNNYBUNNY. Draft is old? , unsuitable? , user is long interactive? , and draft is not eligible for G13 since {{AFC submission}} template is absent. Delete per WP:STALEDRAFT. Sam SailorTalk! 18:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
{{Deprod}} (for notifying a PROD nominator that you have removed their PROD tag)
{{Deprod-reprod}} (for notifying a PROD nominator that you have removed their PROD tag because the page has previously been de-prodded or listed at a deletion discussion)
{{Deprod-blp}} (for notifying a BLP PROD nominator that you have removed their BLP PROD tag)
User page: This is a Wikipedia user page, not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Sailor/Boilerplates/Nnotes.
