Reason: not notable. a nursery selling plants. only ref is a link to the nursery's web site. web search only finds listings for the nursery, no notable references.
Reason: Article for a department in a school of medicine at the University of Cambridge. Nothing in the article to make it notable, has had notability template on it since 2013.
Reason: WP:NBUILDING. Nothing about notability except the public art. Either this should be deleted or the article should be about the art if someone thinks the art is notable.
Reason: No evidence this phrase exists. All google hits are copied from the Wikipedia page. It is either a neologism WP:NEO or a dictionary definition WP:NAD.
Reason: WP:PERMASTUB Not a notable subject on its own. Only item doesn't seem very notable. If someone wanted to keep the info, they could add it to Brazil–Canada relations. Funnily, the talk page for this article is huge.
Reason: Policies violated by this page:WP:NOTDIRECTORY "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."WP:NOTGUIDE Wikipedia is not a travel guide. We have Wikitravel for that, and many of these pages could be recreated (or already are) there.The core content policies are: 1) neutral point of view, 2) no original research and 3) verifiability. This page violages policies 2 and 3.WP:VERIFY What are the criteria to meet to be in the list? This page has vague or no criteria. By definition, then, there is no way to verify the inclusion or exclusion of any particular site in the list.WP:NOR Original research "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Who says that each of the items in the list are tourist attractions? Given the lack of inclusion criteria, that's understandable, as there is no need to justify being in a list that doesn't have standards for inclusion. However, that also points to original research as being the source for inclusion.
Reason: Policies violated by this page:WP:NOTDIRECTORY "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."WP:NOTGUIDE Wikipedia is not a travel guide. We have Wikitravel for that, and many of these pages could be recreated (or already are) there.The core content policies are: 1) neutral point of view, 2) no original research and 3) verifiability. This page violages policies 2 and 3.WP:VERIFY What are the criteria to meet to be in the list? This page has vague or no criteria. By definition, then, there is no way to verify the inclusion or exclusion of any particular site in the list.WP:NOR Original research "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Who says that each of the items in the list are tourist attractions? Given the lack of inclusion criteria, that's understandable, as there is no need to justify being in a list that doesn't have standards for inclusion. However, that also points to original research as being the source for inclusion.
Reason: Policies violated by this page:WP:NOTDIRECTORY "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."WP:NOTGUIDE Wikipedia is not a travel guide. We have Wikitravel for that, and many of these pages could be recreated (or already are) there.The core content policies are: 1) neutral point of view, 2) no original research and 3) verifiability. This page violages policies 2 and 3.WP:VERIFY What are the criteria to meet to be in the list? This page has vague or no criteria. By definition, then, there is no way to verify the inclusion or exclusion of any particular site in the list.WP:NOR Original research "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Who says that each of the items in the list are tourist attractions? Given the lack of inclusion criteria, that's understandable, as there is no need to justify being in a list that doesn't have standards for inclusion. However, that also points to original research as being the source for inclusion.
Reason: Policies violated by this page:WP:NOTDIRECTORY "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."WP:NOTGUIDE Wikipedia is not a travel guide. We have Wikitravel for that, and many of these pages could be recreated (or already are) there.The core content policies are: 1) neutral point of view, 2) no original research and 3) verifiability. This page violages policies 2 and 3.WP:VERIFY What are the criteria to meet to be in the list? This page has vague or no criteria. By definition, then, there is no way to verify the inclusion or exclusion of any particular site in the list.WP:NOR Original research "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Who says that each of the items in the list are tourist attractions? Given the lack of inclusion criteria, that's understandable, as there is no need to justify being in a list that doesn't have standards for inclusion. However, that also points to original research as being the source for inclusion.
Reason: Policies violated by this page:WP:NOTDIRECTORY "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."WP:NOTGUIDE Wikipedia is not a travel guide. We have Wikitravel for that, and many of these pages could be recreated (or already are) there.The core content policies are: 1) neutral point of view, 2) no original research and 3) verifiability. This page violages policies 2 and 3.WP:VERIFY What are the criteria to meet to be in the list? This page has vague or no criteria. By definition, then, there is no way to verify the inclusion or exclusion of any particular site in the list.WP:NOR Original research "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Who says that each of the items in the list are tourist attractions? Given the lack of inclusion criteria, that's understandable, as there is no need to justify being in a list that doesn't have standards for inclusion. However, that also points to original research as being the source for inclusion.
Reason: Fails WP:NBIO. Other than listed as climbing Mt. Everest, no significant secondary independent coverage. Most of what I could find are copies from the Wikipedia article.
Reason: Maynavar is the title of the article, but that is just a product line from the company Vedant Fashions Ltd. Most references are for the company. Fails WP:GNG for the product line, and the company fails too. If someone thinks this is worth rescuing, they should create a Vedant Fashions page instead.
Reason: List does not meet notability guidelines: see WP:NLIST. Needs to have reliable significant coverage of the topic "Heights of European Monarchs", rather than just coverage of individual's heights.
Reason: List does not meet notability guidelines: see WP:NLIST. Needs to have reliable significant sources that cover the topic "Heights of vice presidents of the United States", rather than just coverage of individual's heights.
Reason: References provide only passing mention of the organization and are mostly about polarity therapy, not the organization. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:ORGCITE. Search finds nothing better.
Reason: No viable reason to be separate from the main American University of Nigeria article. No need for a merge either, as information is too specific (e.g., they have a telephone) for an encyclopedia listing.
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}}.
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}}.
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}}.
Reason: See WP:NLIST. For example One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. This is also inherently unmaintainable, as construction status changes across this large list continually.
Reason: Search shows only overall stats, same as refs on page. Fails WP:NCURL and WP:SPORTBASIC. Needs significant personal coverage in multiple independent secondary sources, none seen.
Reason: Fails notability. First article just a listing, second is not found, searched paper web site and Donegal Sport Hub, sounds like an interview anyway (primary source, not valid for notability), third just has his name listed. Search finds no significant secondary independent indepth articles about him.
Reason: Fails notability. References either just list him as a participant or are bare statistics sites. From WP:SPORTCRIT: Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability. Search just finds more stat sites.
Reason: Fails notability WP:NLIST. List subject is not notable. Furthermore this is unmaintainable: no way to identify all the Assyriologists in the world.
Reason: According to WP:NCURL:Significant coverage is **likely** to exist for a curler if they1. Have won a World Curling Tour event or participated in a Grand Slam of Curling event.2. Have won a medal at one of the following World Curling Federation sanctioned events: the World Junior Curling 3. Championships, World Senior Curling Championships, European Curling Championships, World Mixed Curling Championship, or Pacific-Asia Curling Championships.4. Have won a medal at the Canadian Junior Curling Championships.5. Have won the Canadian Mixed Curling Championship, Canadian Senior Curling Championship, or Canadian Mixed Doubles Curling Trials.6. Are member of the Canadian Curling Hall of Fame or the WCF Hall of Fame.Richard Pretsel meets none of these. Also did search and found the following sources. Generally need two independent reliable significant coverage of the person for WP:GNG. Found none.
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}}.
Reason: Fails WP:NLIST. Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable... A list of records at a particular high school is not notable and is also very difficult to maintain, as it is very unlikely that every performance is documented in a reliable source.
Reason: Fails WP:GNG. No significant independent secondary coverage. The one review of the business that I could find was on a site blacklisted by Wikipedia, which means that that article must not be used to help establish notability.
Reason: No reliable secondary independent articles about the book. The two reviews in the article are on user-generated sites so do not meet the reliability standard.
Reason: Was deleted a couple of months ago: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priyanka Meher for details. Since then, has collaborated with others and has new references. But the new references only name-check her, nothing in-depth. Still fails notability even with the new information.
Reason: No reason for this to be separate from main Air India article. See WP:PRODUCT. "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."
Reason: See WP:ORGCRIT. No significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary independent sources. See lots of press release coverage and name-checks."A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. As such, the guideline establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article."
Reason: No secondary references found. Originator of article blocked for advertising. One of the other articles deleted, Marinet, is the company making A-Navigation. Fails WP:GNG, probably written for pay.
Reason: Probable autobiography. Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Meets none of the 8 criteria listed there.1. "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.2. "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.3. "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).4. "The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.5. "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.6. "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.7. "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.8. "The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area."
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}}.
Reason: Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Search finds only trivial coverage. See Examples of trivial coverage in WP:CORPDEPTH for details. Reference 4, which has some information about the test, is an interview and thus fails the "independence" test for notability.
Reason: Fails WP:GNG. Refs in article aren’t in-depth independent secondary sources. I searched for sources: only one I found that appeared to have some content about him was an alumni source, so not independent/reliable.
Reason: Appears to be too soon. Fails WP:GNG, no significant secondary independent in-depth coverage. Also, notability is not inherited, so provenance of founders doesn’t affect decision.
Reason: Only trivial mentions. See WP:CORPDEPTH for list of trivial mentions. Trivial mentions include “best of” lists and sponsorship of charities, which account for all the non primary sources in the article.
Reason: Why? List without a purpose. Fails WP:GNG and fails WP:NLIST. No independent sources discussing in-depth the chairs of the psychonomic society.
Reason: Was in draftspace since February. Author submitted it for approval, and it was rejected. Author recreated article in mainspace. It still fails notability. WP:NSCHOOL requires meeting either WP:GNG or WP:ORG. It fails both. I didn’t find any significant independent secondary reliable in-depth coverage.
Reason: None of the refs in the article in-depth independent secondary reliable sources. I cannot find any, either. Since name is fairly common, I also searched for name plus “preservation earth”. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO.
Reason: Article is about a planned restaurant chain that hasn't opened yet. Many references are included in the article: the vast majority are reprints of a single news release (https://www.sharesmagazine.co.uk/news/market/LSE20221107070008_4569826/launch-of-roadside-restaurant-brand-brightside) as can be seen by the identical quotations. Only in-depth articles are about the former Little Chef brand, and none of those articles mention anything about this topic. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, in that the references all either meet the examples of trivial coverage, have no coverage at all, or are from corporate news releases.
Reason: Article has existed for >8 years with only primary source. Search for mentions only show trivial coverage, such as listings not accompanied by commentary.
