see Notability of lists and List selection criteria. Shortcuts WP:ARTNWP:ARTN WP:CONTNWP:CONTN Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia...

edits should be made to this page.‎ The result was speedy keep. Keep per WP:ARTN (non-admin closure) A Guy into Books (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)...

The Banner talk 09:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. The Royal Flush Gang has appeared in DC comics for 35 years, and in six...

understand your position. It seems that you are saying the opposite of WP:ARTN, which says "Article content does not determine notability." Also, you must...

notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN: The two published books quoted above (The Werewolf Filmography and Indie...

discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. I found four books that describe the game on Google Books: Fantastic Drinking...

Rorshacma (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. There are many academic works of literary criticism that discuss this concept...

Options for Change White Paper. Basically this is a directory and nears WP:ARTN. Unless you can prove the units below existed due to the Options for Change...

article with notability. They're not related. If you don't yet understand WP:ARTN perhaps you ought to consider holding off on creating new AfDs until you...

discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:ARTN: I agree that the writing style is confusing (although "vague waffle" is...

of WP:CIR. This article should most definitely be deleted as failing WP:ARTN, Wp:ARTIST, and WP:NBIO. 09:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)09:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)09:52...

incomplete with only one source at the moment, it's important to note WP:ARTN. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate...

(UTC) Delete - there is no coverage that I can find of the topic. Fails WP:ARTN among most guidelines. Pilot333 (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC) The above...

discussions. TTN (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. Dragons are central to Anne McCaffrey's work, and any discussion of her...

the existence of sources in any Wikipedia article, per WP:BEFORE and WP:ARTN. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC) Note: This debate has...

discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC) Keep And see WP:ARTN as to why this is an invalid nomination. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:13, 24 April...

sufficient base not to have the article deleted on the basis of notability (WP:ARTN) or verifiability (WP:NRV). Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2017...

article is a problem, but not one that invalidates the keep !votes, per WP:ARTN/WP:NPOSSIBLE. ST47 (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC) [Hide this box]...

deleted as the person depicted in this article is unremarkable and fails WP:ARTN. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC) Note: This debate has been...

doubtful. Mccapra (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. Adler has written notable films with Wikipedia pages, and Erik has shown...

more generally, reflects a misunderstanding of notability (specifically WP:ARTN) and a lack of WP:BEFORE. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)...

article, which is not the decisive critereon for deletion according to WP:ARTN. So was the required WP:BEFORE search done, and if so what was the result...

No notability established, article completely devoid of any citations. WP:ARTN is certainly relevant here. Article fails WP:SIGCOV Prolix 💬 10:38, 24 December...

matter how much you do to an article it will always fail WP:GNG as per WP:ARTN. N0nsensical.system(err0r?) 12:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC) The above discussion...

written" nor a "poorly sourced" article are reasons for deletion (see WP:ARTN). Likewise, original research is bad, but if it is a problem of an article...

improve. Volcom95 (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC) Keep per Atchom and WP:ARTN. Article content does not determine notability. In addition to his elected...

not particularly notable. Very little coverage outside of Wikipedia (WP:ARTN). Cited sources in the article are poor and do not lend credence to subject's...

reliable sources. Umhsbrek (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC) Please see WP:ARTN to educate yourself away from the popular fallacy that the sources presently...

Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. I'm going to spell out the excellent sources found by Mccapra, just to make...

see one source, therefore it must not be notable." WP:N has the section WP:ARTN that stipulates notability is not based on article condition. WP:AFD and...

there's no cited material in the article is not a reason for deletion per WP:ARTN. That being said, the subject of health intervention massively, overwhelmingly...

under its former name, OpenERP, in 2012 and 2013. According to WP:NNC and WP:ARTN, the above should be sufficient to establish notability, even if the article...

WP:V and WP:NFICTION" is not a legitimate criteria for deletion. Per WP:ARTN, WP:NEXIST, WP:ATD, and WP:PRESERVE, notability isn't determined by what's...

nomination, a failure of WP:BEFORE, and a radical misunderstanding of WP:ARTN given the nom's reliance on the state of the sources in the article. I'ts...

article seems to be written in bias to Liverpool and fails NPOV. Overall, WP:ARTN, Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. Govvy...

sources that are independent of the subject". I will note here that as per WP:ARTN, notability is measured with respect to the subject, not the article. It...

November 2018 (UTC) Keep -- Another nom based on a misunderstanding of WP:ARTN. Notability is not based on sources in the article nor on the tone of the...

review, but the bar for basic inclusion is much lower than that. See also WP:ARTN and WP:NOTPERFECT. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)...

provide a legitimate rationale for deletion. Per WP:DELREASON, WP:NEXIST, WP:ARTN, WP:ATD, WP:NNC, and WP:HANDLE, you need a better reason to nominate something...

(talk) 14:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC) ↑WP:DELREASON, WP:NEXIST, WP:ATD, WP:ARTN, WP:NNC, and WP:HANDLE. Darkknight2149 17:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC) Delete:...

enough. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Keep: per WP:ARTN. Article is poor, but there is a strong assertion of notability. Doing some...

too much trivial details can be notable (as covered in WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN). That being said, I was unable to find any sources in a Google search, so...

personalities" section doesn't have enough citations is not relevant, per WP:ARTN. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC) @Toughpigs:Well please point...

Fails to cite a legitimate rationale for deletion, per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. If anything, AfDs need to provide an indication of unimportance (or at least...

list like this. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:ARTN. There are several independent sources used in the article — Ian Livingstone's...

of the article, which is not decisive for deletion in accordance with WP:ARTN. E.g. Superheroines and the Epic Journey, p. 44-45, and The Assimilation...

too much plot description and not enough analysis or background, but WP:ARTN says that the topic's notability is not determined by the current quality...

21:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC) User:Nihonjoe please take a look at WP:NRV and WP:ARTN. It reads: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia...

"fails to establish notability" is not a deletion criterion. Please read WP:ARTN before nominating any other articles for deletion. That being said, this...

with the several other Tagore articles mass-nominated for deletion. Per WP:ARTN, notability is the subject of a topic, not an article. A stub article is...

Rhino131 (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. There are a number of media-criticism sources that specifically talk about...

Keep, update and improve. The topic is notable and well-sourced. Per WP:ARTN, "Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing...

article are not in fact the same ones as those mentioned above, but per WP:ARTN, the rest of my opinion remains unchanged. Modernponderer (talk) 15:45, 11...

17:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC) Keep per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, WP:NEXIST, and WP:ARTN - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Keep per above. Also...

sources are or aren't in the article, per WP:DELREASON, WP:NEXIST, WP:ATD, WP:ARTN, and WP:NNC. The crux of this nomination is "Unnecessary article split that...

satisfies WP:LISTN. postdlf (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:ARTN. I think that this page should be more focused on the concept of "Deities...

Comment Johnpacklambert Your argument for deletion is in conflict with WP:ARTN "'Article content does not determine notability'", when you use this argument...

articles are good quality. There's some CoI-style puff language, but per WP:ARTN, a poorly-written article (or CoI IP editors) doesn't make a notable subject...

grounds, per se, for deletion; a good faith reminder of WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN, and that AfD is not clean up. However, per Guliolopez and AusLondonder,...

the quality or sources in a Wikipedia article at any point in time, per WP:ARTN and WP:NEXIST. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC) Keep....

notability" is absolutely not a criterion for deletion. It's just not. Read WP:ARTN. Secondly, this soda easily passes WP:GNG. Check this article in Spin Magazine...

editing), but here is what I understand of wikipedia guidelines. Per WP:ARTN, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article."...

meeting GNG" is not required. Only the existence of sources matters. See WP:ARTN. Furthermore, this person easily meets WP:NPOL given that he was a member...

discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:ARTN: Notability is not determined by the current state of the article, even if...

sources, not their addition to articles, that establishes notability. See WP:ARTN. And AfD is not for cleanup. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2019...

of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". Per WP:ARTN, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article."...

claiming notability based on the contents of the article is addressed at WP:ARTN and claiming an article could be notable in the future is addressed at WP:ATA#CRYSTAL...

already been made clear from the text or sources in the article. See WP:ARTN. Largoplazo (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC) Further comment I'll leave it...

AllyD (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC) Comment Nominator, please read WP:ARTN: "Article content does not determine notability. Notability is a property...

Yeah, no. WP:GNG is part of WP:Notability just like WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. Per WP:ARTN, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article...

doesn't always mean it's non-notable; it may just be incomplete. See WP:ARTN. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC) Merge Non-notable...

significance - per the source that Andrew Davidson identified. I feel that WP:ARTN should be pointed out here. The significance claim is addressed by sources...

People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC) WP:ARTN WP:NRV referring these rules article needs content improvement but sources...

(UTC) @SwisterTwister: That's not really a legitimate argument. Read WP:ARTN. That an existing article does not, in and of itself, show the subject is...

What does it matter what I added? It's almost as if you haven't read WP:ARTN. It's almost as if you didn't bother to do WP:BEFORE. You ought to withdraw...

therefore cannot qualify under WP:NOTABILITY, being not verifiable. See also WP:ARTN - Article content does not determine notability. The article itself is long...

irrelevant to the question of whether or not it should be deleted. See WP:ARTN. Second, it's obvious that there might be sources in Spanish. So obvious...

articles) for deletion. You should be aware of WP:DELREASON by now. Per WP:ARTN, "Article content does not determine notability. Notability is a property...

this gives notability, even Bearcat agreed Houston was a prominent city. WP:ARTN states an articles poor sourcing and content does not diminish notability...

notability. Maproom (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC) Please see WP:ARTN. Rebbing 17:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC) Delete. purely promotion, written...

before the SPAs edits. Beagel (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Keep WP:ARTN "... if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing...

agree with the nominator that the article is in very poor shape, but WP:ARTN says that notability is based on the subject, not the current condition of...

read in Burmese or Thai" is actually an argument against deletion. Per WP:ARTN it's the sources in the world that determine notability rather than the sources...

Universe by Graeme McMillan, The Hollywood Reporter (Feb 18, 2016)want WP:ARTN says that the current state of the article doesn't affect the notability...

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC) Delete. WP:ARTN. --Hiwilms (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...

isn't that promotional anyway and that is an editorial problem. Also, WP:ARTN states that Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia...

article that it needs better sourcing? If the races are notable, per WP:ARTN ("Article content does not determine notability") and WP:NPOSSIBLE ("before...

right. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC) Shortcuts WP:ARTNWP:ARTN WP:CONTNWP:CONTN If you have RS add them in, just saying they exist is unlikely...

wholly unsourced with RS. Onel5969 TT me 19:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC) WP:ARTN. Added ref to FAP article.--RioHondo (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC) A...

yours that leads to this. Amirah talk 10:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC) See WP:ARTN. Amirah talk 10:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC) I actually think you should have...

deletion shows some kind of misconceptions about deletion policy. See WP:ARTN. Finally, there are tons of sources in French. Just see e.g. [1] and [2]...

issue, not how well the current iteration of the article is sourced (see WP:ARTN). DevaCat1 (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC) No, verifiabilty rules clearly...

you talking about, Prince of Thieves? WP:ARTN doesn't only apply to sections of articles. That's silly. ARTN says that the notability of a subject is...

article doesn't necessarily indicate the notability of the subject. (WP:ARTN, WP:NEXIST) GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 05:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC) Biographies are...

primary sources" is a mischaracterisation of WP:GNG. Per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN, the quality of sources in the article do not determine notability. "Combining...

(talk) 18:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC) @Bearcat: what about WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN? If you go look at articles for city councilors of other major cities the...

Thanks, — Music1201 talk 19:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC) Weak keep WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. Considering that both Maglor and Maedhros play an important role in the...

Ausiello shares poignant tale of husband’s death The Narrator Survives See WP:ARTN as well. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 23:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC) Keep...

failed WP:GNG but on second thought I think it is notable. Remember, per WP:ARTN, article content does not determine notability. While the content is very...

hasn’t been included in this article and helps tip the notability scale WP:ARTN. 70.238.168.205 (talk) 14:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC) The first of those linked...

(UTC) Keep per the sources identified by Eostrix and AleatoryPonderings. WP:ARTN says that the current state of an article does not affect the notability...

based on the sources in the article is well-known to be deficient per WP:ARTN. This guy clearly meets GNG per any number of sources and interviews (see...

content of the article does not determine the notability of an article, see WP:ARTN; the subject is of course notable). --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 20:50, 28 August...

not inherited Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 11:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC) Keep WP:ARTN--O1lI0 (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC) Automated comment: This AfD was...

but it's clear he did not so much as skim the article. (As an aside, per ARTN, a lack of sourcing in the article is not a valid reason for deletion.) Based...

us whether "this character clearly does not pass WP:GNG" according to WP:ARTN. @TheSilksongPikmin: So could you please comment on your results of the required...

reliable sources can be found that can verify or support Riscoin, fails WP:ARTN, WP:NRV, WP:NEXIST. It is highly likely that Riscoin is a fraudulent cryptocurrency...

contents of the Wikipedia page itself does not contribute to notability per WP:ARTN--not to mention most of the article is unsourced. It could potentially be...

under its former name, OpenERP, in 2012 and 2013. According to WP:NNC and WP:ARTN, the above is sufficient to establish notability. --Princethezeroth (talk)...

WP:NEXIST says that if reliable sources exist, then the subject is notable. WP:ARTN says that the current state of the article doesn't affect the notability...

sources proving notability on the article" is one of them. It is not; see WP:ARTN. Furthermore, "no Ghits that prove notoriety either" is also not related...

deletion. Article content is not a valid reason for deletion per se (see WP:ARTN), I would submit that notability is the guideline being questioned in this...

"He might certainly qualify for an article that was sourced properly". WP:ARTN states: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article...

the sources in the article is not relevant in a deletion discussion per WP:ARTN. In any case, this woman passes WP:GNG easily. There's one NYT source already...

rather than the lack of sources in the article in its present state per WP:ARTN. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) I do know how notability...

with that question. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Per WP:ARTN, the current state of the article does not determine notability of the subject...

nomination addresses article state, not topic notability. Per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN, notability turns on whether suitable sources exist, not whether the current...

been added to the article to show WP:GNG is passed. This is a case of WP:ARTN. Meters (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC) Keep I added several references...

And if you had done WP:Before before proposing the AFD Shortcuts WP:ARTNWP:ARTN WP:CONTNWP:CONTN Actually I didn't add the references on the talk page. I...

within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability (WR:ARTN). Self-published sources can be primary, secondary, or tertiary sources....

sound like I'm biting you but please stop nominating random articles. See WP:ARTN for more info Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:13, 30 July 2024...

12 January 2023 (UTC) Keep for reasonings given by @Beccaynr. Remember WP:ARTN. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Keep she has quite...

Dimadick (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC) Keep per above sources and WP:ARTN. I agree with SD0001's point that "other people were racist then too" is...

—IB [ Poke ] 11:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC) That is not beside the point. WP:ARTN specifically says that "no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content...

sources demonstrating notability are cited in the article itself. See WP:ARTN. — MarkH21talk 00:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC) Comment: The article in the The Scotsman...

the performance group he founded. I would point out to KidAd that, per WP:ARTN, "Article content does not determine notability". Also, per WP:NEXIST, "The...

consideration. — Hunter Kahn 14:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. I think it's pretty obvious that the main character of a hugely successful...

article to establish notability. The question is whether they exist. WP:ARTN Rathfelder (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC) True, but we have to be able...

notable because". Please study WP:NRV, WP:NEXIST, WP:NOTEWORTHY, and WP:ARTN. Thanks and cheers, Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC) The above...

citing arguments about quality of the article that fail WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN), any "Per nom" votes above should be dismissed per WP:NOTAVOTE. Darkknight2149...

sources have been found to fulfill WP:NBOOK, no grounds for deletion. WP:ARTN applies. Daranios (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2026 (UTC) Keep per WP:NBOOK's...

justify this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC) WP:ARTN: "Article content does not determine notability" Robby.is.on (talk) 21:56...

sourcing is bad doesn't mean it is needed to be subjected to deletion. Read WP:ARTN, WP:NEXIST, WP:WHYN. and on It's the type of coverage that gives vocal thanks...

also fails to cite a legitimate rationale that complies with WP:NEXIST, WP:ARTN, and WP:DELREASON, and also suffers from a lack of voting. This is more of...

reason for deletion. The rationale in the nomination: Ignores WP:ATD, WP:ARTN, and WP:NEXIST. Mischaracterises WP:GNG by admitting that the topic "could...

discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN: The Monk is one of Batman's earliest villains, and apart from being a supervillain...

incorrect. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. Edward J. Ruppelt's book, much cited in the article, is the definitive word...

every other word in it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC) WP:ARTN says that the quality of writing in the current article is not relevant to...

too little detail, that's a writing issue, not a notability issue (see WP:ARTN). The reviews have more details that could be added to the article. RunningTiger123...

one sentence and an Infobox. —ÐW(T·C) 21:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC) Keep per WP:ARTN and WP:NEXIST. Here are three reliable, independent sources that give the...

on these types of articles. Other policies need to be pointed to like WP:ARTN which I pointed to last AfD! Also I felt last time and it wasn't done, but...

The nomination was a reasonable read of the article as filed, but per WP:ARTN the question is what sources exist, not how the article was written on 27...

WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) No matter how much I like this this article, WP:ARTN applies. It lacks independent sources and seems to fail WP:ORGCRIT. If we...

material - David Gerard (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Keep: Per WP:ARTN. Plenty of WP:RS establish WP:GNG. Whether or not these sources are currently...

Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. The current state of the article doesn't affect the notability of the topic...

your assessment of the sources used. What to do in this case explains WP:ARTN (see also WP:NEXIST). The terms of the WP:GNG are not required from the content...

not the subject is notable, regardless of what is in the article. See WP:ARTN Meters (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC) Also, WP:GNG and WP:BIO are guidelines...

reliable sources are found which can be cited in support. I am well aware of WP:ARTN and WP:OVERCOME; so, I'm not suggesting that making things all nice and pretty...

don't need to pass me that, I know that. What you should be reading is WP:ARTN, WP:NEXIST, WP:WHYN because your reasoning contradicts these important and...

"Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." - from WP:ARTN, did the nominator or any of the above "deleters" bother with even a perfunctory...

includes all sources of evidence, not just citations in the article, see WP:ARTN and WP:NEXIST.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC) Comment ...

dollars and seems to be more of advocacy than promotion. According to WP:ARTN, a subject's notability cannot be based upon the writing of the article....

pass WP:GNG. Even if more information is added, it dosen't complies with WP:ARTN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I'ma editor2022 (talk • contribs)...

Template the article - Per Haleth. Every policy and guideline (including WP:ARTN, WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:NEXIST) directly says not to nominate articles...

(as is still making news). I think the "Delete" crowd is trying to use WP:ARTN to back their claims, when they are forgetting that if BScotch goes, so should...

Not sure what you mean by "all that are there"--all that are where? See WP:ARTN--writing a nomination statement based on what the article is vs what the...

(talk) 14:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC) @Johnpacklambert: Per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN, "not showing notability" isn't a reason to delete. So far, no legitimate...

this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Keep WP:ARTN, WP:NTEMP. There is also no WP:DEADLINE. Although I cannot see the ProQuest...

does not "satisfy GNG". Maineartists (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2026 (UTC) WP:ARTN says "Article content does not determine notability . . . Notability is a...

org/school/on/secondary/894672 There seems to be quite a bit of coverage (and per WP:ARTN notability is not dependent on what is in the article): bullying and resulting...

as listed above (thanks Serial Number 54129), so meets WP:GNG, also WP:ARTN - "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article."...

says that if reliable sources exist, then the article should be kept. WP:ARTN says that notablity is a property of the subject, not the article, even if...

previous one, a WP:Bold merge. The nomination runs afoul of WP:ATD-M, WP:ARTN, and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, and there is no indication of the result of the...

the content in or state of the article does not determine notability. WP:ARTN. Is this about proving a point? Why have you immediately jumped to assumptions...

Toughpigs (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. Lawrence Alamain was well known as a controversial villain on Days of Our...

on genealogy does not on its own mean the page should not exist (see WP:ARTN). Leaving the page in existence will provide a chance for editors with more...

to on going coverage and recognition from numerous reputable sources. WP:ARTN WP:CONTN Article content does not determine notability. Irregardless of whether...

"Ben Simons (politician)". I stopped at 5 non-Oregon sources below. Per WP:ARTN, ...if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing...

The previous state of the articles does not imply lack of notability (WP:ARTN/WP:NEXIST). AZ 05:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC) Delete. No media coverage to speak...

Andrew D. (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC) Too specific. WP:DPAFD and WP:ARTN : "If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of...

content might stand alone as an article of list, the subject doesn't. Per WP:ARTN, content doesn't make subject notability. Having a list of a notable resorts...

that I have to wonder if the OP is at all familiar with WP:NEXIST or WP:ARTN, or if anyone did any research beforehand. https://www.ign...

(talk) 00:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC) @Shooterwalker: Per WP:NEXIST, WP:ATD, WP:ARTN, and WP:HANDLE, notability is determined by the sheer existence of sources...

be notable, not that they have to be currently used in the article. At WP:ARTN it says Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article...

keep: Until better explanation is given. Per WP:DELREASON, WP:NEXIST, WP:ARTN, WP:ATD, WP:NNC, and WP:HANDLE, WP:GNG is determined only by the existence...

01:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC) Neutral on deletion, but I want to point out WP:ARTN. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC) Thank you for the...

notability by itself, just that someone made an article about it. See WP:ARTN. Jaguarnik (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC) Would like also to point out...

(ping me) 18:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC) @Tyw7: You may want to review WP:ARTN, part of our Notability Policy, which says, "...if the source material exists...

of sources? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Muboshgu, WP:ARTN states that lack of content or referencing does not diminish the articles...

engineering like in any other country. Al-Budhi (talk) 05:09, 4 May 2026 (UTC) WP:ARTN makes it clear that the notability of a topic depends not on the article...

question based on the article's current state Are we not supposed to per WP:ARTN? and the available sourcing There is WP:NEXIST for you to read, which says...

current state of the article, which is not the decisive factor according to WP:ARTN. Was the WP:BEFORE search done as a mandatory step of the deletion process...

of Barbie Doll (1999). The article should certainly be improved, but WP:ARTN says that the current state of the article does not impact the notability...

Besides, we shouldn't be judging the article for its current sourcing (WP:ARTN) since sources WP:NEXIST. Get on a cursory search on GNews and deep search...

instead. Wikipedia's notability guideline is quite clear that WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN are important considerations when deciding whether a particular topic is...

86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Keep: Owen Please see WP:ARTN. No sources is not grounds for deletion on notability. Incidentally, a 305...

demonstrate notability isn't relevant at all. You should consider reading both WP:ARTN and WP:NEXIST before you nominate any more articles for deletion based on...

stands. TTN (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN: There are several pages about centaurs in Tracking Classical Monsters in...

192.141.33' has not posted on WP since June 2007. WP:GNG and possibly WP:ARTN. Richard Nowell (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Note: This discussion...

2025 (UTC) For the avoidance of doubt, regarding Mangoe's comment below, WP:ARTN says "if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing...

but also doesn't totally ignore policies, like CRYSTALBALL, NOTTEMPORARY, ARTN and N, which this article complies with. To delete would fly in the face...

early, btw, nominator may like to have another look at the following: WP:ARTN, WP:BEFORE (especially as the prod was contested), and WP:PROF (that has...

and its format needs improvement, that is not a reason for deletion per WP:ARTN and WP:ANYBIO. Per these criteria, I support a weak keep. I would also support...

more required to fix any of them than the one identifying the problem. WP:ARTN, WP:NOEFFORT, and WP:JUSTFIXIT tell us that when dealing with a specific...

The nomination was a reasonable read of the article as filed, but per WP:ARTN the question is what sources exist, not how the article was written on 27...

before making changes. I wanted first to establish notability – after all, WP:ARTN makes it clear that notability is a property of the subject, irrespective...

below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:ARTN. The original nomination says that this article is a dicdef, which it's clearly...

ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC) Strong Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. The term has been discussed in many works of literary analysis, including:...

2021 (UTC) The contents of an article don't determine notability per WP:ARTN, but I'll take a look at the sources tomorrow and see if they have more than...

the subject and independent of the references provided in the article (WP:ARTN), it should be noted that User:E.M.Gregory, the proposer of this AfD, removed...

same thing as saying that notability has no content requirements (see WP:ARTN, WP:NNC, WP:NEXIST).  Topics need notability to be standalone topics (WP:N...

needs more references and generally cutting out irrelevant details, but WP:ARTN says that the current state of the article doesn't determine the topic's...

that they have not yet been used in the article is not relevant based on WP:ARTN. Daranios (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC) Redirect for now. There is potential...

18:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Keep and expand. It obviously needs work, but WP:ARTN says that the current state of an article doesn't affect the subject's notability...

shouldn't be one for the offices that these two work at. According to WP:ARTN, notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. By...

WP:LISTN, and articles aren't deleted for not establishing notability per WP:ARTN and WP:NEXIST. The rest of this is just subjective ("Most of these are useless...

written content, which is inconsistent with the guideline provided by WP:ARTN. The notability guidelines does not indicate that notability of a topic can...

content of the article it is the subject, your argument is flawed. per WP:ARTN "'Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If...

article. Elemimele (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC) Keep all per WP:ARTN Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article and...

fixed and doesn't necessarily reflect on the subject's notability (see: WP:ARTN), but it shows the state of disrepair that the article is in and has been...

to meeting GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC) As per WP:ARTN, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." ...

this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC) Keep. Per WP:ARTN, notability concerns the subject and is not dependent on article content...

but allow re-creation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Per WP:ARTN, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If...

are more, given just how many years Ninjago has been going, so I think WP:ARTN applies. Does this article suck? Yes. Is there enough sourcing to warrant...

"Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources" wp:ARTN states that "Notability is a property of a subject" wp:PRIMARY states "Do...

primarily sourced is not relevant to deletion, per WP:NEXIST, WP:ATD, and WP:ARTN. Others above have begun to better cite the article, which is the legitimate...

meeting GNG does not necessarily need to be present within the article, per WP:ARTN. I fee this passage is particularly pertinent: "Conversely, if the source...

Clearly there are no references and the article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTN. BlueD954 (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Note: This discussion has...

content in the article, with an exception regarding certain lists.  See WP:ARTN and WP:NEXIST.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Comment ...

and reducing the article to a stub-length as a way of "starting over". WP:ARTN and WP:NEXIST however, are extensions of Wikipedia's basic notability guideline...

of arts and exploration neither of the sources discuss the arts: Fails WP:ARTN: Only a few reliable and independent media were cited. Total 4 of 10 sources...

Enterprise. So the miniumum requirements for notability are fullfilled and WP:ARTN applies. The Google Scholar search also looks promising, but I don't have...

significant coverage. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 04:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC) Per WP:ARTN under the notability guideline page, article content does not determine notability...

shamelessly ignoring policies and guidelines like WP:ATD, WP:HANDLE, WP:ARTN, and WP:NEXIST. Article content does not determine notability. If the problem...

passes WP:NJournals, but whether sources on the topic exist (WP:NRV and WP:ARTN) that could enable it to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2015...

which "is property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article" per WP:ARTN. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more...

contradiction to the Wikipedia Notability test. Just two sections below WP:GNG, WP:ARTN leads with "Article content does not determine notability" and goes on to...

standing alone, the underlying event is not significant. As stated in WP:ARTN, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article."...

an article on its own. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC) WP:ARTN says that notability isn't determined by the current state of the article...

have a problem with regard to use of primary sources and WP:ALLPLOT, but WP:ARTN applies. John Badham: Blick und Bewegung is a German book, so it might not...

policies and guidelines so much, please take a look at WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN -Ethanbas (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC) The policies you are invoking...

Dissident93 (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC) Keep even in its current state per WP:ARTN; User:I JethroBT's finding of reliable secondary sources should satisfy the...

the article should be edited, with extraneous material cut down. Per WP:ARTN, the current state of the article content does not diminish the topic's notability...

and no sources. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC) Comment: WP:ARTN – it looks highly likely than WP:NBAND would be met with reliable sources...

may feel the subject non-notable or slanted (an addressable issue), per WP:ARTN and WP:NNC, topics with coverage merit inclusion. Time to address tone and...

need to spend a few minutes looking at the sources and contemplating WP:ARTN (the rule that says that an article's current contents are not the be-all...

20:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC) That's not a policy-compliant !Vote, per WP:ARTN: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article."...

they change anything. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC) Per WP:ARTN, an article's notability has nothing to do with the sources presented in...

"Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." see WP:ARTN Coolabahapple (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Nothing in the article suggests...

the better option compared to pressing them into the author's article. WP:ARTN applies. Daranios (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Comment: I support a series...

poor reason to nominate something for deletion (WP:NEXIST, WP:DELREASON, WP:ARTN, WP:PRESERVE, WP:ATD, and the list goes on...). That doesn't reflect WP:GNG...

images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Article fails WP:GNG, WP:SNG and WP:ARTN and why do we need a list of units? Totally unreferenced and created by a...

The nomination was a reasonable read of the article as filed, but per WP:ARTN the question is what sources exist, not how the article was written on 27...

last AfD, I still fail to see any decent rationale to keep this article. WP:ARTN Also applies. Govvy (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC) Relisted to generate...

Agnieszka653 (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2026 (UTC) @Agnieszka653: Uhh... Would WP:ARTN contradict your argument? It says that article quality isn't sufficient indicator...

rulebooks and blog posts", so they should be checked out in accordance with WP:ARTN and WP:BEFORE. Daranios (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC) I see absolutely...

criticising the current revision of the article, which isn't relevant per WP:ARTN. The rest of this is just saying "I wasn't sure if the available coverage...

on peer reviewed research from the last 5 years is besides the point (WP:ARTN). Notability does not refer to specific pieces of content within a Wikipedia...

for improvement, but article content does not determine notability per WP:ARTN as per the notability guideline page. There's a lot that can still be written...

that synthesizes the Japanese and Chinese versions of the article. Per WP:ARTN and WP:NPOSSIBLE, a subject remains notable even if the article is poorly...

agree the article in its current state lacks sources. However, under WP:ARTN, Article content does not determine notability. Notability is a property...

discussions. But I think according to the guidelines of Wikipedia like WP:ARTN and WP:PRESERVE an article should not first be deleted, than improved, but...

sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable." In addition, see WP:ARTN, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If...

January 2019 (UTC) Notability is not about what is in the article. See WP:ARTN. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC) Keep Per the sources...

The nomination was a reasonable read of the article as filed, but per WP:ARTN the question is what sources exist, not how the article was written on 27...

(UTC) See Article content does not determine notability: Shortcuts WP:ARTNWP:ARTN WP:CONTNWP:CONTN Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia...

discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. Dr. Death is the earliest supervillain in Batman comics. There is coverage...

The nomination was a reasonable read of the article as filed, but per WP:ARTN the question is what sources exist, not how the article was written on 27...

unreferenced and not up to Wikipedia standards. It does not meet WP:GNG, WP:SNG, WP:ARTN. BlueD954 (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Delete largely unsourced and...

The nomination was a reasonable read of the article as filed, but per WP:ARTN the question is what sources exist, not how the article was written on 27...

that well, ~Cupper (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Irrelevant, per WP:ARTN, WP:NEXIST, and WP:HANDLE. Darkknight2149 19:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Keep...

under the section. It shouldn't be judged by its current referencing. (WP:ARTN) The section makes it evident that WP:SOURCESEXIST....so they can be used...

Andrew🐉(talk) 19:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Lockley, I quote from the scripture of WP:ARTN: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article.....

normal editing, which means deletion is not appropriate in accordance with WP:ARTN and WP:ATD. Daranios (talk) 09:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC) Keep and rename to List...

10-minute YouTube interview with Ryan Grim. Keeping WP:NPOSSIBLE and WP:ARTN in mind, I should note that I'm unable to find any additional coverage in...

independently covers her),_4. Visit once the 5th point of WP:GNG and also WP:ARTN there clearly mentioned, significant coverage in reliable sources creates...

current state of the article and sourcing anyway." This is not correct. WP:ARTN says "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article...

time.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Either way, per WP:ARTN, notability is a property of a subject, no amount of improvements will make...

editing), but here is what I understand of wikipedia guidelines. Per WP:ARTN, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article."...

August 2016 (UTC) acknowledge this is so, also that editors need to heed WP:ARTN, that "Article content does not determine notability", when thinking about...

October 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia notability is not a content guideline, see WP:ARTN.  Critiquing the article is not a path to argue that the topic is not notable...

magazine once and you’ll figure out their editorial style. WP:NNC and WP:ARTN apply. Funny how on Kätlin Aas’s AfD that same one sentence set-up all of...

lists, which restrict inclusion to notable items or people). And see WP:ARTN "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. Conversely...

page from Le Sserafim. Staticspector (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2026 (UTC) WP:ARTN says "if the source material exists, even very poor . . . referencing within...

"Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article" (WP:ARTN), I suggest our first priority is to establish the notability of the subject...

The nomination was a reasonable read of the article as filed, but per WP:ARTN the question is what sources exist, not how the article was written on 27...

or not significant coverage". But that's not how it works. Please read WP:ARTN. You should always do a WP:BEFORE search before proposing deletion. @Bakhtar40...

Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC) WP:ARTN states, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article...

July 2021 (UTC) Being well written does not make the article notable (WP:ARTN). Your account is also fairly new and you've been flagged for canvassing...

the current article is almost entirely in-universe plot summary, but WP:ARTN says that the way an article is currently written does not affect the notability...

with those sources that have mere fleeting mentions, collectively define WP:ARTN. But I appreciate we may have to agree to disagree. Best - 18:23, 14 December...

cannot access the first link" (really?). This rationale directly violates WP:ARTN: Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. It...

The length of an article is not a factor in determining notability, see WP:ARTN. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC) Keep per the significant coverage...

within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." WP:ARTN. Please do a search for new sources before making criticisms based on the...

within articles does not meet notability guidelines and that is by design (WP:ARTN). Editors are supposed to be adding content that is non-notable to articles...

The nomination was a reasonable read of the article as filed, but per WP:ARTN the question is what sources exist, not how the article was written on 27...

it doesn't seem defining. According to the notability guidelines, see WP:ARTN, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article."...

still exist, even if an individual editor can't access them. Likewise, WP:ARTN says that the current state of the article doesn't affect the subject's notability...

references. So not sourced is not a reason to delete the article either. See WP:ARTN: ...if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing...

purpose of this discussion. For more information, consider looking at WP:ARTN. Jlevi (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC) Procedure question: @ජපස: aka jps...

depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity..."  As per WP:ARTN, Wikipedia notability is defined outside of Wikipedia.  Unscintillating (talk)...

of the sources in the current state of the article, but according to WP:ARTN: ...if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing...

artist-run initiatives, biographies, and recent history (90s-Present). User:ArtnHistory Sargentprivate (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC) interested in figurative...

judgements going on purely based on current article status, which according WP:ARTN is not decisive for deletion. Has the required WP:BEFORE search been performed...

on May 17. But you seem to miss the point of what I'm saying – check WP:ARTN. Bradv 13:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Delete as a tendentious resubmission....

their presence in the article. That's in the notability guidelines at WP:ARTN. There is also WP:PRESERVE in the editing policy, and the deletion policy...

and redirecting articles for self-admitted reasons that conflict with WP:ARTN, WP:NEXIST, and WP:ATD. Edit warring across multiple articles to keep redirects...

fact, notability is a property of the subject, not of the article. See WP:ARTN. Notability is ONLY a factor of existing sources, not at all of how well...

sources? Y Are there independent sources? Y. it is important to note WP:ARTN. Also, I think a number of editors here are forgetting WP:NTEMP. Abbott and...

determined by the subject, not the article's content or quality, see WP:ARTN (guideline). Perhaps you should bring a proposal to amend the notability...

it's current state, not the availability of sources outside the article (WP:ARTN). 0003 at least argues that the sources available don't support notability...

the all the 3 ivotes. Even after your changes to the articles, it is WP:ARTN. You added [[16] which is a WP:USERG and again not an RS. Reliable sources...

Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC) To the current article, WP:ARTN states even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article...

Through the Trees.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ArtnHistory (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).  Still copyrighted for...

discussion.  Wikipedia notability is not a content guideline, as per WP:ARTN.  Nor do sources have to discuss "why" Wikipedia considers a topic notable...

understatement by me, given the 4100 Google Books hits). This seems relevant per WP:ARTN and WP:NEXIST because the article seems under-developed - all its best bits...

a false statement in contradiction of the notability guidelines. See WP:ARTN, and, for the sake of it WP:NEXIST. Notability is a property of a subject...

Template:List of United States cable and satellite television networks (Ethnic) -> ARTN ASC Flix ASC Xtra Al Karma TV Beautiful Life TV CTI Zhong Tian Cancao Nova...

at all, straight up ignore certain policies/guidelines (WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN being common ones), or have waved the word "fancruft" around without much...

nominators to cite a policy-based reason for deletion, per WP:ATD, WP:NEXIST, WP:ARTN, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Not the other way around. Any user who is...

that at the time of creation meeting WP:NSPORTS is sufficient. Also from WP:ARTN: if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within...

sometimes that this project tries its best to challenge the notion at WP:ARTN that "no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make...

you talking about, Prince of Thieves? WP:ARTN doesn't only apply to sections of articles. That's silly. ARTN says that the notability of a subject is...

article more, but I can't use article quality as indicator of notability (WP:ARTN). Thus, I've sought other reliable secondary sources. Notability requires...

article as it is now, which is not the decisive factor as explained in WP:ARTN. The WP:BEFORE search required for a deletion nomination should have included...

sources at that level. Length of article is unrelated to WP:NOTABILITY, see WP:ARTN. If there exist at least three independent reliable sources that describe...

state is promotional and relies mostly on primary sources. However, under WP:ARTN, Article content does not determine notability. Notability is a property...

remove it from the article while keeping verifiable information. See WP:ARTN. sst✈ 04:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC) The fact that it fails WP:NALBUMS for...

be notable, not that they have to be currently used in the article. At WP:ARTN it says Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article...

example. In short, the sources are there, and the subject is notable. See WP:ARTN. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate...

by the quality of existing sources, not the state of the article per WP:ARTN. Central and Adams (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC) No? The sources show...

a question of notability, which is irrelevant to a AfD discussion per WP:ARTN. Your idea of "value" is subjective, and certainly not a concept that is...

the notability is the property of the subject, not of the article. See WP:ARTN "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." The...

this is not yet in place is no grounds for deletion in accordance with WP:ARTN and WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress. Rather, solving these problems, possibly...

12 January 2023 (UTC) Keep for reasonings given by @Beccaynr. Remember WP:ARTN. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Keep she has quite...

The state of the article is not a sign of the subject's notability (see WP:ARTN). The subject is the the co-author of two books (ISBN 0321534468 and ISBN...

editors in this discussion have made it clear that WP:BEFORE, WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN has not been taken into consideration. Haleth (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2021...

football teams. This article obviously fails WP:GNG, WP:LISTCRUFT, and WP:ARTN. Do I need to go on any longer? KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:11, 6 April...

Universe by Graeme McMillan, The Hollywood Reporter (Feb 18, 2016)want WP:ARTN says that the current state of the article doesn't affect the notability...

(UTC) Oppose delete Article content does not determine notability. See WP:ARTN. dawnleelynn(talk) 03:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC) Could you please clarify your...

Possible speedy keep due to invalid rationale given by the nominator. Per WP:ARTN Article content does not determine notability so saying that the article...

I-20. This absolutely isn't deletion. I would also like to highlight WP:ARTN and WP:NRV. Notability isn't determined by the state of the article itself...

state" is a rationale at odds with the notability guideline, specifically WP:ARTN, as notability is always related to the topic, never the "current state"...

review the sources, or consider important matters like WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. Meanwhile, in addition to the sources previously presented, I also found...

reliable sources. Umhsbrek (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC) Please see WP:ARTN to educate yourself away from the popular fallacy that the sources presently...

discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:ARTN: I agree that the writing style is confusing (although "vague waffle" is...

January 2019 (UTC) Notability is not about what is in the article. See WP:ARTN. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC) Keep Per the sources...

existence of suitable sources not on the state of sourcing in an article"; WP:ARTN. You can call me "Al" Al Leluia81 (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC) Delete...

Template the article - Per Haleth. Every policy and guideline (including WP:ARTN, WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:NEXIST) directly says not to nominate articles...

understand your position. It seems that you are saying the opposite of WP:ARTN, which says "Article content does not determine notability." Also, you must...

still exist, even if an individual editor can't access them. Likewise, WP:ARTN says that the current state of the article doesn't affect the subject's notability...

character. Haleth (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC) Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. IGN, a source thoroughly vetted to be reliable and certainly not a fansite...

been posted in this AfD supporting a 'keep' for this article (WP:GNG and WP:ARTN being the latest) clearly demonstrates that "those who understand guidelines"...

Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC) To the current article, WP:ARTN states even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article...

sufficient base not to have the article deleted on the basis of notability (WP:ARTN) or verifiability (WP:NRV). Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2017...

improvements, rather than being an evaluation of the potential of an article. WP:ARTN is explicitly opposed to such de facto requirements. Jclemens (talk) 20:54...

people with a red pen and altogether too much time on their hands. User: ArtnHistory (talk) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate...

responsibility. What does this have to do with verifiability policy? See WP:ARTN. If you have concerns about specific article content not being referenced...

The Fellowship of the Ring. This is obviously a notable work, and per WP:ARTN, the current state of the article does not diminish the article subject's...

personalities" section doesn't have enough citations is not relevant, per WP:ARTN. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC) @Toughpigs:Well please point...

list like this. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:ARTN. There are several independent sources used in the article — Ian Livingstone's...

21:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC) User:Nihonjoe please take a look at WP:NRV and WP:ARTN. It reads: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia...

TarkusABtalk/contrib 15:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC) Also, please recognize WP:ARTN: Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article .....

Rorshacma (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. There are many academic works of literary criticism that discuss this concept...

doubtful. Mccapra (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. Adler has written notable films with Wikipedia pages, and Erik has shown...

current situation is not enough reason to delete the article based on WP:ARTN. Therefor, we can move the quotations to wikiquote and improve the article...

notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN: The two published books quoted above (The Werewolf Filmography and Indie...

citing arguments about quality of the article that fail WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN), any "Per nom" votes above should be dismissed per WP:NOTAVOTE. Darkknight2149...

discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. I found four books that describe the game on Google Books: Fantastic Drinking...

not the subject is notable, regardless of what is in the article. See WP:ARTN Meters (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC) Also, WP:GNG and WP:BIO are guidelines...

written" nor a "poorly sourced" article are reasons for deletion (see WP:ARTN). Likewise, original research is bad, but if it is a problem of an article...

purpose of this discussion. For more information, consider looking at WP:ARTN. Jlevi (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC) Procedure question: @ජපස: aka jps...

something we can “manufacture” or edit into an article as explained in WP:ARTN. Subjects either receive sufficient significant coverage to justify having...

multiple news articles about him, magazine articles, etc. Per policy, WP:ARTN it does not matter if the sources are in the article, but that they exist...

sources that are independent of the subject". I will note here that as per WP:ARTN, notability is measured with respect to the subject, not the article. It...

in the content of the article makes him seem notable' - See WP:NNC and WP:ARTN. Our opinion on whether a particular subject or various details about them...

Dimadick (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC) Keep per above sources and WP:ARTN. I agree with SD0001's point that "other people were racist then too" is...

Rhino131 (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. There are a number of media-criticism sources that specifically talk about...

stands. TTN (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN: There are several pages about centaurs in Tracking Classical Monsters in...

"Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." see WP:ARTN Coolabahapple (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Nothing in the article suggests...

Toughpigs (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. Lawrence Alamain was well known as a controversial villain on Days of Our...

"open to interpretation". No one seems to have trouble understanding WP:ARTN, on which premise the purpose of NSPORT rests. The guideline is very clear...

consideration. — Hunter Kahn 14:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. I think it's pretty obvious that the main character of a hugely successful...

(talk) 18:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC) @Bearcat: what about WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN? If you go look at articles for city councilors of other major cities the...

right. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC) Shortcuts WP:ARTNWP:ARTN WP:CONTNWP:CONTN If you have RS add them in, just saying they exist is unlikely...

every other word in it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC) WP:ARTN says that the quality of writing in the current article is not relevant to...

incorrect. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. Edward J. Ruppelt's book, much cited in the article, is the definitive word...

the claim that the article failed NOTDICT, not claims about notability. WP:ARTN says that the content of the article is irrelevant to notability. Notability...

there's no cited material in the article is not a reason for deletion per WP:ARTN. That being said, the subject of health intervention massively, overwhelmingly...

written content, which is inconsistent with the guideline provided by WP:ARTN. The notability guidelines does not indicate that notability of a topic can...

deletion shows some kind of misconceptions about deletion policy. See WP:ARTN. Finally, there are tons of sources in French. Just see e.g. [13] and [14]...

meeting GNG does not necessarily need to be present within the article, per WP:ARTN. I fee this passage is particularly pertinent: "Conversely, if the source...

article with notability. They're not related. If you don't yet understand WP:ARTN perhaps you ought to consider holding off on creating new AfDs until you...

nomination, a failure of WP:BEFORE, and a radical misunderstanding of WP:ARTN given the nom's reliance on the state of the sources in the article. I'ts...

discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:ARTN: Notability is not determined by the current state of the article, even if...

too much trivial details can be notable (as covered in WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN). That being said, I was unable to find any sources in a Google search, so...

Yeah, no. WP:GNG is part of WP:Notability just like WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. Per WP:ARTN, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article...

not inherited Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 11:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC) Keep WP:ARTN--O1lI0 (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC) Automated comment: This AfD was...

with that question. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Per WP:ARTN, the current state of the article does not determine notability of the subject...

wholly unsourced with RS. Onel5969 TT me 19:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC) WP:ARTN. Added ref to FAP article.--RioHondo (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC) A...

review, but the bar for basic inclusion is much lower than that. See also WP:ARTN and WP:NOTPERFECT. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)...

and its format needs improvement, that is not a reason for deletion per WP:ARTN and WP:ANYBIO. Per these criteria, I support a weak keep. I would also support...

WP:LISTN, and articles aren't deleted for not establishing notability per WP:ARTN and WP:NEXIST. The rest of this is just subjective ("Most of these are useless...

Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. I'm going to spell out the excellent sources found by Mccapra, just to make...

material - David Gerard (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Keep: Per WP:ARTN. Plenty of WP:RS establish WP:GNG. Whether or not these sources are currently...

Clearly there are no references and the article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTN. BlueD954 (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Note: This discussion has...

with the several other Tagore articles mass-nominated for deletion. Per WP:ARTN, notability is the subject of a topic, not an article. A stub article is...

edits should be made to this page.‎ The result was speedy keep. Keep per WP:ARTN (non-admin closure) A Guy into Books (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)...

And if you had done WP:Before before proposing the AFD Shortcuts WP:ARTNWP:ARTN WP:CONTNWP:CONTN Actually I didn't add the references on the talk page. I...

articles) for deletion. You should be aware of WP:DELREASON by now. Per WP:ARTN, "Article content does not determine notability. Notability is a property...

"Ben Simons (politician)". I stopped at 5 non-Oregon sources below. Per WP:ARTN, ...if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing...

sources are or aren't in the article, per WP:DELREASON, WP:NEXIST, WP:ATD, WP:ARTN, and WP:NNC. The crux of this nomination is "Unnecessary article split that...

satisfies WP:LISTN. postdlf (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:ARTN. I think that this page should be more focused on the concept of "Deities...

Andrew🐉(talk) 19:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Lockley, I quote from the scripture of WP:ARTN: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article.....

discussions. But I think according to the guidelines of Wikipedia like WP:ARTN and WP:PRESERVE an article should not first be deleted, than improved, but...

need to spend a few minutes looking at the sources and contemplating WP:ARTN (the rule that says that an article's current contents are not the be-all...

of arts and exploration neither of the sources discuss the arts: Fails WP:ARTN: Only a few reliable and independent media were cited. Total 4 of 10 sources...

Options for Change White Paper. Basically this is a directory and nears WP:ARTN. Unless you can prove the units below existed due to the Options for Change...

isn't that promotional anyway and that is an editorial problem. Also, WP:ARTN states that Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia...

needs more references and generally cutting out irrelevant details, but WP:ARTN says that the current state of the article doesn't determine the topic's...

issue, not how well the current iteration of the article is sourced (see WP:ARTN). DevaCat1 (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC) No, verifiabilty rules clearly...

of some lists, which restrict inclusion to notable items or people)." WP:ARTN "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If...

(UTC) Delete - there is no coverage that I can find of the topic. Fails WP:ARTN among most guidelines. Pilot333 (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC) The above...

that I have to wonder if the OP is at all familiar with WP:NEXIST or WP:ARTN, or if anyone did any research beforehand. https://www.ign...

Thanks, — Music1201 talk 19:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC) Weak keep WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. Considering that both Maglor and Maedhros play an important role in the...

more images to the draft isn't going to make it Wikipedia notable per WP:ARTN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC) Marchuly, Wdeibel, the problem...

last AfD, I still fail to see any decent rationale to keep this article. WP:ARTN Also applies. Govvy (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC) Relisted to generate...

to on going coverage and recognition from numerous reputable sources. WP:ARTN WP:CONTN Article content does not determine notability. Irregardless of whether...

No notability established, article completely devoid of any citations. WP:ARTN is certainly relevant here. Article fails WP:SIGCOV Prolix 💬 10:38, 24 December...

(talk) 14:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC) ↑WP:DELREASON, WP:NEXIST, WP:ATD, WP:ARTN, WP:NNC, and WP:HANDLE. Darkknight2149 17:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC) Delete:...

criticising the current revision of the article, which isn't relevant per WP:ARTN. The rest of this is just saying "I wasn't sure if the available coverage...

therefore cannot qualify under WP:NOTABILITY, being not verifiable. See also WP:ARTN - Article content does not determine notability. The article itself is long...

before the SPAs edits. Beagel (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Keep WP:ARTN "... if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing...

The state of the article is not a sign of the subject's notability (see WP:ARTN). The subject is the the co-author of two books (ISBN 0321534468 and ISBN...

provide a legitimate rationale for deletion. Per WP:DELREASON, WP:NEXIST, WP:ARTN, WP:ATD, WP:NNC, and WP:HANDLE, you need a better reason to nominate something...

2021 (UTC) The contents of an article don't determine notability per WP:ARTN, but I'll take a look at the sources tomorrow and see if they have more than...

which "is property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article" per WP:ARTN. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more...

current situation is not enough reason to delete the article based on WP:ARTN. Therefor, we can move the quotations to wikiquote and improve the article...

of subjects, not individuals connected to the topic. I also note that WP:ARTN states: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article...

that synthesizes the Japanese and Chinese versions of the article. Per WP:ARTN and WP:NPOSSIBLE, a subject remains notable even if the article is poorly...

existence of suitable sources not on the state of sourcing in an article"; WP:ARTN. You can call me "Al" Al Leluia81 (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC) Delete...

also fails to cite a legitimate rationale that complies with WP:NEXIST, WP:ARTN, and WP:DELREASON, and also suffers from a lack of voting. This is more of...

agree with the nominator that the article is in very poor shape, but WP:ARTN says that notability is based on the subject, not the current condition of...

content of the article it is the subject, your argument is flawed. per WP:ARTN "'Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If...

already been made clear from the text or sources in the article. See WP:ARTN. Largoplazo (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC) Further comment I'll leave it...

current lack of citations (which is not really relevant according to WP:ARTN), or if there was any WP:BEFORE search done to substantiate this. (There...

notability. Maproom (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC) Please see WP:ARTN. Rebbing 17:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC) Delete. purely promotion, written...

keep: Until better explanation is given. Per WP:DELREASON, WP:NEXIST, WP:ARTN, WP:ATD, WP:NNC, and WP:HANDLE, WP:GNG is determined only by the existence...

improve. Volcom95 (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC) Keep per Atchom and WP:ARTN. Article content does not determine notability. In addition to his elected...

fact, notability is a property of the subject, not of the article. See WP:ARTN. Notability is ONLY a factor of existing sources, not at all of how well...

"fails to establish notability" is not a deletion criterion. Please read WP:ARTN before nominating any other articles for deletion. That being said, this...

deleted as the person depicted in this article is unremarkable and fails WP:ARTN. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC) Note: This debate has been...

the quality or sources in a Wikipedia article at any point in time, per WP:ARTN and WP:NEXIST. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC) Keep....

the subject and independent of the references provided in the article (WP:ARTN), it should be noted that User:E.M.Gregory, the proposer of this AfD, removed...

participation, please take note article content does not determine notability. WP:ARTN & WP:CONTN--MickeyDangerez (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC) SInce you...

the article should be edited, with extraneous material cut down. Per WP:ARTN, the current state of the article content does not diminish the topic's notability...

TarkusABtalk/contrib 15:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC) Also, please recognize WP:ARTN: Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article .....

the existence of sources in any Wikipedia article, per WP:BEFORE and WP:ARTN. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC) Note: This debate has...

may feel the subject non-notable or slanted (an addressable issue), per WP:ARTN and WP:NNC, topics with coverage merit inclusion. Time to address tone and...

current lack of citations (which is not really relevant according to WP:ARTN), or if there was any WP:BEFORE search done to substantiate this. (There...

sources demonstrating notability are cited in the article itself. See WP:ARTN. — MarkH21talk 00:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC) Comment: The article in the The Scotsman...

not particularly notable. Very little coverage outside of Wikipedia (WP:ARTN). Cited sources in the article are poor and do not lend credence to subject's...

that well, ~Cupper (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Irrelevant, per WP:ARTN, WP:NEXIST, and WP:HANDLE. Darkknight2149 19:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Keep...

yours that leads to this. Amirah talk 10:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC) See WP:ARTN. Amirah talk 10:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC) I actually think you should have...

time.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Either way, per WP:ARTN, notability is a property of a subject, no amount of improvements will make...

content might stand alone as an article of list, the subject doesn't. Per WP:ARTN, content doesn't make subject notability. Having a list of a notable resorts...

don't need to pass me that, I know that. What you should be reading is WP:ARTN, WP:NEXIST, WP:WHYN because your reasoning contradicts these important and...

been added to the article to show WP:GNG is passed. This is a case of WP:ARTN. Meters (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC) Keep I added several references...

discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN: The Monk is one of Batman's earliest villains, and apart from being a supervillain...

(UTC) Keep per the sources identified by Eostrix and AleatoryPonderings. WP:ARTN says that the current state of an article does not affect the notability...

dollars and seems to be more of advocacy than promotion. According to WP:ARTN, a subject's notability cannot be based upon the writing of the article....

(UTC) @SwisterTwister: That's not really a legitimate argument. Read WP:ARTN. That an existing article does not, in and of itself, show the subject is...

football teams. This article obviously fails WP:GNG, WP:LISTCRUFT, and WP:ARTN. Do I need to go on any longer? KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:11, 6 April...

Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC) WP:ARTN states, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article...

failed WP:GNG but on second thought I think it is notable. Remember, per WP:ARTN, article content does not determine notability. While the content is very...

see one source, therefore it must not be notable." WP:N has the section WP:ARTN that stipulates notability is not based on article condition. WP:AFD and...

on peer reviewed research from the last 5 years is besides the point (WP:ARTN). Notability does not refer to specific pieces of content within a Wikipedia...

determined by the subject, not the article's content or quality, see WP:ARTN (guideline). Perhaps you should bring a proposal to amend the notability...

below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:ARTN. The original nomination says that this article is a dicdef, which it's clearly...

(talk) 00:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC) @Shooterwalker: Per WP:NEXIST, WP:ATD, WP:ARTN, and WP:HANDLE, notability is determined by the sheer existence of sources...

before making changes. I wanted first to establish notability – after all, WP:ARTN makes it clear that notability is a property of the subject, irrespective...

discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC) Keep And see WP:ARTN as to why this is an invalid nomination. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:13, 24 April...

sources exist to write that article? Not even, are they in the article yet (WP:ARTN), or, does the content meet other Wikipedia standards like due weight. Those...

Fails to cite a legitimate rationale for deletion, per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. If anything, AfDs need to provide an indication of unimportance (or at least...

content of the article does not determine the notability of an article, see WP:ARTN; the subject is of course notable). --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 20:50, 28 August...

shouldn't be one for the offices that these two work at. According to WP:ARTN, notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. By...

(as is still making news). I think the "Delete" crowd is trying to use WP:ARTN to back their claims, when they are forgetting that if BScotch goes, so should...

reason for deletion. The rationale in the nomination: Ignores WP:ATD, WP:ARTN, and WP:NEXIST. Mischaracterises WP:GNG by admitting that the topic "could...

article is a problem, but not one that invalidates the keep !votes, per WP:ARTN/WP:NPOSSIBLE. ST47 (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC) Kenneth Gentry (edit |...

Comment Johnpacklambert Your argument for deletion is in conflict with WP:ARTN "'Article content does not determine notability'", when you use this argument...

86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Keep: Owen Please see WP:ARTN. No sources is not grounds for deletion on notability. Incidentally, a 305...

primary sources" is a mischaracterisation of WP:GNG. Per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN, the quality of sources in the article do not determine notability. "Combining...

of Barbie Doll (1999). The article should certainly be improved, but WP:ARTN says that the current state of the article does not impact the notability...

enough. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Keep: per WP:ARTN. Article is poor, but there is a strong assertion of notability. Doing some...

grounds, per se, for deletion; a good faith reminder of WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN, and that AfD is not clean up. However, per Guliolopez and AusLondonder,...

18:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Keep and expand. It obviously needs work, but WP:ARTN says that the current state of an article doesn't affect the subject's notability...

the current article is almost entirely in-universe plot summary, but WP:ARTN says that the way an article is currently written does not affect the notability...

WP:NEXIST says that if reliable sources exist, then the subject is notable. WP:ARTN says that the current state of the article doesn't affect the notability...

independently covers her),_4. Visit once the 5th point of WP:GNG and also WP:ARTN there clearly mentioned, significant coverage in reliable sources creates...

of the sources in the current state of the article, but according to WP:ARTN: ...if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing...

The previous state of the articles does not imply lack of notability (WP:ARTN/WP:NEXIST). AZ 05:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC) Delete. No media coverage to speak...

(UTC) Oppose delete Article content does not determine notability. See WP:ARTN. dawnleelynn(talk) 03:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC) Could you please clarify your...

more generally, reflects a misunderstanding of notability (specifically WP:ARTN) and a lack of WP:BEFORE. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)...

Not sure what you mean by "all that are there"--all that are where? See WP:ARTN--writing a nomination statement based on what the article is vs what the...

policies and guidelines so much, please take a look at WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN -Ethanbas (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC) The policies you are invoking...

Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. The current state of the article doesn't affect the notability of the topic...

Article content does not determine notability Shortcuts WP:ARTNWP:ARTN WP:CONTNWP:CONTN Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article...

improvements, rather than being an evaluation of the potential of an article. WP:ARTN is explicitly opposed to such de facto requirements. Jclemens (talk) 20:54...

poor reason to nominate something for deletion (WP:NEXIST, WP:DELREASON, WP:ARTN, WP:PRESERVE, WP:ATD, and the list goes on...). That doesn't reflect WP:GNG...

instead. Wikipedia's notability guideline is quite clear that WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN are important considerations when deciding whether a particular topic is...