ARTIKELDIGITAL.COM

it has not been reviewed by the community. Shortcuts WP:TNTWP:TNT WP:DYNAMITEWP:DYNAMITE WP:BLOWITUPWP:BLOWITUP WP:STARTOVERWP:STARTOVER WP:C-4WP:C-4...

full of poorly sourced material. Not notable in the current state. WP:STARTOVER Carl Fredrik talk 22:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion has...

arguing to keep this article, and redirecting also accommodates the WP:STARTOVER approach should that materialize. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk)...

were, as crh23 says this is written totally unencyclopedically and WP:STARTOVER applies. Lagrange613 01:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC) The above discussion is...

fictional work, the stories of One Thousand and One Nights. I believe WP:STARTOVER applies. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC) Note: This debate...

redirect target for this otherwise non-notable BLP. Delete it and WP:STARTOVER. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC) Delete – per nom and the above...

not sure if this topic is notable, but even if it is, we'd need to WP: STARTOVER here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC) Note: This discussion...

Currently the copy paste of 2 minor character articles. This article a WP:STARTOVER candidate. Can be modelled on the list in Ramayana#Characters Redtigerxyz...

seems to be notable. --IgorTurzh (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC) WP:STARTOVER but the writing style itself is not typical POV pushing as in other cases...

up would amount to blanking the page. Deletion is appropriate per WP: STARTOVER. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC) The above discussion...

argues Beyond Poverty's notability. If that can be established, then WP:STARTOVER applies to the article as written, given its promotional tone. QVVERTYVS...

perform edits) like that. Until someone can, I think it would be best to WP:STARTOVER and make this a redirect. mikeblas (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2025 (UTC)...

recommendation: If this person does meet WP:Notability then it's best to WP:STARTOVER. If he does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines then of course...

However, after the article was extensively rewritten from scratch (per WP:STARTOVER) by Bhartiya vimarsh, the current version seems promotional in tone and...

from a blog). Adam9007 (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC) Delete. WP:STARTOVER. This is an advertorial masquerading as an encyclopedia article. Only...

isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedia. At this point, I think WP: STARTOVER applies here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Note: This...

is shameful. People really need to stop using LLM's on Wikipedia. WP:STARTOVER is really best. Iljhgtn (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC) The above discussion...

amount to rewriting the article from scratch. At best, we should WP: STARTOVER; at worst, this violates WP: INDISCRIMINATE and should be deleted. HyperAccelerated...

would recommend a closure of either "send back to DRAFT-space" or WP:STARTOVER with no prejudice against (and even encouragement for, if there is a clear...

fields and doesn't meet NGEO, and (b) if we wanted to do this then WP:STARTOVER would likely apply). In short: I agree with the nom. There are no sources...

immense translation effort that went into it, but IMO this is a case of WP:STARTOVER. Constantine ✍ 15:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC) Delete per nom. Pallikari...

the culture at the time and on posterity, but it would be better to WP:STARTOVER from scratch than to salvage this article. Redirecting it to any particular...

sourcing, and some article "clean up". I'm really not sure this is a "WP:STARTOVER" case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Again --...

whether we need such an article at all, but even if we do, I'd suggest WP:STARTOVER. Skyerise (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC) Keep I don’t see a problem...

demonstrating [WP:Notability]]. Even if notable, promotional tone suggest WP:STARTOVER may be best. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Delete...

FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Reads like a press release and it may be better to WP:STARTOVER. Amigao (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been...

also fail at AFD if the reviewers believe that the best option is to WP:STARTOVER. I have not had time to look through the links above, and I may revisit...

topic, but with a neutral point of view and a more accurate title - WP:STARTOVER. NoCOBOL (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC) Just because the U.S. President...

poorly-sourced content that they might as well simply start over (WP:STARTOVER). SociusMono1976 (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC) Keep. “ was founded...

invasion started. Super Ψ Dro 09:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Y Delete and WP:STARTOVER. IMO there is enough WP:RS out there, maybe they aren't that common in...

not keep any of the current content—but deleting the page so we may WP:STARTOVER actually might. If you want there to be a decent article on this topic...

been voted the best in a notable poll. At any rate, we would have to WP:STARTOVER from scratch since that would be a fundamentally different list than the...

WP:INDIANEWSORG problems here. If subject becomes notable, then could WP:STARTOVER. Iljhgtn (talk) 08:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC) What, @Iljhgtn, do you mean...

But this article is pretty much WP:JUNK and it would be better to WP:STARTOVER Gaijin42 (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Respectfully Gaijin42, if that...

unreliable tabloid. Borgenland (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC) Delete per WP:STARTOVER. Seems like it’s snowing right now? Jumpytoo Talk 04:58, 16 July 2025...

I did not put this up for AfC. That said, while there's a strong WP:STARTOVER argument to be made about this article, it seems Hood does meet WP:NMUSICIAN...

(books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) WP:STARTOVER. Also, this is the same recycled material that banned WP:SPA socks have...

barely-wiki-notable subjects deleted in AfD with a recommendation to WP:STARTOVER. This usually happens when the article is of such poor quality that it's...

weren't for the other articles to merge into, it would be Improve fast, startover, or delete. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)...

notable topics that are clearly written so poorly that it's best to WP:STARTOVER, editors will not agree to delete an article merely on the basis of the...

expensive subscription to continue reading. Anyway this is very far from a WP:STARTOVER case (more like a GO-OVER)! Chelseam5 (talk) The issue with many of the...

society or culture (as the Categories suggest). It is probably best to WP:STARTOVER. Cnilep (talk) 08:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Comment In response to the...

15:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Keep. If you want to WP:STARTOVER, deletion isn't necessary, as WP:STARTOVER implies that an article doesn't need to be deleted...

the substantive article is so poorly written or so contentious that "startover" is the best solution, or when no substantive article could be written...

when there's nothing worth keeping at the present moment aren't we in WP:STARTOVER territory? And why is it worth preserving this structure when an alternative...

would recommend a closure of either "send back to DRAFT-space" or WP:STARTOVER with no prejudice against (and even encouragement for, if there is a clear...

not keep any of the current content—but deleting the page so we may WP:STARTOVER actually might. If you want there to be a decent article on this topic...

been voted the best in a notable poll. At any rate, we would have to WP:STARTOVER from scratch since that would be a fundamentally different list than the...

weren't for the other articles to merge into, it would be Improve fast, startover, or delete. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)...

demonstrating [WP:Notability]]. Even if notable, promotional tone suggest WP:STARTOVER may be best. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Delete...

Currently the copy paste of 2 minor character articles. This article a WP:STARTOVER candidate. Can be modelled on the list in Ramayana#Characters Redtigerxyz...

the substantive article is so poorly written or so contentious that "startover" is the best solution, or when no substantive article could be written...

from a blog). Adam9007 (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC) Delete. WP:STARTOVER. This is an advertorial masquerading as an encyclopedia article. Only...

I did not put this up for AfC. That said, while there's a strong WP:STARTOVER argument to be made about this article, it seems Hood does meet WP:NMUSICIAN...

invasion started. Super Ψ Dro 09:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Y Delete and WP:STARTOVER. IMO there is enough WP:RS out there, maybe they aren't that common in...

barely-wiki-notable subjects deleted in AfD with a recommendation to WP:STARTOVER. This usually happens when the article is of such poor quality that it's...

seems to be notable. --IgorTurzh (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC) WP:STARTOVER but the writing style itself is not typical POV pushing as in other cases...

the culture at the time and on posterity, but it would be better to WP:STARTOVER from scratch than to salvage this article. Redirecting it to any particular...

society or culture (as the Categories suggest). It is probably best to WP:STARTOVER. Cnilep (talk) 08:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Comment In response to the...

recommendation: If this person does meet WP:Notability then it's best to WP:STARTOVER. If he does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines then of course...

argues Beyond Poverty's notability. If that can be established, then WP:STARTOVER applies to the article as written, given its promotional tone. QVVERTYVS...

But this article is pretty much WP:JUNK and it would be better to WP:STARTOVER Gaijin42 (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Respectfully Gaijin42, if that...

topic, but with a neutral point of view and a more accurate title - WP:STARTOVER. NoCOBOL (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC) Just because the U.S. President...

notable topics that are clearly written so poorly that it's best to WP:STARTOVER, editors will not agree to delete an article merely on the basis of the...

sourcing, and some article "clean up". I'm really not sure this is a "WP:STARTOVER" case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Again --...

were, as crh23 says this is written totally unencyclopedically and WP:STARTOVER applies. Lagrange613 01:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC) The above discussion is...

of emotional abuse--Migospia†♥ 01:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC) Delete and/or startover - the template is too broad and so debatable that it's insane and thus...

also fail at AFD if the reviewers believe that the best option is to WP:STARTOVER. I have not had time to look through the links above, and I may revisit...

fictional work, the stories of One Thousand and One Nights. I believe WP:STARTOVER applies. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC) Note: This debate...

that happens, we can easily undelete most of the old pages to make the startover easier, so they won't be gone to waste. (Do we need to formally confirm...

but only if you do it within a time period set by law. After that, it's STARTOVER. Oh, an email notification well before and immediately before any change...

WP:HEY. Article substantially improved since the discussion started. WP:STARTOVER is not needed. Bobbobet (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC) Edited 20:17,...

that happens, we can easily undelete most of the old pages to make the startover easier, so they won't be gone to waste. (Do we need to formally confirm...

(talk) 19:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC) Rename (remove “Glorification of”) and STARTOVER - the article does reference at least six scholarly sources on the topic...

RAJU(T) 20:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC) Delete mainly under the pretense of WP:STARTOVER, if not merge into a subsection of the October 7 attacks page and Holocaust...

not sure if this topic is notable, but even if it is, we'd need to WP: STARTOVER here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC) Note: This discussion...

FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Reads like a press release and it may be better to WP:STARTOVER. Amigao (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been...

when there's nothing worth keeping at the present moment aren't we in WP:STARTOVER territory? And why is it worth preserving this structure when an alternative...

arguing to keep this article, and redirecting also accommodates the WP:STARTOVER approach should that materialize. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk)...

whether we need such an article at all, but even if we do, I'd suggest WP:STARTOVER. Skyerise (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC) Keep I don’t see a problem...

up would amount to blanking the page. Deletion is appropriate per WP: STARTOVER. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC) The above discussion...

However, after the article was extensively rewritten from scratch (per WP:STARTOVER) by Bhartiya vimarsh, the current version seems promotional in tone and...

fields and doesn't meet NGEO, and (b) if we wanted to do this then WP:STARTOVER would likely apply). In short: I agree with the nom. There are no sources...

unreliable tabloid. Borgenland (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC) Delete per WP:STARTOVER. Seems like it’s snowing right now? Jumpytoo Talk 04:58, 16 July 2025...

expensive subscription to continue reading. Anyway this is very far from a WP:STARTOVER case (more like a GO-OVER)! Chelseam5 (talk) The issue with many of the...

amount to rewriting the article from scratch. At best, we should WP: STARTOVER; at worst, this violates WP: INDISCRIMINATE and should be deleted. HyperAccelerated...

WP:INDIANEWSORG problems here. If subject becomes notable, then could WP:STARTOVER. Iljhgtn (talk) 08:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC) What, @Iljhgtn, do you mean...

(talk) 19:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC) Rename (remove “Glorification of”) and STARTOVER - the article does reference at least six scholarly sources on the topic...

RAJU(T) 20:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC) Delete mainly under the pretense of WP:STARTOVER, if not merge into a subsection of the October 7 attacks page and Holocaust...

perform edits) like that. Until someone can, I think it would be best to WP:STARTOVER and make this a redirect. mikeblas (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2025 (UTC)...

WP:HEY. Article substantially improved since the discussion started. WP:STARTOVER is not needed. Bobbobet (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC) Edited 20:17,...

is shameful. People really need to stop using LLM's on Wikipedia. WP:STARTOVER is really best. Iljhgtn (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC) The above discussion...

immense translation effort that went into it, but IMO this is a case of WP:STARTOVER. Constantine ✍ 15:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC) Delete per nom. Pallikari...

redirect target for this otherwise non-notable BLP. Delete it and WP:STARTOVER. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC) Delete – per nom and the above...

isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedia. At this point, I think WP: STARTOVER applies here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Note: This...

newer references in the mainspace and revise the whole article again WP:STARTOVER —15:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)109.60.29.97 (talk) Done – as a contested...

and WP:OR additions, many warnings). I've seen other editors float WP:STARTOVER or deleting the pages altogether, but personally I think there is value...