Wikipedia:XfD today

Shortcuts

This page transcludes all of the deletion debates opened today on the English-language Wikipedia, including articles, categories, templates, and others, as a convenience to XfD-watchers. Please note that because this material is transcluded, watchlisting this page will not provide you with watchlist updates about deletions; WP:DELT works best as a browser bookmark checked regularly.

Speedy deletion candidates

Candidates for speedy deletion

Unassessed vital articles

Draft:"Year 2000" book by Nancy P. James

Draft:Battle of Phum Preav

Draft:Diego Campo

Template talk:Editnotices/Page/MediaWiki:Blockedtext

Health Development Partnership for Africa and the Caribbean

HeDPAC

Draft:List of Kate & Mim-Mim episodes

User:Mohdarifindi/sandbox

User:Petersonabu/sandbox

Draft:Potential Tropical Cyclone I

Sals Pizza Mamaroneck

Draft:Septimiu Capatina

Tiffany James (investor)

Articles

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< October 23	October 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Umar Farooq Zahoor

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At first look, the BLP appears notable. However, by evaluating the coverage, I'm unable to locate any reference that meets GNG. The sources largely rely on tabloid journalism Norwegian publications such as Verdens Gang and Aftenbladet where sources #1, 5, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 20 are written by the same reporter (Rolf J. Widerøe). The rest of the sources include unreliable Pakistani publications, and spam sources such as source #17 per this which was added as an archived source. Bosecovey (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan and Norway. Bosecovey (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Small castes

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article cites no sources. A Google search for "small castes" reveals no relevant results. I can't find any evidence anywhere that these castes were created by the occupying authorities. On the contrary, many of the castes listed here have their own articles on the wiki, and many of those articles seem to indicate a much more ancient history to those castes. The description of the Teli caste is nonsensical (oil tycoons?) and suggests that the content in this article may have been machine-translated from a non-English source. The one sourcethe article used to cite doesn't mention any of the content in the article. The content of the article is currently being included in AI-summaries for related searches, which is a concern if this information is not true. I challenge the community to either find sources for the content of this article or, if sources cannot be found, to delete it. -- LWG ^talk 20:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- LWG ^talk 20:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General Rudie

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While I was able to find some coverage of the subject in reliable sources (which I've added to the article), it's not enough to establish notability, and I wasn't able to find anything much more substantial (there are mentions in newspapers). The AllMusic biography ([1]) is very brief, and the AllMusic ([2]) and Exclaim! ([3]) reviews aren't particularly long (both less than 200 words). The other links in the article don't help establish notability, either (and the Punknews.org review isn't a staff review). toweli (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. toweli (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Links in the article and mentioned above are all I find as well, I don't think they meet musical notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medford, Indiana

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The county history cited calls it a rail station with a post office, which is what the maps show as well. There was no town here. Mangoe (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moneycorp

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet WP:SIGCOV, all the sourced provided are unreliable sources. Bosecovey (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bosecovey (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Technology, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National selections for the Eurovision Song Contest

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the national selections for the Eurovision Song Contest of each individual country may be considered notable, e.g. Melodifestivalen in Sweden or Melodi Grand Prix in Norway, and while I do believe there is scope for including information on individual country's selections within their own articles (see San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest#Selection process for a good example of this), I do not believe that there is justification for hosting a list of every single national selection which may have been held. I believe that this article contravenes several of Wikipedia's guidelines, including WP:LISTCRIT, WP:NOTDIRECTORY (specifically point 2 on "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics"), and in parts I believe this also falls down on WP:GNG as well as WP:OR (given the vast majority of information here is unsourced). I propose deleting the article and merging any useful, sourced parts into Eurovision Song Contest and individual country articles. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, Lists, and Europe. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tsestos

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged uncited in 2009. I could not find good enough sources to show it to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Greece, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find anything about a dance. This mentions a basket [4]. Tagged for over a decade and no one's worked on it, delete it and be done with it. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in Zonaradiko. The dance is a variation of zonaradikos as written in the zonaradiko article and as mentions from sources here and here Cestos: It is known by various names denoting the way the dancers are caught (vivacious), the way they dance it (douzkos = white layered), or cestos (short and quick steps). Duzkos and cestos are danced by men. The Cestu form is also considered a war dance, for the steps of the dance and the formation in a straight line.google translate LefterDalaka (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced for too long to be still an article, probably can be PRODed. Bunnypranav (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably you should read Wikipedia:NEXIST again. LefterDalaka (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC) P.S.: Sourcing problem solved![reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any more support for a possible Merge. Also, this article is being discussed here, at an AFD, so PROD is no longer possible.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magnify (Remedy Drive album)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Add: The albums by Remedy Drive that I have nominated for deletion all failed to chart, and do not meet any criteria listed in WP:NALBUM (and I did not nominate articles by the band which had charted). Nor do they satisfy WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mention in genre music reviews was all I could find when doing WP:BEFORE, and that doesn't qualify. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Remedy Drive per nomination. Lacks significant coverage and isn't notable, like the majority of the band's albums. A lot of these articles seem to exist under the premise that Christian outlet Jesus Freak Hideout reviewing the release makes it notable—it doesn't. Ss112 07:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any additional support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Light Makes a Way

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Add: The albums by Remedy Drive that I have nominated for deletion all failed to chart, and do not meet any criteria listed in WP:NALBUM (and I did not nominate articles by the band which had charted). Nor do they satisfy WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mention in genre music reviews was all I could find when doing WP:BEFORE, and that doesn't qualify. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Remedy Drive per nomination. Lacks significant coverage and isn't notable, like the majority of the band's albums. A lot of these articles seem to exist under the premise that Christian outlet Jesus Freak Hideout reviewing the release makes it notable—it doesn't. Ss112 07:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any additional support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope's Not Giving Up

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Add: The albums by Remedy Drive that I have nominated for deletion all failed to chart, and do not meet any criteria listed in WP:NALBUM (and I did not nominate articles by the band which had charted). Nor do they satisfy WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mention in genre music reviews was all I could find when doing WP:BEFORE, and that doesn't qualify. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Remedy Drive per nomination. Lacks significant coverage and isn't notable, like the majority of the band's albums. Ss112 07:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any additional support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Clelland

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

She passes WP:NATH with seventh place in pentathlon at the 1970 Commonwealth Games but fails GNG. A search through the British Newspaper Archives just found brief mentions and sporting results. Dougal18 (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Sport of athletics, and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, found several newspaper sources in just the first few pages: "BRILLIANT FUTURE FOR SHIRLEY BEGAN 'AS A BIT OF FUN'". Leicester Chronicle. 29 May 1970. p. 28. Retrieved 11 Oct 2024. "PENTATHLON WIN FOR SHIRLEY CLELLAND". Leicester Mercury. 24 Aug 1970. p. 22. Retrieved 11 Oct 2024. "SHIRLEY CLELLAND WINS TWO EVENTS". Leicester Mercury. 23 Sep 1968. p. 24. Retrieved 11 Oct 2024.

I find that the NATH guideline is pretty conservative compared to the others at NSPORT, so it's worth trying multiple search engines if you can't find sources at one. For example NATH says that 4th-placers at the Olympics can't necessarily be presumed to have coverage, but I've yet to find one without GNG sources after searching so far. --Habst (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It mainly pertains to pre-WWII Olympics, and more so for team sports than individual ones Geschichte (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I've searched even pre-WWII Olympics to see if there's a non-notable 4th placer and have yet to find one. I agree that in general prewar Olympics were less notable, I just don't think the line should have been drawn at 4th place. --Habst (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources above from the newspaper archive are fine, the first two are better than the third. Should have enough for notability Oaktree b (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Schofield

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same issues as the podcast even if it's not quite as bad. Coverage is trivial and routine, there is nothing that meets all 4 criteria (independent, secondary, in-depth, reliable). Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Radio, Entertainment, Internet, and California. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This Independent article, this Business Insider article, this PinkNews article, this BuzzFeed News article, and this Press & Sun-Bulletin article—which are all used as sources in the article—all seem to meet the criteria perfectly well. benǝʇᴉɯ 01:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which criteria would you be using that the PinkNews article meets, Benmite? There's quotes from Schofield in there but virtually nothing about her. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would honestly say that the PinkNews article probably meets all of the criteria. It's clearly independent from Schofield, it's a secondary source for what it's talking about (her relationship with Matt Rife), it's known for being reliable, and it's relatively in-depth about ~~the relationship between them~~ the claims she makes about her relationship with Rife even if most of what it says specifically about her is that she's a YouTuber, hosts the Cancelled podcast, and, according to her, "has an 'outie' vagina". benǝʇᴉɯ 02:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you don't mean independent instead of secondary? Secondary means it contains analytic or evaluative claims on the primary sources (i.e. the Schofield quotes). Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FactGrid

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I find no independent coverage of this database. It does appear useful, but appears to be too soon to be a notable product. A BEFORE shows it's in use and blurbs about how the tool works, but it's from the tool itself.

While I would be fine with a redirect to University_of_Erfurt#University_projects, I don't think it's DUE there, and that has already been contested so merits more discussion. Star Mississippi 17:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Websites, and Germany. Star Mississippi 17:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, FactGrid was and is in a way part the official roll out of Wikibase as a common database software. The project was an official collaboration between Wikimedia and the University of Erfurt in 2018, and it is now probably the biggest Wikibase community outside Wikidata. The integration into Germany's National Research Data Infrastructure in 2023 has been the biggest move towards the institutionalization of the database. The platform is now an official recommendation for historical projects to use in Germany. It has projects in Berkeley, Barcelona, Budapest and Paris - with a 1 Million database objects and projects that participate with budgets up to € 900.000 it should no longer be a small website. --Olaf Simons (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://blog.wikimedia.de/2018/08/31/many-faces-of-wikibase-die-geschichte-der-illuminaten-als-datenbank-erschliessen/

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I was the one who originally WP:BLARed the article, and I admit I probably should have responded to the contesting of the redirection and maybe dropped a note or something, but I've essentially treated it as a contested PROD and did not follow up due to personal reasons. I had more or less forgotten about it by the time I had more time. I do stand by my original assessment, and still believe a redirect is the most appropriate option. While there are some sources, the depth of coverage in independent reliable sources (reliable in a general context) is highly limited, and I do not believe it would be possible to write a standalone article of any length from mostly those sources. In fact, with the state of available sources, I don't believe we would be able to expand much more than maybe 2 or 3 times the current text at University_of_Erfurt#University_projects. While that would be 10% of the current article, I do not believe that would be excessive to the point of being proscribed by WP:DUE, especially if other parts are also expanded. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus, a source analysis would be helpful as this is what ultimately influences decisions about notability and whether this article should be retained or changed to a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hart (wrestler)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notable wrestler. Just worked on an independent level. The article has sources, most of them are WP:ROUTINE results, others passing mentions. Looking for sources, he only has passing mentions on a few events 1 HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG with 1, 2, 3, and 4.★Trekker (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, looking for additional assessments from editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Comedy of Terrors

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BKCRIT. Very poor sources consisting of author's website and the publisher's website. No reviews. Mlody1312 (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: several reviews in WP:RS were easy to find and have now been added. (I created the original stub). PamD 21:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther Academy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing much else found. Per WP:SCHOOLRFC existence does not imply notability. JMWt (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Missouri. JMWt (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vortex electrowinning

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced draft that was moved into mainspace. A WP:BEFORE search turned up little. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling boy bands

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been deleted twice, in 2012 and 2014, for being a list article with an impossible-to-define subject that consists largely of original research. As far as I can tell, this current iteration suffers from the same issues, including selection bias toward English-speaking bands (is BTS not a boy band?) and questionable sourcing.

Notably, the sales numbers are pretty universally incidental to the subject of the sourced articles. In addition, the dates of the articles range from 1995 to 2018. While that doesn't totally preclude the article from existing, it's clear to see that these numbers are not an objective current ranking of sales, and the stretch to source implies that reliable rankings of this sort aren't currently out there. At the very least, the current article is drawing conclusions not made by the sources. Thesixthstaff (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Lists. Thesixthstaff (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tea for the Voyage

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, with one exception. On ProQuest, there is significant coverage, but it's all from a local newspaper, The Kingston Whig-Standard. The band is also merely mentioned in a few other newspapers. toweli (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. toweli (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1881 America's Cup

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient sources, fails in WP:EVENTS, and there is a history of a copyvio which is addressed (1253102988) and there is no categories too WP:CAT. Royiswariii (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Royiswariii (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yugendra Pawar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly fails WP:NPOL, because not elected to any legislative body and he is about to contest upcoming elections. TheSlumPanda (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, India, and Maharashtra. TheSlumPanda (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So much news coverage, yet no significant coverage was found, failing to meet both GNG and NPOL. If the subject gets elected as an MLA, surely this article can be recreated by anyone. If not, I will create it. However, for now, I believe keeping this article is pointless. We can also consider draftification or redirecting it to relevant targets like NCP (SP) or 2024 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly election. Let’s me know your opinions. GrabUp - Talk 18:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Liam Payne

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Feels like WP:NOTNEWS to me. While Liam Payne was famous, he wasn't famous to the degree that Elvis Presley, Kurt Cobain or Michael Jackson were that it would feel like having a separate page solely dedicated to his death would be warranted. What seems to me to be a good comparison would be the death of Matthew Perry , which nobody has decided warrants a standalone article. Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of knowledge, and a lot of the detail in this article feels superflous. At 3,700 words currently, Liam Payne's article is also considerably below the 8,000 word limit where looking to split the article would be warranted, so I would support the selective merging of the content of this article back into that one. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, Crime, and Argentina. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively as the Payne article is not too long to do this. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but the storied drug-related deaths of Keith Moon and Brian Jones don't have their own articles, heck, not even Elvis. I had a discussion on ITN about the unusualness of accidental deaths of musicians compared to murders, and I'm pretty sure that murder is about the only way that the death of a musician can truly take on a phenomenon of its own away from the artist. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Liam Payne, in agreement with the nominator and previous voter. His recent death was indeed tragic for his fans, but this article is unfortunately leaning toward some obsessive and unhealthy trivia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge selectively, the impact of Payne's death is defintely palpable but nothing like that of some other major artists who have their own dedicated Death pages (eg David Bowie and Michael Jackson). There is not enough information to warrant an entire article when it equates to what would usually fit in the Death section of any standard celebrity's article. AlienChex (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Neeley

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neeley is an accomplished woman but is not encyclopedically notable. There isn't much secondary coverage of her nor she does not pass WP:NACADEMIC. Mooonswimmer 01:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Entertainment, Science, Maryland, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I see little sign of NPROF, with only one highly cited paper that is also very highly coauthored. I am skeptical of GNG -- the NPR piece is somewhat substantial, but the other pieces are either primary (usually authored by the subject) or else do not mention her. The book has gotten some reviews, but these do not list her as an author [5][6]. I considered a redirect to the Story Collider, but as she has moved on from that organization, that doesn't seem to make so much sense. I think this is probably a bit WP:TOOSOON. Watchlisting in case I have missed something. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is this the same person: [7]. a citation factor of 10 or 11 doesn't seem that high, but I'm unsure. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Might pass AUTHOR, with some book reviews for "Escape from the Ivory Tower", [8], [9], [10]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But all three of those say that the book is by Nancy Baron, and do not mention Neeley. Baron does thank Neeley in the acknowledgements (alongside a lot of other folks). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just came to the same conclusion that she did not write the book (and reverted myself when I added one review to Neeley's article) DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neeley did not write that book. Mooonswimmer 01:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are at least four sources I found in the article for WP:GNG. I'm listing them up here for ease of access. The first one has the most coverage of the subject; the other three are more than just passing mention but less than significant coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Maddie Sofia (January 14, 2020). "Your Brain On Storytelling : Short Wave" (Podcast). NPR. Retrieved 2021-06-02.
2. ~~Wilcox, Christie; Brookshire, Bethany; Goldman, Jason G (2016). Science blogging: the essential guide. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300197556. OCLC 920017519.~~
3. Achenbach, Joel (2023-04-09). "Opinion | Why science is so hard to believe". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. ProQuest 1655455709.
4. Renken, Elena (11 April 2020). "How Stories Connect And Persuade Us: Unleashing The Brain Power Of Narrative". NPR.org.
5. Sirois, Cheri (April 25, 2024). "Creating connections when we talk about science". Cell (Interview). 187 (9). Cell Press: 2120–2123. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2024.03.043. (added to list Oct 21)
Delete. Coverage by the subject themselves, as in the NPR interviews, is not independent or secondary, so does not count towards GNG. She is one of the authors of the science blogging guide so that is not an independent reference either. The WP article has no encyclopedic coverage of her, just quotes and an anecdote about her dad that would be UNDUE. These are not substantial enough for NPROF C7 and definitely not for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I agree with @Nnev66 that she has just enough NPR articles/podcasts for WP:GNG. I think the Short Wave podcast would be enough. Bpuddin (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bpuddin, what is the secondary independent coverage that is in that interview? GNG requires multiple SIGCOV IRS sources, so even a single SIGCOV source (the NPR interviews count as one source) would not be sufficient. JoelleJay (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disagree that the sources @Nnev66 highlighted don't contribute to GNG; she's being included in them as an expert on science communication, not just a general interview about her or her work. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GNG typically requires significant coverage. The sources mentioned above do not meet that standard. While being a leading expert in certain fields can make an individual encyclopedically notable, we would need evidence such as frequent citations by peers, a decent number of highly cited scholarly publications, teaching positions, contributions to significant research, or at least explicit statements from reliable sources recognizing them as a top expert in their field. I'd say most people holding a PhD in their fields are experts, but that doesn't make them all notable per Wikipedia's standards, even if they're cited/interviewed in one or two mainstream news outlets as experts. Mooonswimmer 01:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/update: I've struck the Science blogging book ref in my list for notability above as it is a primary source. I was reading sentences in a Google link to the book that mislead me into thinking there was a section about Neeley - once I got ahold of the book I realized there was no secondary coverage. Regarding the other three references, the NPR ones could be considered one source as they both refer to the Short Wave podcast. By my reading of WP:INTERVIEWS#Notability, I believe they provide significant coverage as the host does synthesis of Neeley's background and credentials and presents it in her own words, thereby making it secondary coverage. As noted above, there is some coverage of Neeley in the WaPo reference - more than passing mention but it could argued not significant coverage. Also added another reference to article I found in the journal Cell which is also an interview but has a mix of primary/secondary coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cell interview definitely does not have "a mix of primary/secondary coverage" -- the only secondary coverage is less than a sentence in the intro: science communicator Liz Neeley, founding partner of Liminal and cofounder of Solving for Science. That's nowhere near SIGCOV...

I also just noticed that the WaPo article is an opinion piece, which is explicitly disallowed from counting towards notability as it's a primary source.

So even if either of the NPR interviews contained IRS SIGCOV (which they do not), we would still need multiple sources to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the WaPo piece is not an opinion piece by Neeley (which would be primary), but she and her work are cited and discussed within it to support the Auchenbach's commentary. (In full, it's an excerpt from a National Geographic feature story "The Age of Disbelief" (March 2015), though most of the Neeley quote and commentary there is as it is in the Post piece.) —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, opinion pieces are considered primary regardless of what they're covering or who they're by. JoelleJay (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except based on the content, the Auchenbach piece isn't an opinion piece. It's from 2015 when the current "Opinions" section was called "Outlook" and ran book reviews, along with opinion pieces, commentary, and analysis. This piece, despite the current "Opinion" label from the Post's website, is clearly secondary in nature, providing analysis, evaluation, and interpretation of research into the ways people process (and deny) scientific evidence. Neeley is quoted and her work referenced as part of that. If the Post's opinion label on an excerpt makes it primary in your mind, then look to the original article: Achenbach, Joel (March 2015) "The Age of Disbelief", National Geographic, 277(3):30–47... —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I said the source was to too far from SIGCOV to count towards GNG even before seeing it was labeled an opinion piece, so this doesn't change anything for me. JoelleJay (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cell interview is in a reliable source and shows a depth of preparation by the interviewer. In the opening the interviewer notes: You trained in marine biology and conservation, but you also have wide experience in communicating a range of ideas, from neuroscience to the COVID-19 pandemic. From there the interviewer notes the subject's “theory and practice of sensemaking" and asks her to expand on it in the context of telling complicated science-themed stories. The proceeding questions ask the subject to unpack how to write for a general audience and differences between technical writing versus scientific storytelling. The interviewer is synthesizing what the subject says, which I consider secondary, before proceeding on to the next question. Nnev66 (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The interviewer just says You’ve said in the past that you’re focused on the “theory and practice of sensemaking.” That has zero secondary content, it's just repeating what the subject has said about themselves. None of the subsequent questions have anything more than that.

Interviewer questions that suggest a "depth of preparation" are still not coverage unless they actually contain secondary analysis of the subject. Otherwise every interview with a couple pointed questions would be considered SIGCOV. And someone's live reactions to another person's statements are exactly what our policy on primary encompasses: "Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied [...] They reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer." The interviewer is a participant in the interview. This is consistent with longstanding practical consensus on interviews at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are perhaps reliable enough to support the claims in the article, but none of them contributes to WP:GNG; they are not simultaneously in-depth, independent, and reliably published. Among Nnev's selection, the first NPR link and Cell are interviews (most content non-independent). The crossed-off book source is a chapter by the subject about self-promotion (a bit of a red flag). The second NPR link and the WaPo piece name-drop her for some quotes but have no depth of coverage about her. And I didn't see much else. That leaves WP:PROF#C1, and her citation record [11], where she was a minor coauthor in a middle position on one well-cited publication on a subject totally unrelated to her science communication work. I don't think we can base an article, especially this article, on that. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed this as a no consensus, which is still my read, but following a request I have decided to relist it because consensus is preferable to kicking this down the road.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Robinson (disambiguation)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a procedural nomination by which the venue of the discussion that began at Miscellany for deletion is moved to AfD as the correct venue. At the time of my creating this AfD discussion, I have not expressed any advocacy or opinion on the matter. The MfD discussion is quoted below, including the real nomination and a single !vote:

Only one topic besides primary topic. There needs to be at least two non-primary topics per MOS:DAB.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GilaMonster536 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Weak Delete I suppose. Keep I guess. I dunno. I'm on the borderline because some tiny but non-zero number of readers will be looking for a Eugene Robinson or Jean Robinson I suppose, and that's too many to go into the Bishop's hatnote, so pointing to a disambig page serves them, otherwise they will not find a link to their desired article, possibly. Herostratus (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
— Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Gene Robinson (disambiguation)

—Alalch E. 17:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind... to expound... first of all, IMO "Gene E. Robinson" should be moved to "Gene Robinson (entymologist)". That as my opinion as people called him "Gene Robinson" without the E. I think, and I'm not a fan of the middle-initial thing when you could use paranthetical disambiguation which tells what the article is about. But either way, whatever, that is not the question here. The question is, are we going to:

Keep the bishop's hatnote as it is (pointing just to the entymologist).
Have the bishops's hatnote point to the entymologist, to Jean, and to the Eugene disambig page.
Keep the disambig page and have the bishop's hatnote point to just it.

Well... #1 gives the reader no chance to find their article if they are indeed looking for Jean or Eugene (rare but non-zero). #2 is a bit long with three entries, that last two being rare. #3 seems to fit the situation best. It is a matter of opinion, and that is mine. Herostratus (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Alalch E. 17:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conor D. McGuinness

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Already deleted three years ago at a previous AfD. Given the source retrieval dates, and the fact that the same person created the article, it is likely that most of them are the same sources that were already considered previously.

The only main difference (and the reason why this isn't a WP:G4) is the fact that he declared his candidacy for the general election, although that in itself doesn't confer notability. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ireland. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability for simply being a candidate. The only coverage is of strictly local matters [12] which aren't enough for notability here. Sources now used are simply confirmation of his activities as a local politician. Oaktree b (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hustwit

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a composer and record producer, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and must meet certain specific criteria to qualify for inclusion -- but the only notability claim being attempted here is that his work exists, and the article is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability -- mainly his work metaverifying its own existence on the self-published websites of organizations or companies that were directly affiliated with it, but also IMDb -- there's not even one piece of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him in an independent third-party source shown at all, and absolutely nothing reliable or GNG-worthy turned up on a Google search either.
Also, I strongly suspect conflict of interest, as the article was first created by a WP:SPA who created this as their first-ever Wikipedia edit and then disappeared until coming back four years later to "update" it, and has never edited any other pages on Wikipedia at all.
As his career goes back more than a decade, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access than I've got to archives of British media coverage that might not have Googled can find more than I was able to, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janney, Indiana

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a rail point on a now-abandoned C&O line. A county history doesn't mention it, and there's nothing significant there. Mangoe (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best coverage I could find on the town was [13], but that alone isn't sufficient for notability. Maybe could be merged to an article on the rail line, but not sure how those are typically written. Other clippings: [14]. Not totally sure there aren't better sources, so this is a provisional delete. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jiangkedong railway station

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing much which would appear to show that the topic meets the inclusion criteria. JMWt (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. JMWt (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also to add - the account of the creator of the page was indefinitely blocked with the reason that it appeared to be a bot which was rapidly creating articles. JMWt (talk) 15:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Qinghai–Tibet railway#Route which covers this adequately with better context. Mangoe (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priyamvad

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to be notable. I'm unable to find any coverage. Fails WP:BIO. --Ratekreel (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Literature, Poetry, and India. --Ratekreel (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratekreel, When you nominated the article, at that time only two references were there in the article. Now number of references are 10+. All references are from national newspapers or books or authenticated government websites. Author have written many books, all can not be listed in the article. Two stories are base for two different bollywood films. Some work by the author is translated in multiple languages by well known authors and translators. Looking at these things, article should not be deleted. There are some research articles which are clearly comparing author's work with Premchand, which is also like an award for Hindi writers. ☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a made up in one day award for a writer who has gotten coverage - but in unreliable sources. The India Times was once a good source, but now it’s deprecated. The added sources are a wall of puffery. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asoz Rashid

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted at AfD, and all sources given date from before the last AfD, so no indication that he became more notable in the meanwhile. Same issue as before, with the sources primarily being about iQ Group rather than the CEO himself. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Iraq. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Drummond Anderson (1886–1968)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. I haven't been able to WP:V the facts on the page and not seen much to suggest that this colonial administrator meets the notability standards for inclusion. I would be interested to hear what others can find. JMWt (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and India. JMWt (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject lacks significant coverage to meet WP:Notability (People) Tesleemah (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If as claimed, is a knight, would be notable under Wikipedia:Notability (awards and honors). Djflem (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akhtar Usman

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The BLP was created in the main namespace and later draftified by Maliner. The creator then submitted it for review, but later unilaterally moved the BLP back to the main namespace, to avoid AFC review process. So I feel compelled to take this to AFD so the community can decide whether it should remain or be deleted. IMO, it fails both GNG and NAUTHOR, as none of the works are notable enough. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Poetry. Shellwood (talk) 09:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed per nom. Clearly fails GNG and NAUTHOR Wikibear47 (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Likely to be contested, so let's get a more firm outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although I couldn't find sources providing significant coverage as per WP:SIGCOV, I did come across some sources that support the subject's notability, though not conclusively. These include 1, 2, 3, 4, and ~~mentioned~~ featured in BCC Urdu's poetic collection here. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- TheBirdsShedTears, Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep : Some links like Dawn and The News seems authentic.--Gul Butt (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Gul Butt, What do you mean by "authentic" ? The News coverage is an opinion piece while Dawn coverage isn't considered a SIGCOV. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: The Dawn source is fine, I imagine there would be more in the several native languages mentioned. I found this [15] and [16], which seem fine. I couldn't find any reviews in Gscholar or Jstor. Oaktree b (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xiao-i

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

does not clearly demonstrate the company's notability through significant independent sources, which is a key requirement for Wikipedia. Much of the information appears to rely on primary or promotional sources, lacking in-depth third-party coverage that would confirm its broader impact or importance. Additionally, the article may contain promotional language, which violates Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality RodrigoIPacce (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Farley (manners expert)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the references provide anything close to in-depth, independent, secondary coverage about Farley. Yes he has appeard on TV and has written for or been quoted in newspapers, but that's not what WP:NBIO calls for. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Social science. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Large portions of text without any references/sources. Mlody1312 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I am the subject of this article and absolutely appreciate the importance of adhering to Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability, notability, and neutrality.

I am consistently consulted and featured on national and local American television networks; global television outlets; radio stations; in newspapers; magazines; and on podcasts on all aspects of modern manners and contemporary, societal etiquette. I began this work in 2000 and for more than two decades now, my name, likeness and commentary appear with regular frequency in outlets that are broadcast to millions of viewers and listeners.

I only learned of this deletion discussion after being approached by several external parties offering paid services to influence the outcome. I have ignored those emails, choosing instead to engage with the community here, according to Wikipedia’s established guidelines.

For those who have legitimate concerns about the page as it stands, I do hope the community can offer further specific guidance on how the article can be improved—and what my role in that improvement would correctly be.

In my research for how to weigh in appropriately on this discussion, one of the things that has impressed me most is the community’s sincere focus on being respectful of others. In that spirit, I truly appreciate your consideration and welcome your assistance to bolster the page in ways you deem necessary.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

[Thomas Farley, Mister Manners] 12.157.19.205 (talk) 06:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's difficult to sort through the fluff here given how often Farley himself appears as a writer, but obviously those sources don't meet WP:INDEPENDENT. I was not able to find any significant coverage of Farley himself so I'd lean delete unless some can be produced. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 16:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Korea Life Insurance Association

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage; I managed to find occasional trivial mentions only. 美しい歌 (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; lot of coverage in Korean. [17][18][19][20][21][22] and much more. If you haven't, please try searching in the native language of articles before nominating for deletion seefooddiet (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless substantive independent coverage is found, in which case I'll reconsider my vote. Based on a google translate review of the sources identified above:

https://www.hankyung.com/article/2024080159261 - announcement of video series, reads like a press release
https://news.nate.com/view/20240801n33291 - slightly longer announcement of video series, reads like a press release
https://daily.hankooki.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=1056990 recitation of corporate changes, company's logo at the top of the article, seems like a regurgitation of a press release
https://www.womaneconomy.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=223463 - article isn't really about the KLIA but briefly discusses a report they wrote
https://www.hankyung.com/article/2024080159261 - announcement of video series, reads like a press release
https://www.hankyung.com/article/202311132361i corporate announcement, seems like a regurgitation of a press release

I'm all in on the message that people should be capable of doing native language searches, but what turns up has to qualify for notability and in my opinion none of these sources meet the requirements of SIRS. Oblivy (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 11:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the Real

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for 4 years. Nothing much found which would count towards the WP:GNG JMWt (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United States of America. JMWt (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Air America (radio network): Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Implant bars

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. Not clear whether this is a notable sub from dentures and not much found in independent third party sources outwith of commercial marketing JMWt (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freenet (Central Asia)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page, little independent third party sources found to show notability per WP:GNG. There seems to be more about the Internet Access and Training Program but that's unreferenced too and I'm not sure it could be shown to be notable either. This topic in particular appears to be a short lived programme of the US government with unknown ongoing importance. JMWt (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. JMWt (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KidzSearch

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:INHERENTWEB. Almost all references are the website being described. No reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage. The website hasn't attracted notice. It has received very little attention from independent sources. Mlody1312 (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Websites — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlody1312 (talk • contribs)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Agreed this subject has had little or no lasting impact. Searching for references to it via Google, there are few results and mostly just a paragraph in articles listing kid-safe search engines. Rather than delete outright, maybe redirect to Internet filter. I think there could be scope for a generic article on safe search, distinct from SafeSearch which is about the feature built into Google Search. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This somewhat malformed-named nomination is ostensibly a redundant nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KidzSearch, but it's this one that is linked from the article and has attracted a legitimate comment. This may require administrative help to fix; any NAC would now split the discussion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for that. However, when I added a notice box at the top of the article, the phrase "the deletion discussion" was lighted in red, which meant that the notice box was not linked to the deletion discussion. So how should they be linked? Mlody1312 (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to copy and paste my comment to the correct location. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biratnagar Kings

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Teams that compete in a barely notable tournament, so don't need separate team articles. One team from the NPL was already redirected after AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokhara Avengers- though editors keep reverting that redirect against consensus)- and the same non notability applies to these other NPL teams. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Cricket, and Nepal. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating other NPL team:

Keep: This team already participated in the Dhangadi Premier League and have many coverage article about it in Nepal.Godknowme1 (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokhara Avengers

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Repeatedly recreated over the redirect, but as per the last AFD, this team isn't notable enough for a separate article, even though the page has been updated some more. I propose restore the redirect and WP:SALT it. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Cricket, and Nepal. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted‎ by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthoba Nayaka

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not meeting Wikipedia:Notability (academics) 美しい歌 (talk) 08:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Tagged under criterion G11 since the page is clearly promotional. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

KidzSearch

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:INHERENTWEB. Almost all references are the website being described. No reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage. The website hasn't attracted notice. It has received very little attention from independent sources. Mlody1312 (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Websites — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlody1312 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by MeTV Toons

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Channel with 99% reruns of older series, their programming lacks notability. Fram (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. Fram (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or delete other articles First, note on the reason this article was created. The material in this article was transferred from MeTV Toons, which made the article as noted "too long to comfortably read the main article". This article/list is not any different from others on Wikipedia. It contains references provided by other editors for verification. This article is directly the same as others under the category: Lists_of_television_series_by_network. Please visit this category to confirm. If we limit articles/lists to original programming and not list rerun programs, we will need to delete a lot of articles/lists such as ION or Antenna TV for example. Thus, what do we consider as "notable"?. This is not the only channel that is currently listed on Wikipedia as per quote "Channel with 99% reruns of older series, their programming lacks notability." Msw1002 (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masayoshi Takayanagi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Huge failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played a couple of football matches. No usable sources in ja:wiki, is it apparent for everyone that they are exclusively WP:PRIMARY (or too short, as #1). Creator is globally locked. Geschichte (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nada Zeidan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO, reads like promotional material, most sources are either broken or unreliable 'socialite' content. MSportWiki (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. MSportWiki (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. MSportWiki (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MSportWiki (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. MSportWiki (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. MSportWiki (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ario Nahavandi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not seeing third party SIGCOV, probably not enough here for WP:NBIO. KH-1 (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Iran, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shreeraj Kurup

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet WP:SIGCOV and so unable to satisfy WP:GNG. Bakhtar40 (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Poetry, and India. Bakhtar40 (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't even find three articles that were reliable (WP:RS) and had significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV). Jannatulbaqi (talk) 09:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject lacks significant coverage to meet WP:Notability of musicians, No awards nor significant honour

Tesleemah (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Research on tornadoes in 2024

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a niche topic that fails WP:N and is likely WP:LISTCRUFT. Nothing is inherently notable about routine tornado research that requires a Wikipedia article to be written about it. United States Man (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge — Several RS articles written about tornadic research this year: [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46]. Several lists are similar to this one including 2024 in climate change. Key to note, this article is a split from a parent article, History of tornado research. The 2024 article is nearly half the size of the parent article. So no matter what, deletion should never have been proposed, given it is a split-off article from the parent article…a merge proposal would have been better either into the parent history article or Tornadoes of 2024, which has a research section linking to this article as the “main”. That said, I think it has clearly enough RS and peer-reviewed secondary sources to back up notability. If consensus was falling more in line with a merge or deletion, I would support a merge over deletion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article looks like someone typed "tornado" into Web of Science, with "2024" as the publication year, and wrote a brief summary of the abstract of every single paper that came up. Completely indiscriminate collection of routine, incremental research findings that nowhere is discussed in the aggregate as a particularly notable topic. As for it being spun off from History of tornado research, it never should have been put in that article in the first place. Wikipedia is supposed to summarize the world's knowledge, not archive the world's press releases and abstracts. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: WP:LISTCRUFT.

On second thought, I wouldn't mind a merge. Sir MemeGod  13:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least I would support a merge into History of tornado research#2024. Procyon117 (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:WeatherWriter. I see no net benefit for the encyclopedia by deleting it. It could be trimmed and organized a bit, perhaps.--cyclopia ^speak! 14:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. 2024 at least deserves a section on History of tornado research. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There are very different opinions on what should happen with this article and its content so I'm giving this discussion more time in hopes of achieving a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to History of tornado research. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of tornado research. This article meets at least two criteria for WP:LISTCRUFT (#1 and #2). At best, it can be trimmed and some of the information merged into the other article. Keeping it would invite an article for 2025 and 2026 and 2027 ad infinitum. Such articles are not needed as WP:STANDALONE - expanding the original article will be enough. DesiMoore (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As copyeditor, this article seems really useful to some (also per WeatherWriter). 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 01:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There still isn't a clear outcome from this discussion as of yet. I'm relisting this for perhaps more input into this discussion and a more clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 05:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: An abridged version of this article should be included in History of tornado research. SirBrahms (talk) 06:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to History of tornado research - I don't think the subject meets WP:GNG on its own. That is, we would need significant, independent coverage of tornado research in 2024. However, it's a perfectly valid page split; it should be merged back to History of tornado research where, if after considerations of WP:DUE (focusing on secondary coverage of research rather than primary research results), it could be split again in the future. Suriname0 (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jyotirvidya Parisanstha

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not establish notability. Sections devoid of information. Poorly written. Written in a non-formal and non-neutral way. Sushidude21! (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as the subject is plausibly notable. See here. Marathi sources (that I can’t access) may also be available. Mccapra (talk) 07:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Astronomy, and Maharashtra. Skynxnex (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Souls (video game)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A draft that was copy and pasted back into mainspace (so, it's been objected to). A PROD would also likely be objected to. A WP:BEFORE brings up another game. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find any reliable, published sources documenting the existence of this game. The best I can find is a random TV Tropes article (as you probably know, TV Tropes has far less strict policies on "notability" than Wikipedia).

Fails WP:V and WP:N. ApexParagon (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no notability. Seems like it has a tiny insular group of fans, and has made no impact outside that group. ApLundell (talk) 05:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI There is an unrelated board game with the same name. ApLundell (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article was published before too the same day but I moved it to a draft as it had no sources and to give the creator of the article time to establish if it has potential merit, however I haven't seen any other sources confirming its a game notable of having a page and as he re-published it I simply don't see any arguments for keeping this article. BastianMAT (talk) 07:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of meeting the GNG, seemingly created by a WP:SPA. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Egyptian bus accident

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks sustained coverage and had no lasting effects. Just a WP:News article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Egypt. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good grief. Fails everything from WP:GNG to WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS and all points inbetween. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just imagine if an accident that killed 55 people that happened in the UK or USA was nominated for deletion! Clearly WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:NOTNEWS: Whilst tragic, with the casualty count being high, significant or in-depth sustained continued coverage of the event seems to be lacking along with demonstrable lasting effects. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event also lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a horrific thing to contemplate that a road accident killing 55 anywhere in the world wouldn't be notable. We've got little to go on, there are news reports but little ongoing coverage. That said, I don't read Arabic, it seems likely that there would be sustained non-English coverage. I'm going to say unsure in that I would hope that there was more than I'm seeing. JMWt (talk) 09:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – (Revised vote) – Borderline in my opinion. I've found some "detailed" coverage dating back to 2008 plus one in 2013, however, the lack of actual sustained continued coverage post-2009, and the lack of demonstrable lasting effects are enough for me to vote delete, albeit a weak one. Sources found:^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "كارثة جديدة تتعرض لها مصر" [A new disaster is facing Egypt]. Al Fajr (in Arabic). Turess. 17 December 2008. Archived from the original on 25 July 2013. Retrieved 19 October 2024.
^ "مصرع 46 مصريا بعد انقلاب حافلة في قناة مائية" [46 Egyptians killed after bus overturns in canal] (in Arabic). Al-Quds Al-Arabi. Agence France-Presse. 17 December 2008. Retrieved 19 October 2024.
^ "النائب العام يأمر بمحاكمة المتهمين فى انقلاب أتوبيس الصعيد الأحد القادم" [The Attorney General orders the trial of the accused in the Upper Egypt bus accident next Sunday]. El-Bashayer (in Arabic). 17 December 2008. Retrieved 19 October 2024.
^ Ghaffar, Minya (2 October 2013). "أهالى المنيا يطالبون بإسناد طريق "مصر- أسوان" الزراعى للقوات المسلحة" [Minya residents demand that the "Egypt-Aswan" agricultural road be assigned to the armed forces]. Youm7 (in Arabic). Retrieved 19 October 2024.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 04:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: The article obviously needs some work, but could meet criteria if sufficiently sourced and expanded. SirBrahms (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Islamophobic incidents

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Since I nominated List of antisemitic incidents in the United States I should nominate this too, since it has the exact same problems.

Extremely, extremely broad and vague scope, with barely any quality control. Making this list anywhere close to comprehensive coverage of its baffling scope would be impossible, and would mostly contain low level news stories (as it does). If this was going to be a selection of notable pages (and changing it to that would require deleting 99% of the list) maybe, but the problem is in the title still: "Incident". Incident is so broad as to be useless, it can be anywhere from a terrorist attack to someone calling someone a mean word on the bus, this is a completely un manageable scope. Anti-Muslim terror acts or hate crimes targeted at mosques would likely meet NLIST, and if there is consensus to rescope to that we can, but that would also require nuking most of the page. Also, weasel words: "could be considered Islamophobic"? What? Also has WP:BLPCRIME concerns in that it accuses people of crimes without convictions. It also has WP:NOTNEWS issues, which is not inherently a problem for a list, but is a problem when it's based on an inherently POV and negative concept and one with a scope as vague and with as many possible entries as "incident" PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Islam, and Lists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: The list should be rescoped to only contain notable events with broad coverage. It may also be viable to rename it to something like "List of Islamophobic terror attacks" or "List of Islamophobic hate crimes", depending on the new scope. I don't think outright deleting the page would be productive. Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 07:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: I don't know why you are doing this. But this list is super-duper notable. Lots of references are added to the article. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Is currently on the main page (non-admin closure) NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 03:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times Simulator

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could find only one secondary source - https://www.niemanlab.org/2024/04/a-new-game-parodies-the-new-york-times-gaza-coverage/ - and even this would probably not be a conventional WP:RS. Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Games. Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep article is currently on the front page and 1 2 3 are RS secondary sources per Wikiproject video games 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

JoonYong Park

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject seems to fail WP:GNG. Very little coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Mostly primary sources... press releases, a few interviews which per WP:INTERVIEWS would be primary sources, and the one small independent secondary source (the AdAge piece, ref #1 and #7) is the same piece just republished. WP:BEFORE search just shows more primary sources, social media, LinkedIn posts, etc. RachelTensions (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. RachelTensions (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Internet, South Korea, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Takala

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not provide any indication of notability per WP:GNG, WP:NPOL, or WP:NAUTHOR. He ran for state legislature but did not win, and the sources are links to things he wrote, rather than articles about him. I am unable to find significant coverage of him from a Google search. ... discospinster _talk 02:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Minnesota. ... discospinster _talk 02:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd have to say. As OP said, all those many refs are stuff by him. Not notable enough. Herostratus (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. No independent coverage of Takala himself outside of a few mentions in small local newspapers like this. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 03:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Journalism, Conservatism, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:POLITICIAN. Local party worker and commentator in his youth. No indication he ever held office other than within his own local party affiliations. — Maile (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The statement "Takala was elected chairman of Minnesota's Pine County Republicans at the age of 18. He was re-elected in 2009 with 60% of the vote, and again in 2011" looks promising except that it is without citation. Subject does not meet the notability of a politician and it fails WP:GNG Tesleemah (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Carroll (lottery winner)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of any real notability, apart from having won the lottery and being a moron. Lack of citations makes this even worse, as there's hardly anything to say about this guy. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a bit tricky because it does seem like there's a lot of "lasting" coverage, but most of it is just rehashing the same tabloid article going back many years and isn't quality. It seems like the only coverage in reliable sources is very clustered around his troubles with the law - I'd argue that if it's this, rather than the act of winning the lottery, that makes him notable, he fails WP:PERP. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only because it is shot thru with deprecatory bits... all true, all ref'd, but in the spirit of WP:BLP we don't want to do this, and you kind of can't delete all of it or you don't have an accurate article. If it wasn't for that, I'd probably say keep it. Herostratus (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject lacks significant coverage to meet WP:Notability (People). Even the lottery wins is uncited Tesleemah (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Men Who Lost China

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar to the recently deleted article on The World Without US by the same filmmaker, no signs of significant coverage. The article's current sourcing is not independent or significant, and I could not find any signs of further coverage after an online search (given that the film has less than 100,000 views on YouTube, I doubt that coverage exists). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Film. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose... Either way is fine really. I think our de facto standard for films is "it exists (or did)". There are a number of film articles that have less than info than this in them I think. And the director is bluelinked... on the other hand, it looks like he shouldn't be. And it is only 52 minutes... not a short film, but is that long enough for a feature film? If it had a serious release in a serious number of commercial theaters I would probably change my mind. But there's no indication of that, and it seems doubtful. Herostratus (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Katongole-Mbidde

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. 1 of the 2 supplied sources is primary. Could not find significant coverage of this individual. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Uganda. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACADEMIC. This article establishes him as the only oncologist at the Uganda Cancer Institute in 2004. And is now director of the UVRI. Both of which have close relationships with other high standing research institutions (e.g. World Health Org). I would say this falls under WP:NACADEMIC#C5. He also received a lifetime recognition award at a scientific conference giving support to other NACADEMIC points. He also has decent citations on papers based on a quick glance, particularly for someone working in a smaller country. I'll see what else I can pull up for sources. Cyanochic (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. SiniyaEdita (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:SiniyaEdita. Herostratus (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Siniya is WP:JUSTAVOTE. Your vote is just WP:PERX. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm generally in agreement that the head of a research institute is the equivalent of a professorship. I think one has to consider the context of Uganda and the bias it would show if a page on a senior scientist/academic was removed simply because they worked their career in Uganda. JMWt (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Centre FORA

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organization. BEFORE search leads to nothing, failing GNG and NORG. Kline • talk • contribs 00:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Canada. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing significant coverage in RS so I can't see how it can meet the notability criteria. JMWt (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Felo Barkere

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

there's nothing that mentions Felo Barkere and Baunez Ridge together that isn't Eric Gilbertson related/sourced. This location doesn't appear to meet WP:NGEO. Graywalls (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Africa, and Senegal. Graywalls (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles like Bikku Bitti have used peakbagger and summitpost blogs as a source, so what's the difference with this article? Any highest point of a sovereign nation should have its article on Wikipedia or at least be mentioned. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes people like Eric or Ginge are the only source of information on peaks like this. Allowing one highpointer's firsthand information (like Ginge on Bikku Bitti) but not allowing Eric's on Felo Barkere seems strange and inconsistent by WP policy. Also, peakbagger has extensively been used as a source for minor mountains (which Felo Barkere would fall under), so what is the sudden change against this? Also, peaks promoted to the main database on peakbagger are looked over and verified by administrators, so some "child sitting on his dad's shoulder" won't be messing up the measurement by 5-6 feet on a peak in the main database as much of the data comes from professionally done surveys. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 11:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing up Bikku Bitti. I've cleared out totally unacceptable low quality diary/blog, which appears to have been added over a decade ago. As you look at different articles, you will sometimes find articles written over a decade ago that is chock full of complete trash and ad articles that look like a press release written entirely off of company site. On less lower traffic article that sort of things tend to happen. When you find contents written based on personal website, first see if the site cites a reliable source that meets WP:RS standards. If it does, replace it with that source. If not, I personally encourage removing contents based on some anecdotal evidence. Pruning low quality information is part of improving Wikipedia. If there's trash all over both sides of the road and someone cleans up one side, you can go ahead and clean the other side. Graywalls (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and by delete I probably mean redirect somewhere. I think I'm very permissive when it comes to geographical place names, but I don't see anything here which passes WP:NGEO's permissive rule of provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. The only other Wikipedia which even mentions it that I could find is Czech, which calls it "nameless hill." It's clearly more than a hill, but I can't find anything to add to the article. SportingFlyer T·C 00:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe redirect to Geography of Senegal#Physical features, which can have a mention of Felo Barkere / Baunez Ridge? KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point us to just one reliably published secondary source linking the term "Felo Barkere" to Senegal or Baunez Ridge? I did find Worldatlas linking Baunez Ridge to Senegal as the highest point. Without a reliable source linking "Felo Barkere" to these, it would be inappropriate to re-direct this to Senegal, as it is to re-direct this to say... elephant or zebra. Graywalls (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow time to find a RS to justify the redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. CIA Factbook [47] says the highest point in Senegal is unamed so conflicting with "Felo Barkere". Barkere is apparently a village in Guinea so it's questionable the peak has this name in Senegal. This website just calls it "Senegal High Point" [48] and is 10 metres higher than stated in the article. Agree with the nominator's comments and reasoning. As it stands there's basically a single source for this name, so notability not established and it would be wrong to redirect to the Geography of Senegal page under this article's title. So, unless further reliable sources found to back up Felo Barkere, I'm inclined to delete. Rupples (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing a way to WP:V so it doesn't feel like there is an ATD. Maybe sources exist in a format we can't access, so this might change in the future and the page can be resurrected. JMWt (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Education Support

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no assertion of notability and while I do not read Russian, Google Translate accesses it with some ease and I'm unable to find N:ORG level coverage. I do not think a redirect to or merge with Gymnazium Union of Russia is viable as I'm not sure that would survive AfD either although the name makes a BEFORE more challenging. Star Mississippi 01:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Education, and Russia. Star Mississippi 01:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without seeing significant third party reliable sources that show that the inclusion criteria have been met, I can't see how we can tell how important/significant this is. It has been reported but it seems to be only a small ripple in the media, and I'm not even sure how reliable those sources are. JMWt (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pentest-Tools

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No WP:SUSTAINED establishment of notability with WP:RSes. Clearly promotional. Amigao (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Internet, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete: The sections Products, Awards and accolades, Services and Community contribution definitely have to be either rewritten (to avoid promotional material) or deleted outright. The rest of the article can be kept (especially if it can be unorphaned). Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SirBrahms, @everyone, Please help me with any suggestions to improve the page, i'm willing to improve it in order to follow Wikipedia's guidelines.Ionutzmovie (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest trying to remove material that could be considered promotional first, and then making efforts to link this article in relevant pages (unorphan). I hope this helps set you on the right track to improving it. Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft - I'm not seeing enough here to meet the GNG, although it might be close if there was more time to draft and improve with better sources. JMWt (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files

File:2026 Winter Olympics logo.svg

Italy has a very high threshold for copyright protection of artistic designs, similar to how the AC Milan logo is not protected in Italy. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 05:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia is hosted in the United States, so a work must also be free in the U.S. for us to consider to to be free. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Statue of Harold Schwartz.jpg

No freedom of panorama for public art works in USA. The statue's plaque indicates this person as the founder of "The Villages" and per the Wikipedia article on Harold Schwartz, the Villages naming happened in 1992 so this statue is still well within copyright. Whpq (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Operations against organized crime

Propose renaming Category:Operations against organized crime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organized crime
Propose renaming Category:Operations against organized crime by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organized crime by country
Propose renaming Category:Operations against organized crime in Austria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organized crime in Austria
Propose renaming Category:Operations against organized crime in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organized crime in Canada
Propose renaming Category:Operations against organized crime in China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organized crime in China
Propose renaming Category:Operations against organized crime in Colombia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organized crime in Colombia
Propose renaming Category:Operations against organized crime in El Salvador (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organized crime in El Salvador
Propose renaming Category:Operations against organized crime in Honduras (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organized crime in Honduras
Propose renaming Category:Operations against organised crime in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organised crime in India
Propose renaming Category:Operations against organised crime in Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organised crime in Ireland
Propose renaming Category:Operations against organized crime in Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organized crime in Italy
Propose renaming Category:Operations against organized crime in Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organized crime in Mexico
Propose renaming Category:Operations against organised crime in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organised crime in Pakistan
Propose renaming Category:Operations against organized crime in Serbia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organized crime in Serbia
Propose renaming Category:Operations against organized crime in Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organized crime in Spain
Propose renaming Category:Operations against organised crime in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organised crime in the United Kingdom
Propose renaming Category:Operations against organized crime in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organized crime in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with parent Category:Law enforcement operations. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Child pornography crackdowns

Propose renaming Category:Child pornography crackdowns to Category:Law enforcement operations against child pornography

Nominator's rationale: Actual contents are mostly law enforcement operations. Those that aren't should be purged and relocated to other subcategories of Category:Child pornography. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Empires and kingdoms of foo

Propose merging Category:Empires and kingdoms of Afghanistan to Category:Former political entities in Afghanistan
Propose merging Category:Empires and kingdoms of India to Category:Former countries in Indian history
Propose renaming Category:Ancient empires and kingdoms of India to Category:Ancient polities in India
Propose renaming Category:Medieval empires and kingdoms of India to Category:Medieval polities in India
Propose renaming Category:Former political entities in Afghanistan to Category:Former polities in Afghanistan
Propose renaming Category:Former countries in Indian history to Category:Former polities in India
Propose renaming Category:Empires and kingdoms of Iran to Category:Former polities in Iran
Propose renaming Category:Empires and kingdoms of Nepal to Category:Former polities in Nepal
Propose renaming Category:Empires and kingdoms of Pakistan to Category:Former polities in Pakistan

Nominator's rationale: These are not all "empires and kingdoms", but rather include all historical states which once inhabited the modern-day territory of these countries. Opting for "polities" rather than "states" to remove any ambiguity (and these were not all "countries" either). Category:Former political entities in Afghanistan (currently the lone country cat in Category:Former territorial entities in Asia) and Category:Former countries in Indian history already exist, and thus Category:Empires and kingdoms of Afghanistan and Category:Empires and kingdoms of India should be merged there, and the two parents renamed with the desired naming scheme. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, if there are any articles not about kingdoms or empires they should be purged, but at first glance all content is ok. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Empires and kingdoms of Pakistan to Category:Former monarchies in Pakistani history, Category:Empires and kingdoms of Afghanistan to Category:Former monarchies in Afghan history, Category:Empires and kingdoms of Iran to Category:Former monarchies of Iran, Category:Empires and kingdoms of Nepal to Category:Former monarchies of Nepal, Category:Empires and kingdoms of India to Category:Former monarchies of India, Category:Ancient empires and kingdoms of India to Category:Ancient Indian monarchies, Category:Medieval empires and kingdoms of India to Category:Medieval Indian monarchies. Rename Category:Empires and kingdoms of Pakistan to Category:Former countries in Pakistani history, Category:Empires and kingdoms of Afghanistan to Category:Former countries in Afghan history, Category:Empires and kingdoms of Iran to Category:Former countries in Iranian history, Category:Empires and kingdoms of Nepal to Category:Former countries in Nepali history, and merge Category:Empires and kingdoms of India to Category:Former countries in Indian history. The current names have issues related to anachronism that needs to be fixed. (Changed vote after discussion below)Merge to Category:History of Pakistan, Category:History of Afghanistan, Category:History of Nepal, or any of their sub-categories. These categories are unnecessary and non-conventional and have issues related to anachronism. The nominated categories appear to be one of a kind almost exclusively found in the South Asian topic area. Other articles related to former polities use categories such as Former kingdoms or Former empires along with Medieval history of Germany, Modern History of Italy, and so on. There is no reason South Asian topics should be an exception. PadFoot (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact there is a Category:Italian states. I sympathize with the argument of anachronism, but merging to general history categories would result in these categories becoming very messy. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, I think that Category:Italian states does not pose a similar issue as it seems to be based on ethnicity and/or a link to a historical region, and thus is not anachronistic. To me, anachronism seems to be a significant issue in the case of the nominated categories, which needs to be addressed in one way or another. PadFoot (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to conclude that it is based on ethnicity or historical region. The category just lists all states within the boundaries of 21st-century Italy. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, See the category itself. It says in the top:

This category contains articles on former Italian countries and polities. This category contain all the former states south of the Alpine water divide (North Italy) and in the Italian Peninsula and all the states of Italian language and or culture.

Besides, what is important is that the nominated categories present issues of anachronism. Perhaps you could suggest a way to fix that? PadFoot (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian Peninsula may well be considered to be a region, but current North Italy isn't part of it. North Italy is included in the category just because it belongs to the current state of Italy. There is also Category:Former countries in Spanish history. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North Italy is indeed a part of it. See the very first line of the article on Italian Peninsula:

is a peninsula extending from the southern Alps in the north to the central Mediterranean Sea in the south

Besides, the cat also mentions "states of Italian language and culture". However, you have convinced me that the categories should be retained and not merged, but should be renamed (in one way or another) to fix the anachronism. Perhaps, we should also expand in the categories. PadFoot (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008: please do not remove articles from any of the nominated categories while we are discussing them. If you think there are other issues with these categories you can raise them here. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the revised rename proposal, it is still not clear what is wrong with "empires and kingdoms". For brevity we might rename it to "monarchies" but any rename beyond that seems unnecessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, monarchies would be good, but there would still be a problem with anachronism, which is why I suggest changing "of country" to "in country history", (like "in Spanish history" instead of "of Spain"). PadFoot (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's keep it at monarchies then. I do not have a clear opinion on "of country" versus "in country history". Marcocapelle (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Marcocapelle, Alright. Shall I change my proposal to "Monarchies of India", "Ancient monarchies of India" and so on then? Would that be good? PadFoot (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @PadFoot2008: that would definitely be helpful for the closer of the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Marcocapelle, I've placed a new proposal. A problem I see with this however is that we get anachronistic constructs such as "Monarchies of Pakistan" (or earlier "Empires and kingdoms of Pakistan"), as these monarchies didn't exist in a territory called 'Pakistan', which is why I think that "Monarchies in Pakistani history"/"Former monarchies in Pakistani history" would be better in this case. PadFoot (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Ok. I am not opposing it. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Alright, thanks. PadFoot (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  @Marcocapelle, is it possible to nominate the same category twice or do I have to wait until this is over? PadFoot (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Don't worry, the closer will read the entire discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the alternative name suggested by PadFoot?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 19:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unassessed vital articles

Propose deleting Category:Unassessed vital articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category Category:Unassessed vital articles is a project page! Also, I don't understand New Nominations, but I am pretty sure there aren't any. It is used for WikiProject Vital Articles, so why is it a canidate for speedy deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellow i am here (talk • contribs) 19:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above comment was malformed and is now fixed. Speedy delete per C4. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early abbots by century

Propose deleting Category:5th-century abbots
Propose deleting Category:6th-century abbots
Propose deleting Category:7th-century abbots
Propose deleting Category:8th-century abbots
Propose deleting Category:9th-century abbots
Propose deleting Category:10th-century abbots
Propose deleting Category:11th-century abbots
Propose deleting Category:12th-century abbots

Nominator's rationale: the earliest non-Christian (Buddhist) abbot that we have an article about is Yishan Yining who lived in the 13th century. These categories don't contribute to navigation until we have articles about earlier Buddhist abbots. All Irish abbots of this period were Christian abbots and can be added as subcategories thereof. It would be naieve to state that these Irish abbots do not belong in Christian abbots just because the Irish category name does not specify "Christian". Wikipedia should reflect the real world and not get stuck too much in its internal organization. The real world is that there weren't Buddhist abbots in medieval Ireland, they were all Christian. This nomination is of course without objection to recreation once we have articles about earlier Buddhist abbots. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. > It would be naieve to state that these Irish abbots do not belong in Christian abbots just because the Irish category name does not specify "Christian".

I never said that the individuals in the page don't belong in the Christian abbots category. I said that you shouldn't be conflating nationality and religion at the category level. Three things: I don't see why you're suggesting deletion, instead of merging. This deletion is going to break the abbot by nationality template. This seems premature, given that I asked you about this on your talk page. Mason (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw and Fayenatic london: what do you think of this? Better to have third-party input here. The discussion is in the first place about whether (medieval) Irish abbots should be a subcategory or a sibling of Christian abbots. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well first of all, why would you delete these categories rather than upmerging them to Category:Medieval abbots? NLeeuw (talk) 05:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since these have subcats for both Irish and Christian abbots by century, and are part of e.g. 12th-century religious leaders and 12th-century monks, it seems to me best to keep the hierarchy intact. – Fayenatic London 10:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Marco's point is that everyone in the Irish abbot tree is also a Christian abbot. I'd already tried to discuss this issue, but they're intentionally ignoring me. Mason (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (to the first sentence), but we are not going to merge them because one is by nationality and one is by religion. Although for several centuries it would be factually correct to make Irish a subcat of Christian, that would be inconsistent with other parts of the hierarchies, and it would get messy to use that kind of parenting only where it fits. Even if there are some comparable precedents the other way, IMHO it's better to leave these as they are, i.e. siblings. Cf. the national Priests categories which we disambiguated by religion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_3#Priests_by_nationality. Then, given that the nominated Abbots parents hold these pairs of subcats as opposed to single subcats, I would also keep those. – Fayenatic London 14:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. For all the reasons you've listed. I think that there's benefits for navigation, and just requires content expertise to navigate the categories. Mason (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge, as suggested by NL?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from Byzantine abbots there isn't anything specifically medieval about abbots. Should we then also create a separate category for medieval Christian abbots, and for medieval Irish abbots? I don't think so, the century categories seem to suffice. Having said that, I have not nominated Category:Medieval abbots and it's probably too late to add this now. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 19:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages using the JsonConfig extension

Propose deleting Category:Pages using the JsonConfig extension (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Pointless tracking category - will eventually include literally every article with a citation. To implement this deletion, create MediaWIki:Jsonconfig-use-category with the text -. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and implement deletion. A really unnecessary tracking category: all articles with at least 1 citation go there – we already have a template (and a category as well) for those with no citations. Also, not only articles are affected: "Pages using the JsonConfig extension" also has a subcategory called New York City Subway station articles with outdated ridership data and many templates and talk pages. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Society of Ukrainian Progressors members

Propose deleting Category:Society of Ukrainian Progressors members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Emptied: no refs. No such society. Mistranslation? --Altenmann >talk 21:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an empty category, it doesn't need a discussion. Next time, consider tagging it CSD C1. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Next time, consider not emptying the category beforehand. Discussion can be useful when you know which articles were in there. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Altenmann, I'm going to say it more bluntly. Please don't empty categories like this. We can't tell if there's a mistranslation or if the category has sources in another language, if we don't know who was in it. Mason (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support the comments of Marcocapelle and Mason. For the record, the six biographies removed out-of-process by Altenmann are here: [49]. ~~Maybe the last word should be "progressionists" like [50].~~ – Fayenatic London 10:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What's this "out-of-process" nonsense? The removed categories in bios were not supported by sources. Aren't we forgetting our most fundamental rule? --Altenmann >talk 16:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You really need to consider the feedback you're getting here. "The removed categories in bios were not supported by sources." That's the problem. You removed them so how do you expect the CFD to go? I've rolled back the removal so other people can actually evaluate the category contents. Mason (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  "how do you expect the CFD to go?" - easily. Check in Wikipedia or in the internets whether such society exists or existed. --Altenmann >talk 20:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Your reversal is a blatant violation of Wikipedia rules: WP:AGF and WP:V unreferenced information can be deleted at any time. Here are the bios in question, if someone questions my senses:

13:16 Smasongarrison talk contribs (Dmytro Doroshenko added to category, this page is included within other pages) diffhist 13:16 Smasongarrison talk contribs (Mykhailo Hrushevsky added to category, this page is included within other pages) diffhist 13:16 Smasongarrison talk contribs (Mykola Vasylenko added to category, this page is included within other pages) diffhist 13:16 Smasongarrison talk contribs (Symon Petliura added to category, this page is included within other pages) diffhist 13:16 Smasongarrison talk contribs (Serhiy Yefremov added to category, this page is included within other pages) diffhist 13:16 Smasongarrison talk contribs (Volodymyr Vynnychenko added to category, this page is included within other pages) diffhist

- Meanwhile I am restoring my deletions done in total agreement with Wikipedia rules. --Altenmann >talk 20:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't understand why you even brought this up for CFD if you are just going to make it difficult for wikipedians to temporarily evaluate the category. I've reverted the change and ask that you be patient. You're the one who made the nomination. Mason (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last word should be "Progressives", see User_talk:Aleksandr_Grigoryev#Category:Society_of_Ukrainian_Progressors_members. But in the same discussion, the category's creator accepts deletion. – Fayenatic London 11:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's helpful to know. From that conversation it seems like merge to Category:Ukrainian_Democratic_Party_(1904)_politicians is a viable solution. Mason (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No; these are not the same establishments. YOu cannot categorize unless the articles say so that they are, i.e., you cannot do an automatic merge. --Altenmann >talk 03:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now that the premature emptying issue is resolved, do people support a merge to Category:Ukrainian Democratic Party (1904) politicians (as suggested by Mason)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me whether these two organizations were interconnected or synonomous. By all means add articles to Category:Ukrainian Democratic Party (1904) politicians insofar they mention membership of that party. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am not seeing anyone who supports the category's continued existence, so discussion on whether it should be deleted or merged is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 19:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Second ladies and gentlemen of the Philippines

Propose deleting Category:Second ladies and gentlemen of the Philippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:NEOLOGISM, Second Ladies are not a thing in Philippine politics. We are not like the United States which uses such term. Second Ladies/Gentlemen at best are just a synonym for the Vice President's spouse, unlike the First Lady/Gentlemen who actually serves a role for being the host at the Malacanang Palace and is distinct from the Spouse of the President of the Philippines Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, this category has been emptied by the nominator, Hariboneagle927. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For full disclosure, there were four entries under it Mans Carpio, Elenita Binay, Celia Díaz Laurel, and Loi Ejercito Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This category is spouses of the vice president, that's a defining feature regardless of whether the role is official. Please don't remove pages from categories like this. I've reverted you removals. Mason (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is plain neologism. You would be hard pressed to see consistent/sustained usage of the term "Second Lady/Gentleman" by Philippine national broadsheets or government agencies. First Lady and Gentlemen are likewise not a formalized institution but unlike Second Lady, the term (Second Lady) is not used by the media or the government.

The argument is "Second Ladies" as a role does not exist in the Philippine context. Sure the category could be renamed as Category:Spouses of vice presidents of the Philippines to accurately portray its member pages. We do not created fictitious roles and present it as fact, regardless if official or not. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To re-emphasis the role of First Lady and Second Lady is distinct from the President's and the Vice president spouses. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with renaming to Category:Spouses of vice presidents of the Philippines. Mason (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Local circumstances, both with respect to the question whether it is a defining characteristic, as well as with respect to the name of the category, should play an important role in the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the four entries are notable for being elected politicians, one is a theater actress and Mans Carpio is noted for being involved in a smuggling scandal and his membership in the wider Duterte family who had Rodrigo Duterte, his father-in-law. None of the given citation asserts they held the role of "second lady/gentleman". Again we are talking about the fictitious role. I understand in some context such as the US context its synonymous to the vice president's spouse.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not know anything about Philippine politics myself but I think your arguments are good and this should only be opposed if spouse of vice president is a defining characteristic in the Philippines after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to form consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To further emphasize, there is no such role as "second lady" in the Philippine context, so the question whether it is a defining characteristics for its member articles is moot. Being a spouse is a different thing and if the intent of the article is to cover vice president spouses then a rename should be in order.. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still need more participation to form consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 18:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Events at Yankee Stadium

Propose deleting Category:Events at Yankee Stadium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCVENUE, we do not categorize events by the venues they were held at. Bearcat (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: OCVENUE is not policy; we are not bound by it. Also, bad nom to only nominate this and none of the other venue categories _pbp 15:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:OCVENUE makes an exception for "how a specific facility is regularly used" and the contents here are dominated by the New York Yankees and New York Giants (i.e. how it's regularly used) so the location seems defining. (It's not clear to me that there is a still a consensus for WP:OCVENUE generally but that's not really important here.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no reason Yankee Stadium should be the exception. Mason (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the exception; there are several other venues with categories. _pbp 01:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rest can be nominated. Mason (talk) 02:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OCVENUE does make a distinction between specific events and regular use. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. Moreover, a season is not an event and all of the season articles should be removed, regardless of the result of this discussion.--User:Namiba 18:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Those should remain. A season is a collection of events/games _pbp 18:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your definition of a sports season as a singular event is contrary to widely established consensus on Wikipedia. A season includes far more than just "a collection of events/games." It involves obtaining players and much more. Moreover, the games themselves did not occur solely in one place. They occurred in dozens of stadiums.--User:Namiba 18:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Yankees' home games occurred in Yankee Stadium, so I don't see what the problem is. You make it as though NONE of a Yankees' season occurred in Yankee Stadium, which is incredibly ridiculous. And I don't care what consensus is, consensus can change. I don't have to goose-step to it _pbp 12:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat and Mason. No one has presented a cogent argument why Yankee Stadium should be an exception from WP:OCVENUE. It's a stadium in NYC where NYC baseball teams have routinely hosted games. What's exceptional about that? Additionally, I agree with Namiba that's it's nonsensical to categorize an MLB team's season as if it took place entirely in one venue. Carguychris (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as with recent CfD's on event-by-venue categories: 1 & 2. It's a perfectly good defining characteristic. The cited clause of OCVENUE has no rational basis. Agree with removing the season articles though, per Namiba's comment that a season is not an event. Toohool (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without the seasons, there are very few events in this category.--User:Namiba 20:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added more articles to the category. Toohool (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The stated reason for discouraging categorizing events by venue is that the categories would become too large, per WP:OCVENUE. I'm unclear if the second paragraph of the editing guideline still has community consensus but, even amongst those that support the concept, I don't think category size is the the real concern. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Purplebackpack89 and RevelationDirect. Boxing matches are categorized by venue and I see no reason why a general category should also exist. Sam11333 (talk) 08:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note this category confuses two different stadiums, both of which are named Yankee Stadium. Most of the events in this category occurred in Yankee Stadium (1923), not the present stadium.--User:Namiba 13:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, a category split certainly make sense. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair other venues have been rebuilt but have just one category for events. MGS and Wembley Stadium to name just two. Sam11333 (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus to delete the category, but if kept should it be purged of season categories?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 16:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geography of the Republic of Hawaii

Propose deleting Category:Geography of the Republic of Hawaii (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not useful for navigation, and its current entries don't actually belong in the category, since they're about the current state of Hawaii. If we had articles particularly focusing on the Republic of Hawaii's geography (such as its administrative subdivisions) this might be useful... but we don't. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sherbrooke teams

Propose merging Category:Sherbrooke Canadiens to Category:Ice hockey teams in Sherbrooke
Propose merging Category:Sherbrooke Jets to Category:Ice hockey teams in Sherbrooke

Nominator's rationale: Small categories (just the article and a subcategory for players) which hinder navigation. Both are already in Category:Defunct ice hockey teams in Quebec. If anyone feels like doing a mass nomination, the vast majority of sub-categories here could probably be merged as well.--User:Namiba 15:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is a well thought out category structure: player categories go in team categories, which go in locational team supercategories. I would suggest creating Category:Ice hockey teams in Sherbrooke to contain these but not deleting them.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:EPON "Eponymous categories should not be created unless enough directly related articles or subcategories exist." There are not and will never be enough directly related articles for these defunct minor league teams to justify their existence.--User:Namiba 16:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (Afghanistan)

Propose deleting Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (Afghanistan) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (Asia-Pacific) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (Africa) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (Americas) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (BRICS) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (Commonwealth) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (Global) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (Europe) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (MENA) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (Security) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (NATO) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (UN) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Nominating these subcats of the main 21st-century diplomatic conferences category. These subcats are WP:Overcat or in this case over subcat as each one of these subcats don't do much in terms of organizing these articles in a proper order nor are accurate.

For instance, the Afghanistan subcat deals in regard to the War in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021. But the G7 articles under the Global subcat also dealt with Afghanistan including other conflicts. The G7 summit in 2013 for instance dealt with the war in Syria as one of the agenda items. So if there was a subcat with (Syria) in the title, it would go in there as well by this logic of the now-banned creator. But it too would go in the Global category. So, it would be too many categories for each summit that overlap on issues they deal with.

If there are going to subcats for the main category, it should be probably be something like "Category:2024 diplomatic conferences" as by year would help reduce the overflow of articles in one category. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brunel University London

Propose renaming Category:Brunel University London to Category:Brunel University of London

Nominator's rationale: The university has changed name after joining the University of London, see Brunel University of London Elshad (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does this need a full nomination? Surely it could have been done at Speedy with the whole category tree. There's umpteen precedent for renaming categories when an institutuion's name changes. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Landskrona by topic

Propose merging Category:History of Landskrona by topic to Category:History of Landskrona

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only four subcategories, and after the merge the target will only have 6 entries. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Centuries in Landskrona

Propose merging Category:Centuries in Landskrona to Category:History of Landskrona

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pacific Ocean theatre of World War II

Propose renaming Category:Pacific Ocean theatre of World War II to Category:Pacific Ocean theater of World War II

Nominator's rationale: Main article uses this spelling variant. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the countries most obvious in this area are english variant spelling locations (it wasnt simply the US presence that were components of the action) suggest that both the article and category are given the credit of the non-us spelling JarrahTree 05:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as the inconsistency across categories exist, please note that I have posted directly about this to the Australian noticeboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board#Usually under the radar JarrahTree 06:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Democracy Index

Democracy Index → The Economist Democracy Index (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Democrasy Index → Democracy indices (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I'm not sure how primary the Economist index is for the title-case name, but these should point at the same target. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 20:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Democracy Index: I too am not sure how primary the Economist index is. On the one hand one could say that a generic term should point to the general article rather than an article about one particular index (though to be pedantic, the generic term would be "Democracy index", not "Democracy Index"). On the other hand, I can think of reasons why keeping the present redirect might be better. The article Democracy indices mentions a number of indices, but the Economist Democracy Index is the only one containing the expression "Democracy Index", which could be taken as indicating that it's a primary meaning, as it is probably the one most likely to be searched for under those words. There's also the fact that the redirect Democracy Index was created by moving the article which is now titled The Economist Democracy Index, but which had been at Democracy Index for 16 years (apart from a period of 32 minutes when a disruptive editor moved it to another title, and it got moved back quickly) so changing the redirect title could break links. There are currently 588 internal links to it, and there may be external links, or links on individual users' computers or whatever. taking into account all of those considerations, I am in favour of keeping the redirect Democracy Index → The Economist Democracy Index.

(2) Democrasy Index: This is an almost pointless redirect. It has had 2 views in the last 30 days (compared to 9,892 for Democracy Index. I therefore don't think it matters a lot what happens to it. However, "Democrasy Index", unlike "Democracy Index", is not contained in the title of any particular index, so there isn't any particular index with any claim to be a primary meaning. There's also a case for saying that in the absence of a strong reason for doing otherwise it's better to leave it where it is, because someone somewhere may expect it to be there, though in this case that's an extremely weak case. My conclusion is that, as I said above, it doesn't matter a lot what happens to this redirect, but on balance I just about prefer leaving it where it is.

(3) I don't find the argument that the redirects should both point to the same target convincing at all. There's no reason why what happens if someone searches for one title should be influenced by what would have happened if they had searched for the other.

WP:TLDR abbreviated version: Keep them both as they are. JBW (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Economist Democracy Index. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Democracy Index as is. Virtually everyone searching for or linking to Democracy Index is expecting this topic. In fact, the article really should be at the more concise title. The redirect averages 312 hits per day (huge for a redirect), almost 15% of its target's total, and double what Democracy indices gets.[51] Delete Democrasy Index as an unlikely misspelling. It has no incoming links and almost no views. No one will miss it. Otherwise leave as is or point to The Economist index; it's utterly unimportant. Station1 (talk) 03:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Democracy Index pointing to the Economist. Retarget the misspelled one here as well. A bit of looking around does seem to suggest that this one gets the WP:PTOPIC, and if people are looking for another index, there's a hatnote to the more general article as well. Fieari (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 20:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2035 Cricket World Cup

2035 Cricket World Cup → Cricket World Cup (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The target contains no information or mention of the 2035 event, making it a misleading and unhelpful redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nortwest Airways

Nortwest Airways → Northwest Airlines (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 January 11 § Nortwest Airways – keep

Delete not a plausable redirect, it only has 12 Google hits after removing duplicate results and 2 of those results are definitely from Wikipedia and some of the others also could be. There is no reason to have a redirect from such an obscure typo per WP:COSTLY and although kept in 2012 there is more of a consensus in 2024 that implausible redirects should be deleted like Georgia (U.S. state and Wikipedia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North Hanningfield

North Hanningfield → Howe Green, Chelmsford (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Though this redirect has existed since 2011 it doesn't appear this term is in use, Google results in quotes return only 8 results after removing duplicate results. Of there 3 are saying there is no "North Hanningfield" and one says "approximately 4km north. Hanningfield Reservoir" meaning the word "North" isn't for this apparent term. I also can't find any evidence on old maps. While there is East Hanningfield, South Hanningfield and West Hanningfield there doesn't seem to be a North one, if there was only a South Hanningfield then it would be surprising if there wasn't a North Hanningfield or at least a East or West Hanningfield but it just seems like the South one has that name to distingish from the East and West ones not a North one. Unless any other evidence comes I'd suggest delete. The author was blocked in 2012 for "Nasty vandalism, mixed in with other edits". Note that I created the target article in 2010. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

buccal organ(s)

Buccal organ → Sucker (zoology) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Buccal organs → Sucker (zoology) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

closed before with consensus that we're not biologists. trying again with the same rationale (that being that mouths have other organs, like teeth and tongues), so i hope y'all studied your chompy boys. still not sure if retargeting to mouth would be the best idea though cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looking at it from an English language point of view, it should point to mouth, or a generalized orifice topic for the entry point to the digestive tract -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think mouth is the best option for buccal organ – it's the buccal organ, it just contains some other lesser ones. The mouth is, you could say, the mother of all buccal organs. Cremastra (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be retargeting this to "mouth". No one is typing "buccal organ" into wikipedia and expecting to find "mouth", since we just have the word "mouth" for that. The reason that "buccal organ" exists is to describe different kinds of mouth-like things. Like the thing annelida have. It doesn't describe teeth and tongues. -- asilvering (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
by definition, it does. teeth, being bones, are a little iffy (some could say i was... wrong!?), but tongues, as noted in the article, are explicitly organs that are in the mouth (and thus, buccal), and so are lips now that i think about it again. this article i found within 20 minutes of looking around refers to "buccal organs" as just organs in the mouth of humans, and this article does the same for birds (and with less subtlety). if there are species of birds and humans that have suckers, i probably missed them, in which case my bad cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 01:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...and of course, the exact moment i decide to click reply, i remember that there's a list of organs of the human body here, and it happens to list teeth as organs that are in the mouth. what are the chances~? yes, i know other species also have mouths that may not have tongues, lips, or teeth, i'm just using humans as an example cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 01:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the proposed target Mouth.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusion (film)

Exclusion (film) → Deepa Mehta (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Redirect with no important reason to exist. This was redirected as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exclusion (film) (2nd nomination), in which one person suggested a redirect while two people voted for straight deletion -- but it represents a film that was never made or released at all, and "exists" only as a script development project that she announced 20 years ago but then abandoned due to casting issues before ever shooting even one frame. Which means that it isn't mentioned in Mehta's article at all to provide a reader with any context for why it redirects there, and Mehta's article is already long and detailed enough as it is, without delving into undue trivia about unrealized projects, that there would be no value in adding any mention of it to her article -- and even if we did add a mention of it to her article, as a film that never happened there's extremely little chance that anybody would ever be searching for it by title anyway. So there's just no point in maintaining it as a redirect if the target article doesn't have any content about it. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tesonet

Tesonet → Tom Okman (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete to encourage creation of the article. High trafic redirect with the only fact present being the year of establishment. Respublik (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Someone can just expand the page into a full article, that's allowed, and that's been done on thousands of articles. You could do that now if you feel strongly about the situation, and you would be congratulated for it. Why remove the next best option which is a redirect to the founder? "High traffic redirect" suggests the page is doing something useful, redirecting to the founder of the organisation until a page on the organisation exists. I don't see why that's a reason to delete the page. "Only fact present being the year of establishment" I'm sorry but I don't understand this at all. Where on the page said the year of establishment? A redirect of a company name to a founder could be categorised with a year of establishment, but that's just to aid navigation in categories. This one had no categories. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even IPs, so people with no Wikipedia account, can turn a redirect into a full article. On 20 September I created 2023 Taça da Liga final, redirecting to 2022–23 Taça da Liga#Final. Five days later an IP turned it into an 11K article. [52] How is this situation stopping people from making a page, which nobody in the history of the world has wanted to do yet? Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valdemar Scheel Hansteen

Valdemar Scheel Hansteen → Waldemar Hansteen (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. Not mentioned at the target. (The target is his father.) Geschichte (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a mention. The son seems notable, should we still delete the redirect, or just tag this as {{R with possibilities}}? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe convert into an article even? Geschichte (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since the son's name has now been mentioned in the target page with a ref from the Great Norwegian Encyclopedia. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of leaders of the opposition in the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly

List of leaders of the opposition in the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly → Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
List of leaders of the opposition in the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly → Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
List of leaders of the opposition in the Manipur Legislative Assembly → Manipur Legislative Assembly (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
List of leaders of the opposition in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly → Meghalaya Legislative Assembly (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
List of leaders of the opposition in the Sikkim Legislative Assembly → Sikkim Legislative Assembly (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No list of leaders of the opposition at the targets. Similar open RfD: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#List of leaders of the opposition in the Goa Legislative Assembly. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: They're misleading considering there's no info at the targets. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Mongoloid

American Mongoloid → Indigenous peoples of the Americas (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
American Mongoloids → Indigenous peoples of the Americas (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

While this term has been historically used to describe the people of the First Nations, this is the equivalent of having the n-word redirect to people of African descent. There is even a plural version of this redirect. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 03:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just bundled the plural version with this one. American Mongoloids was nominated some 20 minutes after this one, and had one identical comment as one from the below. Jay 💬 19:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep tag as {{R from obsolete name}} and {{R from non-neutral name}} -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like if it were to be kept, the page for the general term Mongoloid should at least be the target. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we didn't have an article on the word nigger it probably would redirect to African American as a non-neutral and historic name. In fact the oldest edit that can be still viewed shows it as a redirect.

Whether it should be targetted to Mongoloid instead is a different issue but we don't delete historical terms because they're offensive. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never really said that this should be deleted, though I probably should have mentioned that Mongoloid would be a better target. It's just a bit jarring to see a non-neutral term redirect to an entire ethnic group when there is already a better target. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 05:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle I seriously hope you don't mean what you said in your first sentence. That would be an absolutely batshit, awful, ridiculous redirect and it would be a WP:CIR issue to think otherwise. Think about things before you say them, especially in topics like racial slurs. BugGhost 🦗👻 14:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gipsy is a slur and redirects to Romani People. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfD for that is now logged here - Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 16#Gypsy Bug Ghost 🦗👻 12:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:RNEUTRAL. Redirects do not need to be neutral, for two reasons. 1, they are not visible to most readers unless people specifically go looking for them, next to nobody is going to start at Indigenous peoples of the Americas and end up at American Mongoloid. 2, if someone knows the non-neutral term but not the neutral term, redirecting to the neutral term both gets them to the requested information, while also teaching the reader what the neutral term is. I'll note that the N-word and F-slur both have their own pages with, in the first sentence for both, a link to the group each slur in turn is pointed at, so they're possibly not the best examples you could've given. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This shows me to reply without hitting refresh after having the page open for an extended period, lol. Changing vote to Retarget to Mongoloid; though I will note that if the retarget fails, I do support Keeping as a backup option. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Mongoloid, agreeing with User:Lunamann that this is the best target for this obsolete term. It is published in literature and WP:Wikipediaisnotcensored, so should not be deleted. Obligatory note: Indigenous peoples of the Americas are not an ethnic group; the term includes thousands of ethnic groups. Yuchitown (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Mongoloid, where the term is discussed with some sensitivity. Keeping this redirect is not a good option as there is no mention at the current target and thus not informative. ― Synpath 15:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian lore

Indian lore → Indigenous peoples of the Americas (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

probably a joke but definitely not really a redirect worth any value TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is Mythologies of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas... but this would need to be a disambiguation page if kept, since there is also South Asia -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. both words are vague as h*ck in this context. could refer to folklore or mythology just as easily as it could refer to anything else cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North American people

North American people → Indigenous peoples of the Americas (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This redirect is a bit too vague to even refer to the natives of NA let alone all of the natives from both NA and SA. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no opposition to a dab if one sees it as necessary. Traumnovelle (talk) Traumnovelle (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to North America#Demographics. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 03:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to North America#Demographics without prejudice against a better target. J 947 ‡ ^edits 00:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Real G's move in silence like lasagna

Real G's move in silence like lasagna → 6 Foot 7 Foot (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This is the 29th lyric in the second verse. And "lasagna" is not mentioned at the target article. Does not seem to be a need to have this as a redirect when the natural way of reaching an encyclopedic article title is by typing in an encyclopedic article title, because for most regular readers, there is zero way to know which lyric does and does not have a redirect in existence, so the safest play 100% of the time is to identify the title of the song and proceed based on that, not navigating via one particular line for one particular song, a feat which is impossible for essentially every other song article on Wikipedia (as I don't know many verse 2 line 29 redirects that exist towards songs). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete implausible Wikipedia search term evidenced by the minimal page views. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I personally find choosing a random line from the middle of a song implausible as a search term, but it has gotten 18 hits in the past year, so it sees some use-- hence a weak !vote. It still doesn't get much use. Fieari (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This line is reasonably well known in hip hop fanbases as an infamous example of a strained simile, and I can imagine someone searching the line to look up where it originated. There's certainly room to debate whether Wikipedia should be the place to facilitate those searches, which is why my !vote is just a weak one, but even so I can understand why the redirect was created. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11ss-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase

11ss-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase → 11β-Hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The target uses β (Greek beta), not ß (eszett), so delete per RfD precedent. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Automatically created by Eubot, only 110 views(mostly likely bots/scrapers) in the last decade. I am willing to accept eszett substitution, as they look similar and is on more keyboards than the Greek Beta, but replacing eszett with its corresponding grapheme "ss" is a step too far. Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Ca. Eszette being used here is a method of replacing the beta character; using SS instead is... if you don't have access to Beta OR Eszette, I'd imagine you'd reach for B and type 11b-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in addition to above, 'S' has its own meaning in chemical nomenclature, adding an extra layer of confusion to this redirect. Though 11β-hydroxysteroids do have the S-configuration at carbon 11, this is just by chance that it matches. Regardless, the double-'S' is meaningless and confusing. ― Synpath 13:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules

{{subst:tfd2|text=Been bothering me for a bit: This template is redundant to {{About}} since all transclusions of {{For-multi}} could be replaced with {{About}} while shifting all their parameters down a value ("1=" becomes "2=", "2=" becomes "3=", etc.) and it will return the same hatnote. In other words, if literally {{For-multi were replaced with

This page is about For-multi. For other uses, see XfD today (disambiguation).

 Template:Global epidemiology by condition
[edit]

Template:Global epidemiology by condition (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This seems to be an arbitrarily constructed list of some diseases and things, in violation of WP:NAV-RELATED. I can't figure out what brings these topics together. The template creator hasn't edited in over a decade, and my query at the talk page went unanswered. Suggest deletion, as I'm not sure how this can be turned into a reasonable navbox. Ajpolino (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Template:Latin script/diacritic with all letters/overview
[edit]

Template:Latin script/diacritic with all letters/overview (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sub template. Gonnym (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Template:Math/li
[edit]

Template:Math/li (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused math template. Gonnym (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany
[edit]

Deletion review
[edit]


v
t
e
Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal.
For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community
topics 
Administration
News
The Signpost
Goings-on
In the media
Meetups
Mailing lists
Wikipedians
Statistics
The Wikipedia Library
Centralized discussion
Village pump
Idea lab
Policy
Proposals
Technical
Miscellaneous
WMF
Holidays
Bots
Contents and grading 
Requested articles
Most-wanted articles
Images needing articles
Articles needing images
Articles for creation
WP:AFC/R
WP:AFC/C
Creation
Help
Vital articles
Articles for improvement
Peer review
Good article nominations
Featured article candidates
Lists
Pictures
Topics
Article translation
Pages
Main Page
Errors
WikiProjects
and collaborations 
Directory
Culture and the arts
Geographical
History and society
Science, technology and engineering
Wikipedia assistance and tasks
Patrols
Recent changes
Counter-Vandalism Unit
Accessibility
Organizations category
Awards and feedback 
Reward board
Contests
A nice cup of tea and a sit down
Charitableness
WikiLove
Compliment before criticism
Kindness Campaign
Thanks!
Maintenance tasks 
Task Center
Open tasks
Backlog
Category
Admin category
Edit requests
Category
Database reports
Category tracker
Dusty articles
Special pages
New pages
Recent changes
Controversial issues
Administrators
and noticeboards 
Administrators' noticeboard
Incidents
Edit warring
Vandalism
Admin dashboard
Admin requests
Closure
Page protection
User permissions
Sockpuppets
Open proxies
Revision deletion
Oversight
Request
Usernames
Changing
Title blacklist
OTRS
Bureaucrats'
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship
Arbitration Committee
Requests
Enforcement
Content dispute
resolution 
Requests for comment
Third opinion
Dispute resolution noticeboard
Biographies of living persons
Conflict of interest
External links
Fringe theories
Neutral point of view
No original research
Reliable sources
Other noticeboards
and assistance 
Regional notice boards
Requests for help
Category
Asking questions
Teahouse
Help desk
Reference desk
Adopt-a-user
Copyright assistance
Copyright investigations
Text problems
Media questions
Resource requests
Mergers
History mergers
Moves
Page importation
Spam
Blacklist
Whitelist
Bots
Education
General sanctions
Editor sanctions
Long-term abuse
Deletion
discussions 
Guide
Admin
Today
Articles
Templates
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy
Proposed
BLP
Review
Undeletion
Arguments to avoid
Arguments to make
Article Rescue
Elections and voting 
Requests for comment (meta)
Wikimedia Foundation elections
WP Democracy
Voting is not evil
Milestones
Directories, indexes,
and summaries 
Departments
Edit summary legend
Editor's index
Essays
FAQs
Glossary
Abbreviations
Help
Manual of Style
Simplified
Rules
Five pillars
Policies
Guidelines
Shortcuts
Templates
Citation templates
Tips
Today
Tools
Wiki markup

Media
Category
Templates

[1] "كارثة جديدة تتعرض لها مصر" [A new disaster is facing Egypt]. Al Fajr (in Arabic). Turess. 17 December 2008. Archived from the original on 25 July 2013. Retrieved 19 October 2024.

[2] "مصرع 46 مصريا بعد انقلاب حافلة في قناة مائية" [46 Egyptians killed after bus overturns in canal] (in Arabic). Al-Quds Al-Arabi. Agence France-Presse. 17 December 2008. Retrieved 19 October 2024.

[3] "النائب العام يأمر بمحاكمة المتهمين فى انقلاب أتوبيس الصعيد الأحد القادم" [The Attorney General orders the trial of the accused in the Upper Egypt bus accident next Sunday]. El-Bashayer (in Arabic). 17 December 2008. Retrieved 19 October 2024.

[4] Ghaffar, Minya (2 October 2013). "أهالى المنيا يطالبون بإسناد طريق "مصر- أسوان" الزراعى للقوات المسلحة" [Minya residents demand that the "Egypt-Aswan" agricultural road be assigned to the armed forces]. Youm7 (in Arabic). Retrieved 19 October 2024.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]