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[edit]

Articles[edit]

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 04	July 06 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Setuptools[edit]

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

Was nominated via proposed deletion for the reason "None of the included references appear to be significant coverage from a reliable source." PROD was removed with the rationale "irrespective of WP:USEFUL, my recollection is notability is lowered for open-source? No time for source hunting so if convinced, please take to AfD, but would be a shame" So, the person doing the removal thinks it would be a shame, thinks there might be some sort of carve-out of notability standards for open-source software, but can't be bothered to verify that or to look for better sourcing. I don't think any of those are valid reasons to decline a nomination, but that's how PROD works so here we are. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double Eleven (company)[edit]

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

I failed to find WP:SIGCOV besides simple announcements, sponsored articles, and primary source interviews. This indicates a failure of WP:ORGTRIV, which excludes "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage". Notability is also not inherited from the games themselves. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Subject to a previous AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Eleven, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanajan Joanna[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBOOK / WP:GNG. A possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect to Kaari Utrio, but as this has no sourced information, I am not sure it should be merged. Boleyn (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Finland. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for the Education of Needy Children in Fiji[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No real evidence of notability. The sources found in the previous AfD are all either dead and not archived or do not discuss the company in sufficient depth to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, instead consisting of routine announcements of companies dontaing to them. While that's a noble goal it's not notability-establishing * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Fiji. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duri Kosambi, Cengkareng[edit]

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

No sources, 2-sentence stub. Shows no notability. GoldRomean (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would PROD this but it has been PRODed before, in 2012. GoldRomean (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. GoldRomean (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a sub-district of a sub-district, but seems to pass GNG fairly easily if not GEOLAND: [1] [2] [3] Most of the best sources appear to be in Bahasa. SportingFlyer T·C 17:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, delete. We're working from a decided lack of information here but GMaps shows this as, apparently, a neighborhood in Jakarta. Maybe it represents some level of administration, but it's patently not a village as the word is normally used in English, and the Indonesian term {Kelurahan} doesn't automatically correspond to a notable political/geographical unit. This comes across as part of yet another database dump except that we don't even know what database was used. Yes, we can verify that it's a "thing", but until we can say something about it in its own right, I have to go with deletion. Mangoe (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

T. S. Chockalingam[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. A "renowned" journalist according to the page but references fall well short of showing notability. CNMall41 (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Journalism, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 5 July 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 Procedural keep since I didn't see the PROD. Withdrawing nom. (non-admin closure)‎ Sincerely, Dilettante 17:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Seoul car crash[edit]

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

Brought to my attention by ITNC. Fails WP:SUSTAINED and WP:EVENTCRIT#4. It can be undeleted later if there is any actual impact. Also against the spirit of WP:NOTNEWS. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and South Korea. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:29, 5 July 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.

Per Capita Australia[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. Essentially no coverage in independent, reliable sources at all. A Google search only returns the organization's website. In-article references are mostly WP:REFBOMBING: Lots of primary sources to the org's website. Independent sources don't mention the subject at all. Probably WP:UPE, article reads promotional and the creator has only ever edited this article. Looks like this was previously deleted and endorsed at WP:DRV under a shorter title. I suggest salting to prevent recreation. Not sure why this was accepted by AfC. C F A 💬 16:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With no independent reliable sources mentioning the subject, it fails GNG. Gödel2200 (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Garh Raipur Girls' High School (HS)[edit]

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

Seems very run-of-the-mill. Sources are all primary/government databases. No evidence of meeting WP:NORG * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the issue. Please close this discussion. Arijit Kisku (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources updated,please remove afd. Arijit Kisku (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent sources has been added. Please close this discussion.Arijit Kisku (talk) 07:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have searched for sources and not found any. The current sources are not good enough. They are all primary, apart from possibly the teachers' journal, which I can't access. Leaning redirect to Raipur, Bankura#Education, but will wait to see if anyone else can find reliable secondary sources. Tacyarg (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Attached more independent sources. They are not government directories or any primary sources.They ate independet sources,so I request you to close the deletion discussion page. Arijit Kisku (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for adding two more sources. They are still not reliable sources, though. This is a request to tender for building works. It is a primary source. I'm not entirely sure what this is, as a pop-up ad I can't remove blocks part of the screen for me, but it looks like some sort of school listing, probably commercial. Do you know if the school has been covered in any off-line sources - books about the history of the area, memoirs of staff or people who attended? As Pppery said in the nomination, so far all we have are primary or commercial sources, nothing independent or reliable that shows notability. Can you access the teachers' journal - do you know what that says about the school? Typically, deletion discussions run for at least 7 days, so this is unlikely to be closed before then, so that other editors can comment. Tacyarg (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to teachers' journal, but i can confirm, it's on page number 96, there is a teachers' information who was associated with the school. Arijit Kisku (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 16:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Raipur, Bankura#Education, as still lacking reliable secondary sources. Tacyarg (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Bastien[edit]

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

Cited sources do not establish notability, and could not find anything more convincing. TheLongTone (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and France. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Coverage in a Korean source [4] and reviews of a book he co-authored [5] and [6] Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT ref does not seem to be a review from what I can see. The second is a vanity publisher & therefore effectivlt self-published.TheLongTone (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep: Notable, sources, has written a book. --McSyl (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merely having written a book isn't enough to meet the relevant standard. Indeed, the usual rule-of-thumb is that an author has to have received multiple reviews for each of multiple books in order to qualify. XOR'easter (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 16:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ELKO theory[edit]

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

Article based upon one source which has been cited 4 times, plus a second more cited source that has nothing to do with the topic. The page was previously deleted, and as part of NPR I tagged a newly created version for questionable notability, no significant scientific coverage and in need of better sourcing to avoid a future AfD. Editor User:TakuyaMurata immediately removed the maintenance tag of notability claiming that a Google search indicates that it is notable; I find no evidence of this. Hence time for an AfD as not notable for a more complete discussion. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Perhaps the previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass dimension one fermions is helpful here. There does seem to exist some sufficient amount of publications to justify the notability (please Google with “elko field” too). According to the previous AfD, there is some coi issue, which I cannot tell just from looking at the article alone. But at least the notability is considered, it looked ok to me. Needless to say, the more citations and references there are the better (and more such are probably needed). —- Taku (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just saying "Google it" is absolutely useless for determining notability. What reliable, independent, secondary sources exist now that didn't exist in 2020? XOR'easter (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not new. But in order to determine if the topic is notable or not, we just look at the amount/quality of publications: Google is a standard way to see that. I suppose you can create the appearance of research activities by citing each other (not saying this one is). That’s not a good practice but Wikipedia isn’t a place to judge whether certain research activities are genuine or not. —- Taku (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Google is not "a standard way to see" how much relevant, peer-reviewed material there is on a topic. General-purpose Google has never been good for that — and grows worse by the day — and even Google Scholar is only useful if employed carefully.
What peer-reviewed publications, not written by the original inventors of this idea, discuss it in depth? Name three. XOR'easter (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think it matters much whether some papers are independent of the creator of the theory. In some field, the originators have a very strong influence; that doesn’t mean the theory is not notable in the eyes of Wikipedia. As a research activity, that’s too promotional and problematic? Perhaps, but again in Wikipedia we don’t judge the quality of the research. I know especially for biographical articles, we need secondary sources but research articles are somehow different (again because of the way some research topics are pursued). The existence of the textbook I mentioned below especially seems a very strong indication for the notability, since the publisher thinks the topic is worth publishing. —- Taku (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it very much matters, by policy. A textbook by one of the authors of the original publication is not an independent source. It's very much the opposite of an independent source. XOR'easter (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said above, some research topic just doesn’t develop independent of the originator. That should not be a ground for non-notability. Of course, the textbook isn’t an independent source but, unlike bio articles, it doesn’t mean it is not a reliable source; that part of policy isn’t about like textbooks that can be cited. If interpreted literally, it’s like you can’t cite Grothendieck since he is involved in the creation of scheme theory. It doesn’t work that way when we cover scientific topics; throughout Wikipedia, we do cite plenty of textbooks that are not independent of the subject. —- Taku (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there is apparently a book about the topic according to the previous AfD (I think this one [7], which isn’t a self-published one). That seems significant. Maybe the previous article was promotional in tone (which I don’t know since I can’t see the deleted article), but this article doesn’t sound promotional in tone. —- Taku (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient sources to support notability. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Achileas-Andreas of Greece and Denmark[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTINHERITED. Certainly the 'acting career' does not establish notability.TheLongTone (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I note that most of the keep votes in the last nomination thought that being a member of a 'royal family' conferred notability. It does not. Neither does the fact that some publications pander to the vanities of these caterpillars on the commonwealth.TheLongTone (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The latest acting role isn't even a named character, hardly notable per WP:ENTERTAINER. Some of the Keep arguments in the previous AfD were erroneous. "he is currently 3rd in line to be Pretender to the Greek throne" fails to recognize that the Greek throne is defunct and has been for quite some time. Another argument was "even the divorced wives of the lowliest of Britain’s peers qualify for a page" which is just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. D1551D3N7 (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Royalty and nobility, and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC) -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The item that would establish notability would be his acting career. There are only three films which I could find him in (the ones listed on his article). In the first, as the article says, he only made "guest appearances". The second film was not notable in its own right. In the third film, he did not have a significant role. Thus the criteria of WP:ENT are not satisfied, and there is nothing else that would establish notability. Gödel2200 (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayday (American band)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NMUSIC. One of their album articles has one source that reviews the album and that's all I can find. Do not confuse this band with Mayday (Taiwanese band) or ¡Mayday!, two other bands that are both actually notable * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nebraska. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For starters, the Allmusic link in the article shows both a sizeable band biography and sizeable reviews of all three of their albums. Then, when I search for a review of their second album and Pitchfork shows up as the first Google hit, I don't need any further reinforcement to know the band meets WP:BAND#1. Geschichte (talk) 09:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since Pitchfork was the sole source the nominator could find, as a courtesy I'm also adding the two other extant Pitchfork reviews, as well as the two reviews by Popmatters. Geschichte (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can understand a WP:BEFORE search getting a little crossed up with noise from the other bands with the same name, but this group was widely covered in its day, as one would have expected from a Saddle Creek Records band. The album articles were recently redirected to this band page, and they should be restored; their 2005 release, for instance, meets WP:NALBUM with [8], [9], [10]. Chubbles (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to what has been linked, there is also an article by Indy Week, an article in Spin (magazine), an article in the Dallas Observer, a review in Visions [de], a review by Ox-Fanzine, a review (pages 65-66) in Clamor (magazine), a review (page 40) in SLUG Magazine, and a review in No Depression (magazine). And while I know that interviews don't establish notability, there is an article in the Deseret News among others. toweli (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ildikó von Habsburg[edit]

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

Ildikó von Habsburg is not notable. WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BLPFAMILY - relationships do not confer notability and they are not notable as an equestrian. D1551D3N7 (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, Austria, and Hungary. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just like for this person's sister, it's not helpful just state that this article relies on inherited notability if it is sourced. Are Vanity Fair, Index, and NLC all insufficient to establish notability? Cortador (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who is this person? Tell me who this 22 year old is without mentioning her grandfather or family history. I could break down the sources but I did that on the other AfD, I simply don't believe they pass WP:GNG. If you believe they do please say why.

There is a tendency in the royal side of Wikipedia to create an article for every single member of every family and it is pure cruft of no encyclopedic significance. D1551D3N7 (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is sourced, the onus is on you to show that the subject still isn't notable, not the other way around. "The sources are insufficient" isn't even the argument you used for the nomination. Cortador (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The argument in the nomination explains why the sources are insufficient. D1551D3N7 (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haliey Welch[edit]

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

Latest viral meme, very WP:BIO1E. WP:TOOSOON to tell if this is lasting. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Language, Entertainment, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: I guess, this is likely TOOSOON, but it's got decent enough sourcing. Time will tell if it's notable or not. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am amenable to this WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you copy my draft? I created this page first User:UtherSRG Comintell (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify per nom - WP:BIO1E, but possible WP:TOOSOON. KylieTastic (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Her name is Hailey Welch, and I created this page fitst and submitted through AfC. Draft:Hailey Welch

The user paraphrased much of my draft, and changed the name because my draft already existed. THIS is incredibly disingenuous.

To clarify. If you read my draft, I think you will see that Welch DOES qualify for notability, specifically because of sustained significant coverage over the last month, and her pivioting into a career and getting mentored by Shaq. I can't believe this UtherSRG basically copied my draft and moved it to mainspace with a spelling error in the name Comintell (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next United Kingdom general election[edit]

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

Won't be notable for years. Author is refusing to redirect the article despite numerous forced redirects. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 12:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forced redirects are disruptive as they violate WP:BLANK. No opinion on the article at hand. Noah, BSBA^Talk 12:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Blank-and-redirects are allowed under WP:BLAR. The redirects were not controversial because the author reverted the redirects, not separate users. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s supposed to be discussed after the redirection is reverted. Forcing a redirect again despite objection is not supported by policy and guidelines. Noah, BSBA^Talk 13:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Umm, there will be a future UK general election. Gopchunk (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This does not address that the election is not notable now. No reason this can't be a draft. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why need we even have this conversation? DimensionalFusion (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a substantive comment. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per many other "Next general election" AfDs. 48 JCL 13:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This election should not be compared with others because its date is unknown. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 17#2028 United States presidential election held that if an article cannot be written on an election, as it cannot be now, it should not have an article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown date seems irrelevant. The date of the next election in most Westminster-style governments is always unknown until just weeks prior, either because of a lack of any fixed election schedule or because of the ability to call snap elections even where a fixed date nominally exists. There have been "next general election" articles for many of these in the past, including the UK. They usually state that the election must take place "no later than," or "on or before," a certain date. So comparison can easily be made with others of the same type (e.g. Next New Zealand general election, Next Australian federal election, 45th Canadian federal election.) Lack of sources or relevance could still be a valid reason to delete in theory, but the date has nothing to do with it. Zachldl (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't see why this shouldn't stay as is. There's only 2 seats left to be declared and Keir Starmer has already been appointed Prime Minister. The election is basically over.

Juneauite (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does not address the AfD reasoning. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Won't be notable for years." Is just untrue. The next national election for a major country is notable. DimensionalFusion (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it will be notable when there are sources written for it. Next Nova Scotia general election is marginally notable because some discussion has occurred about the election in Canadian media. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per point 1 of WP:CRYSTAL, which, in using an example from American politics, addresses this issue fairly directly. 64.66.123.248 (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The event is still not notable, so WP:CRYSTAL would not apply until this event was notable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ElijahPepe Why do you keep saying it's "not notable"? That hasn't been established - quite the opposite. Can you prove that's it not notable? I can find lots of media discussion regarding it

[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] DimensionalFusion (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these citations concern the same claim by Nigel Farage. The chances of Reform UK gaining 322 seats, a prediction wagered years before an election would even be scheduled, are unrealistically low. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether they concern Nigel Farage, they are talking about it and discussing it, no? DimensionalFusion (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If WP:CRYSTAL declares a 2028 US Presidential election notable, then the Next UK General Election is also notable. 64.66.123.248 (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 United States presidential election is not notable, according to the RfD I linked above, and has been creation protected. One statement is hardly enough to justify this article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an official Wikipedia policy. DimensionalFusion (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been creation protected because "The established consensus for election articles is that they should not be moved to mainspace until after the previous election has taken place," per the note on the draft article. The 2024 election has taken place in the UK. It's time for this to be created, and we're moving into WP:SNOW territory. 64.66.123.248 (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Creating an article for the next general election has been the practice on WP for many years, it makes sense, and it provides a convenient place for inclusion of election-focused content such as opinion polling results over time. SS451 (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling has not occurred yet. This would be great justification for the draftspace. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate on why I think it has been the practice and how it's helpful: for readers not familiar with the UK system of a parliament having a maximum duration but no minimum duration, clicking through from the most recent completed election to the "Next election" article gives them a quick rundown of how the system of dissolving Parliament and calling a new election works, and explains why there is no specific date attached, unlike for example the next French presidential election. It's better to have that information available in one place together with the specific information about how that system applies to the next election than to require readers to search elsewhere. SS451 (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The next election of a major democracy is notable by clearly established precedent. As DimensionalFusion has pointed out, there are sources that discuss this one, so the GNG is probably also met. (I've removed the GNG tag from the article because it's being discussed here – the nominator should have done this himself regardless of whether he believes the GNG to be met or not, as the two tags are redundant.) Toadspike [Talk] 13:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It was borderline before yesterday's election, but this is now very much a live issue. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't understand there are any reason to delete the page. Obviously UK will have a next general election in no more than 5 years. Awdqmb (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: We just had the last election, yesterday. TooSoon at this point for the 2029 one. Oaktree b (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, but I fear we're in tiny minority. Athel cb (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 1) multiple other AfDs on next elections; 2) WP:CRYSTALBALL: Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place - event is notable (it's an election) and it's indeed "almost certain to take place"; 3) it's not true that "won't be notable for years": it already is, but will be even more notable as soon as opinion polls start being published (which will take days, weeks at most, not years). Impru20^talk 17:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

Next Election is always relevant. In a week or so, opinions polls are probably released already. Thomediter (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blaze News[edit]

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

Non notable organization, clearly failed WP:NCORP, minimum criteria WP:N, nothing found on any platforms such as google, Bing, Yandex etc. Youknow? (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, India, and Kerala. Youknow? (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Poor sources with no significant coverage on the organization. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Turkish hostage crisis[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, news story briefly covered by local media. Ecrusized (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omani Sindhi[edit]

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

This article fails notability and verification. It is a good example of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR to categorize different communities originating from Sindh, Balochistan and Gujarat as Omani Sindhi, a title which has not been used to refer to any of them in the sources used. At a glance it looks like content FORK of articles like Al-Lawatia, Jadgal people etc. Sutyarashi (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Oman. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paigham TV[edit]

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

Unsourced since its creation in 2012. No reliable sources found online that contribute towards WP:GNG or WP:NORG. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, Islam, and Pakistan. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pakistan–Saudi Arabia relations per WP:ATD. I tried really hard to find references about this seemingly notable topic, but unfortunately, there is limited coverage, which I suspect is not enough to meet WP:GNG. I think there could be some coverage in the Arabic language or academic coverage, which I couldn't find due to lack of access. Therefore, a redirect is the best option. 2A01:CB06:366:2B00:D0D1:2CFB:B267:3962 (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dot's Homestyle Pretzels[edit]

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

The article is of a promotional nature. Although the article has Forbes contributor source which is not reliable and prohibited RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and North Dakota. Shellwood (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find sources in trade magazines or PR items, similar to what's already used in the article. Lack of sourcing to prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volpi Foods[edit]

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

Lack of links to confirm the relevance of the article. Advertising text RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Missouri. Shellwood (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I would say the sources cited (the food magazine, the local news station) are sufficient for notability, even if coverage is not especially in-depth. Enough to verify the company's history and current operations anyway. The article is rather promotional and needs to be cleaned up to a more neutral POV. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Cantolla[edit]

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

not meet GNG RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green Growth Africa[edit]

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

Disputed draftification. This is pure WP:ADMASQ. It is conceivable that GGA might be notable, but this is concealed behind a welter of lists formatted as prose and WP:BOMBARD. This is not the article to describe the organisation. As written and referenced fails WP:NCORP. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Nigeria. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Van[edit]

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

No notable independent wrestler. She worked on small independent promotions. She had a few matches with big promotions, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Most of the sources are just WP:RESULTS with no in-deep coverage of the wrestler HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Wrestling, and California. Shellwood (talk) 11:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just not enough in RS to keep the article; this is all I can find [20], rest are match reports. Tried using a search listed under Wiki Wrestling [21], none turn up. Oaktree b (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eashvar Karthic[edit]

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

Main issue: the 2nd film of the director never released --> WP:TOOEARLY. This guy only directed one released film, not meeting Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative professionals since the film received mixed reviews. The notabliity guidleine states that the director creates a "well-known work or collective body of work". As of 2024, the work is not well known, it is a single film with mixed reviews, not a critically acclaimed film. I don't know if a writeup by an assistant professor at American College, Madurai holds any weightage but that info can be added to Penguin, the director's only released film. The deletion was caused by an undo of a redirect to Penguin. Long sources are mainly direct interviews about Penguin, not independent. Acting roles seem minor and not notable.

If anybody who directs one film, gets an article, doesn't this set a bad precedent. The film didn't win a National Award or any award for that matter.

This source [22] talks about six films including Penguin, all of this information pertaining to Penguin should be moved to the film article. This director can be notable after more of his works release. DareshMohan (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: if you are wondering what the contents of source #7 is, it is here: [23] The story focuses on the pain and struggles suffered by the female lead. A pregnant woman remembers her child who went missing years ago. After the child’s missing, her husband started becoming toxic by saying she was the reason for the loss and separated ways from her. Later after years, a male character was shown who accepted her as she is and started living happily with her. No strong characterization or importance was given to both these male roles. They are just part of the screenplay.

That's just the plot of the film. How is it scholarly analysis? The assistant professor mentioned above [24] (page 100) is the only significant analysis but that is of the film and can be added to Penguin.

Just redirect to Penguin till Zebra (his second film) releases. DareshMohan (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:DIRECTOR as director of Penguin (film), a notable creation that received coverage, which is what the guideline requires (the said coverage mentions him, see the page about the film). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Penguin (film): His only directorial credit. The second one has been unreleased for over a year, and doesn't have a Wiki article. Kailash29792 (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Actor and WP:Director. AmericanY (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)— AmericanY (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: This seems like a bad-faith nomination and I believe you are upset about your friend, User:Monhiroe's autopatrolled rights being removed. You first edited this article on 8 October 2023, what changed your mind between then and 19 June, 2024, when you redirected it? Did it take eight months for you to judge its notability? On 19 June, you skimmed through all the articles I have ever created and made some changes on three of them [25][26][27]. Was it to check which ones you could nominate for deletion but couldn't find any, so you thought Eashvar Karthic was borderline because he had only one film and chose to redirect it? Is this how you get back at an editor who may have upset your friend?

The notice you have posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force is not neutral and did not follow WP:APPNOTE. Is your nomination rationale so weak that you are trying to discredit a source simultaneously?

Notability

The main issue you have mentioned in you nomination rationale is countered by WP:FILMMAKER#3 where it explicitly mentions significant or well-known work. It need not be a collective body of work.
I believe the film receiving mixed reviews has no weightage here as we are not debating for WP:FILMMAKER#4c
As of 2024, the work is not well known, it is a single film with mixed reviews, not a critically acclaimed film. - Adding to my previous comments above, the film has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, which can be verified by checking Penguin (film).
Apart from the above, the film has been cited in journals for three completely different reasons: A film that discusses women-centric films, OTT during the COVID-19 pandemic and representation of the subaltern.
If you had taken the time to read through Source #7, you would have known that the PDF you have linked is another journal that has cited the original source #7's work. In the PDF you have linked, Penguin (film) was selected as one of the films out of all the other women-centric films that were released in 2020. The scholarly analysis is in the findings and conclusion section of the same PDF. The journal entry's objective is independent of the subject, so it's absurd to ask for an analysis about the film when the objective is different.
FWIW, here is another journal that extensively cites the subject's work.

There is significant coverage about the subject and their work. Penguin (film) has also received independent periodical articles, reviews and cited in multiple journals, thereby passing the WP:FILMMAKER criteria. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jeraxmoira, I completely agree with you on the notability of this director and, like you, I do indeed disagree with DareshMohan's interpretation of the guideline in the present case, but is your very aggressive opening statement absolutely necessary? I am inviting you to kindly strike it. I don't think it's appropriate here, nor helpful. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any bad-faith nomination will be called out. My statement is true and the diffs/timeline make it clear, so it will not be struck out. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Penguin (film): he has done only 1 film its better he done atleast 3 or 4 movies. Another film he directed was not released yet. WP:TOOEARLY. Monhiroe (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Penguin (film). Case of WP:TOOSOON with only 1 release under this director and has not garnered significant achievement to satisfy notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with the analyses of Mushy Yank and Jeraxmoira wrt Penguin meeting GNG via sufficient reviews, thus Karthic automatically passing NCREATIVE#3 and therefore being automatically considered notable by the wording of NCREATIVE's header. I don't like it, but individual AFDs aren't a great place to overrule clear guidelines so I've started a discussion at NBIO Talk because NCREATIVE#3 is clearly a much lower standard (at the lower bound) from the other criteria. That also said, I also suspect that when Zebra is released that it will also receive more than sufficient reviews to pass NFILM[28][29], there will be no good single redirect target, and Karthic will pass my proposed modified NCREATIVE#3 anyway, so a WP:NOPAGE redirect would likely be short-lived. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Monhiroe and RangersRus, there is is no policy based rationale in your Delete/Redirect votes. I would like to know which policy Eashvar Karthic fails or does not pass to have a separate article. WP:TOOEARLY and WP:TOOSOON are essays and not policies. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TOOSOON is to tell in short the reason that the actor/director is too early to have a standalone page on himself and policy wise page fails WP:Actor and WP:Director. RangersRus (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work, i.e Penguin (film). Are you implying that Penguin is not a significant work even though it has an article on Wikipedia and has been cited in 3+ journals? RangersRus. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I do not find his work significant or noteworthy that has received a wide critical acclaim or award or even considered for a remake by other makers. Noteworthy: If we take film Kill (film), the director Nikhil Nagesh Bhat (does not have a Wikipedia page), has created a noteworthy significant work noticed by International critics and the film has also been considered for remake by Hollywood makers. RangersRus (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:FILMMAKER#3 does not need wide critical acclaim, award or remake by other makers when it fulfills the 'coverage in periodical articles or reviews'. Are you still going to stick to your point? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:CREATIVE and WP:NBASIC, as far as I can tell. This seems to be a case of WP:NOTIMPORTANTENOUGH, at least to the nominator - but that isn't a valid ground for article deletion. Newimpartial (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article mentions the Telugu film but it should also mention how that film was delayed and never released. I genuinely feel that this article should exist after that film releases per Wikipedia:There_is_no_deadline#View_one:_Don't_rush_to_create_articles: We can afford to take our time, to consider matters, to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established. DareshMohan (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another essay? It seems we are moving away from policy based arguments. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rizwan Sajan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails GNG in the sense that the sourcing presented is either not indepdenent or not significant coverage. Indication of COI. See previous account creators are blocked. CresiaBilli (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United Arab Emirates. CresiaBilli (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article seems to pop up every six months... Still not notable, with nothing found in RS. What's used now for sourcing are still in un-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

INFINITT Healthcare[edit]

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

Stub created by a paid account, seemingly no notability whatsoever. ahmetlii ^✉ _{(Please ping me on a reply!)} 08:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Technology, and South Korea. ahmetlii ^✉ _{(Please ping me on a reply!)} 08:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete:~~ As a public KOSDAQ company, coverage exists. This would appear to scrape notability for companies, but sourcing I could locate is way too dependent on press releases such as https://www.arabnews.com/ejada-and-infinitt-forge-health-care-links. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC) - Weak keep CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 07:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs searches in the Korean language. Try googling "인피니트헬스"; you get much more results. [30][31][32][33][34][35] I am mindful of the fact that the page is tainted by a paid creator, but it doesn't read excessively complimentary to me on a quick glance. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] and [6] are press release, [2] is about the CEO, and I have reservation on [3] and [4] as routine stock coverage. [5] is good and I did not see it before: changing my vote. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while the article is short and incomplete I do believe the subject itself doesn't violet the notability guidelines for companies as it is a a public company with some coverage, but it should be improved and expanded. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Claesson[edit]

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

Non-notable political candidate and author who made himself a Wikipedia page. Of the 6 articles cited on the page: 1 is the candidate list on the Alaska Divison of Elections website; one is a WP:ROTM article from Anchorage Daily News which has 1 sentence about Claesson; 1 is a page on "glamourgirlsofthesilverscreen.com" on which the only mention of Claesson is the inclusion of his book in a "recommended books" list; 1 is an article he wrote; 1 is a press release; and the final is a Los Angeles Times article by "Lawrence Graner" apparently written about him. Strangely enough, this article can't be found online, despite the fact that it was published in May 2023; the link in the citation leads to a paywalled Newspapers.com page, and I can't find any evidence that anyone by the name Lawrence Graner has ever written for the LA Times. Regardless, I don't think these cited articles are enough to determine notability; I can't find anything better on Google, and he doesn't seem to have any other claim to notability. I'd support a redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives election in Alaska. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, Journalism, Alaska, California, and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BottleOfChocolateMilk has an extensive history of deleting Wikipedia pages of politicians or political topics in which the views don't align with his. If you look on his Wikipedia 'talk' page, he's had complaints dating back to 2016. Samuelrclaesson (talk) 04:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a reason to delete this article. I'm seeing a pattern of bad behavior by @BottleOfChocolateMilk that has been reported beyond Wikipedia. 1.177.147.29 (talk) 05:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is sourced just fine. If bottleofchocolatemilk wants to improve Wikipedia, there are a lot of pages with no sources and misinformation that he can focus on. SpookyGhostMouth0 (talk) 05:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of Wikipedia is to spread knowledge, not to delete biographies of individuals who have opinions that you disagree with. The article shouldn't be deleted. In response to one of the comments on here, I do see that there are some reporters online who accuse BottleofChocolateMilk of being a political operative. While I don't know if the allegations are accurate, it does deserve some investigating: https://www.politicalcortadito.com/2024/02/18/manny-cid-wikipedia-page-questioned/ 1.177.147.29 (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like it should be deleted to me. You shouldn't classify something or somebody as 'non-notable' because you're unfamiliar with them. 1.177.147.27 (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

in addition, your staatement about www.glamourgirlsofthesilverscreen.com not mentioning him as being the nephew of Dennis Crosby is inaccurate. I just looked at the page and it clearly states it. Please examine these pages before flagging them. 1.177.147.29 (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd perhaps tag it as a stub, but not delete it. 115.22.92.132 (talk) 06:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:YOURSELF and WP:AUTOPROB Samuelrclaesson has his own user page for this content. Even at that, there is nothing in this article that makes him notable enough for a separate article, even if a non-involved editor wrote it. — Maile (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Ekayana Monastery bombing[edit]

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

Just a news story, no significant coverage beyond news reporting. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Indonesia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. This event did not receive WP:ROUTINE news coverage, but international news coverage [36] [37] [38], [39] and Time magazine analyzed the event in the context of Myanmar's Muslim-Buddhist conflict [40]. Longhornsg (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The coverage was beyond routine in that it was analyzed in the pattern of something else (the Buddhist-Muslim conflict in Burma), however it fails WP:SUSTAINED so I feel like at most this should be merged somewhere. I can't think of where... PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kicko & Super Speedo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. It lacks significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. The references cited are mainly announcements and TV schedules, which do not provide the necessary independent verification of the show's notability. It has "additional citations needed for verification" tag since May 2023. M S Hassan (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Sony_YAY!#Former_programming - Not opposed to Keep, see User:Eastmain's comment during 1st Afd.My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC) (the tag " It has "additional citations needed for verification" tag, even since May 2023, indicates more a cleanup issue than a notability one).[reply]
Redirect to Green_Gold_Animations#Television. RangersRus (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect to Green Gold Animations? Or to List of programmes broadcast by Sony YAY!?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different target articles proposed here for a possible Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd say redirect it to List of programmes broadcast by Sony YAY!. M S Hassan (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Ozarks Conference[edit]

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

Fails GNG. The few sources which mention the subject do not constitute significant coverage of it. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:AVOIDCOI, making mention that I created the article. Additional information and sources added. Meets GNG's description of significant coverage, "... addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Even when the article had one source, it sufficiently addressed the topic directly and in detail. Regardless, I have added more information to the article, as well as additional citations from additional secondary sources - all of which meet GNG's definition of significant coverage. I have also added an external link, on the article, to the press release report released by the founding schools when it was established - one of the cited sources also links to it. GuyBanks (talk) 03:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the decision is made to delete all the other articles on individual Missouri high school conferences:
In addition to all the other states high school conferences: Category:United States high school athletic conference navigational boxes

GuyBanks (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brower Youth Awards[edit]

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

No WP:SIGCOV about the awards themselves to establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Environment, and North America. Longhornsg (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expert on this process but it seems that even a quick online search yields entire news articles about the awards and winners. Just a few I found in 5 minutes:

What's the process where it's like this article just needs more citations demonstrating WP:SIGCOV?

208.58.205.67 (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@208.58.205.56 I am not sure, personally I have no interest in fixing the article Mr Vili talk 06:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of the recently found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As a response to @208.58.205.56, The Nation looks like a reliable source and is green on the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources list and there is no consensus for The Mercury News and Grist.com. However those three articles are about winners of the award, not significant coverage about the award itself. There are other sources such as Yale University ([[[41]]]), University of New Hampshire ([[[42]]]), and Institute of Competition Sciences ([[[43]]]), that discuss the background of the award. I think this at least merits to be kept as a stub and/or a list.Prof.PMarini (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Earth Island Institute - The problem with the Yale, University of New Hampshire and Institute of Competition Sciences pages are that these are all non independent/primary links for people wanting to apply for the award. What I am not seeing is any source that demonstrates this award is notable, by which some secondary source talks about it as a thing in itself, and not as "our student won" or "this is how to apply". It is not a huge award, but it is an award of Earth Island Institute whose notability is indicated in having a page. That page has one line on these awards that could be expanded with one of Prof.PMarini's sources to describe the award (information that is not clearly on the page, so not a merge), and that is then all we really need. Rather than keeping this as a stub, per Prof.PMarini, we can keep that information where it sits in the context of the institute's work. The redirect preserves page history should this become notable by secondary sources taking notice, and the long list of winners can go because Wikipedia is not a database (WP:NOT), and this is all unsourced and outdated. There are 5 years missing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Clifford[edit]

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

Notability concerns. The article is about a British professor of geography; no secondary sources. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (no opinion yet). This Nick Clifford appears to be Nicholas J. Clifford, author of research works involving river bed sediment. He should not be confused with Nicholas R. Clifford, a sinologist who appears to be notable (William R. Kenan Professor at Middlebury College). It doesn't help that I keep finding NRC's books listed as being by NJC. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There is a weak case to be made for WP:PROF#C1, with a few triple-digit citation counts in Google Scholar. But I can't find any sources that verify even the basic times and dates of his employment, and without that it is difficult to write even an adequate stub that passes WP:V. (To be clear: through affiliations listed on his publications one can place him in certain universities at certain dates, but nothing with a bigger picture of his career.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newroz clashes (2023)[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, local event only covered by Turkish media sources. Ecrusized (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Sexuality and gender, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almancı[edit]

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

Possible Wiki dictionary item, the term itself is brief enough to be merged with Turks in Germany. Ecrusized (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Ethnic groups, Germany, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Turks in Germany: WP:NOTDICT Aintabli (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zygote Media Group[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm unsure why the last AfD nom was speedy closed by a non-admin, but there is a distinct lack of sourcing for this item. It's been tagged since 2006 and has not improved. I find nothing about this group other than the Google Body app that was taken over by them when Google discontinued it. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I closed my own AfD as speedy keep as I found [[44]] and [[45]] just after submitting it but I'm not super convinced that there is enough here. Let'srun (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Companies, Medicine, Technology, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't think the sources listed above by Let'srun are enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamokemalism[edit]

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

Fringe term only cited by a few Turkish news reports. Uncertain whether such an ideology exists or whether it is term coined by a few news websites. Ecrusized (talk) 00:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Islam, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the former state ideology is just “a term coined by a few news websites”. Have it your way. You are on a rampage of nominating my Turkish topic articles for deletion after making the bold accusation that I am “trying to make the Turkish government look bad”. Engaging you is not worth my time as you make it clear from your statements that you are too emotional. I won’t participate in the discussions, whatever the admins decide I’ll take it and won’t argue. Next time you go on another nomination spree, let me know. I had no idea until I did my routine article check. Ilamxan (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finley Jeffrey[edit]

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

Article created by user with COI. Immediately PRODed, but unPRODed by same user with no explanation. BLP has many "citation needed" tags and the only two citations present do not appear to be independent and reliable. Subject shows no notability. GoldRomean (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. GoldRomean (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gseach is straight to social media, then not much else pops up. Flowery wording, but nothing found in sources to support the claims made. Lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Grenada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject fails WP:SINGER and the two cited sources do not establish notability. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Miner[edit]

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

Prior efforts to remove a large volume of promotional materials reveal how much of a nothing-burger this page on an American sales speaker is. There is no significant coverage and much promotional material, and it almost merits speedy deletion. It turned up on my radar because it received 7,000 views in June despite being an orphan. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I suppose having a best-selling book in the sales category could be notable, but other than the listing, there is no coverage... None, other than places to listen to his speeches or sales mantras. I don't find reviews of his books or mentions of this individual in RS, this appears PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 5 July 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. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zygote Media Group[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP due to a lack of coverage discussing the company in-depth. The best I could find through multiple searches was a couple of sentences at [[46]] and [[47]], nothing to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. A 2006 PROD was removed by the since blocked User:Zygote Media Group so bringing this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Utah. Let'srun (talk) 00:11, 5 July 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.

Files[edit]

File:Bathers with a turtle.jpg[edit]

No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then. Also, SLAM claims copyright; it's unclear how valid that is. grendel|khan 00:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pastebin.com logo.png[edit]

The graphic design would most likely not meet the minimum requirements for copyright protection and would therefore likely be free in the United States. Maybe you need to consider the minimum copyright protection in its country of origin. If it is in the UK or Australia, you need to use the target {{PD-USOnly}} and do not move it to Wikicommons. If the country of origin is Canada, use the template {{PD-textlogo}} instead of the original fair use label and move it to Wikicommons. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 02:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Status quo, keep as non-free. This is a complex design and IMO the page flip in the corner is sufficiently creative to push it over US TOO. -Fastily 09:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Derain CharingCrossBridge.png[edit]

No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then. (See Wikipedia:Public_domain#Publication.) grendel|khan 02:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Derain - Portrait of a Man with a Newspaper.jpg[edit]

No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then. (See Wikipedia:Public_domain#Publication.) grendel|khan 02:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1907, Vladimir Becic, Akt djevojke kod stola, ulje, Moderna galerija Zagreb.jpg[edit]

No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then. (See Wikipedia:Public_domain#Publication.) grendel|khan 02:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:André Derain - Arlequin et Pierrot.jpg[edit]

No publication information provided. (And definitely not "GPL".) Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then. (See Wikipedia:Public_domain#Publication.) grendel|khan 02:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Albert André - The Concert - Google Art Project.jpg[edit]

No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then. (See Wikipedia:Public_domain#Publication.) grendel|khan 03:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flor Contemplacion photos[edit]

"File:Flor Contemlacion" is essentially a cropped and enlarged version of "File:Flor Contemplacion after arrest.jpg" and two non-free files providing essentially the same encylopedic information to readers aren't need per WP:NFCC#3a. The cropped version is currently being used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox of Flor Contemplacion while the uncropped "after arrest" version is being used in Flor Contemplacion#Background to arrest. The cropped file does appears to have been upload prior to the uncropped version, but the uncropped version does perhaps provide more context and is a true representation of the photo that was taken. For that reason, I think that the uncropped versoin is probably the one that should be kept except it source url doesn't appear to be working to allow for verification of WP:NFCC#4. Regardless of which of the two is kept, both aren't needed per WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Garnelo-Cornelia.jpg[edit]

No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then. (See Wikipedia:Public_domain#Publication.) grendel|khan 08:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objections...although I'll be putting it back, along with some of his other paintings, when his works become PD in January. WQUlrich (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Goldfish Matisse.jpg[edit]

No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then. (See Wikipedia:Public_domain#Publication.) grendel|khan 08:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Henri Matisse - View of Notre Dame. Paris, quai Saint-Michel, spring 1914.jpg[edit]

No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then. (See Wikipedia:Public_domain#Publication.) Also, MoMA claims copyright; it's unclear how valid that is. grendel|khan 08:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:America Movil1.svg[edit]

Fails WP:FU#Multiple_restrictions: Non-free SVG logo from Brands of the World. Wcam (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Insel Air logo.svg[edit]

Fails WP:FU#Multiple_restrictions: Non-free SVG logo from Brands of the World. Wcam (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Teacher's Pet (TV series)[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Teacher's Pet (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only two articles. No good merge targets. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zero-level elevation points[edit]

Propose merging Category:Zero-level elevation points to Category:Vertical datums

Nominator's rationale: As per Category_talk:Zero-level_elevation_points#Scope. fgnievinski (talk) 03:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Athletes by location in Greece[edit]

Propose merging Category:Athletes by location in Greece to Category:Greek athletes
Propose merging Category:Swimmers by location in Greece to Category:Greek swimmers
Propose merging Category:Sailors (sport) by location in Greece to Category:Greek sailors (sport)
Propose merging Category:Rowers by location in Greece to Category:Greek rowers
Propose merging Category:Gymnasts by location in Greece to Category:Greek gymnasts
Propose merging Category:Basketball players by location in Greece to Category:Greek basketball players
Propose merging Category:Volleyball players by location in Greece to Category:Greek volleyball players
Propose merging Category:Water polo players by location in Greece to Category:Greek water polo players

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge; only one category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Theoretically it should include more subcategories, by regional unit, etc.. As such it would fit with the rest of the tree. I think they were even included at some point but I haven't checked in a while. Antondimak (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Antondimak, if this - along with other categories in Category:Sportspeople by location in Greece which I only just noticed - can be populated, I will withdraw the nomination. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember most of these being populated. Now only footballers are. I don't know of any tool to check category history. Antondimak (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category:Athletes by location in Greece, I've populated it so the nomination is no longer valid. Should do the same for the rest. --Habst (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Antondimak, @Marcocapelle, I've added the remaining categories which have only one category layer. Anton, my best guess is that, if they did exist, they were likely merged or deleted. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For no good reason I'd guess. Do you know of any tool to check category history? Antondimak (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid not but @Marcocapelle may know. Personally, I can't find any Cfd on it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I know, or vaguely remember is better-phrased, is that in Google search you can to some extent find back older versions of a webpage. So this is outside Wikipedia. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 19:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Habst, if you can populate the rest as well, I will withdraw the nomination. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we populate the rest?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 02:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historic buildings and structures in Ireland[edit]

Propose Deleting Category:Historic buildings and structures in Ireland

Propose Deleting Category:Historic buildings and structures in Northern Ireland
Propose Deleting Category:Historic buildings and structures in the Republic of Ireland

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:SUBJECTIVECAT)

In addition to being subjective, these categories really haven't been used. The only loose articles are in the parent category which has two buildings and two former buildings (1, 2, 3, 4). I added more categories to all 4 to make it easier for readers to find them and the existing Irish and UK heritage register categories are a more defining and neutral way of grouping articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: We previously deleted the sibling American categories here and I'm nominating these categories by country rather than all at once so we can consider the national heritage registers. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks like a redundant layer. The scheduled monument and historic site categories are enough, surely, and anything alse is largely subjective. Grutness...wha? 04:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "historic" is a subjective criterion insofar it is not about scheduled monuments. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sportspeople and century categories[edit]

Propose deleting Category:19th-century sportspeople by sport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:19th-century players of American football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:19th-century baseball umpires (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:19th-century baseball players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:19th-century martial artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:19th-century tennis players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:19th-century male tennis players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:19th-century female tennis players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:19th-century wrestlers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:19th-century professional wrestlers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:19th-century Olympic competitors by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:20th-century sportspeople by sport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:20th-century Asian Games competitors by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:20th-century Commonwealth Games competitors by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:20th-century cricketers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:20th-century Bangladeshi cricketers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:20th-century English cricketers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:20th-century FIBA World Championship players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:20th-century FIFA World Cup players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:20th-century professional wrestlers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:20th-century female professional wrestlers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:20th-century male professional wrestlers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:20th-century Olympic competitors by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:21st-century sportspeople by sport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:21st-century cricketers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:21st-century English cricketers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:21st-century Bangladeshi cricketers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:21st-century Olympic competitors by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per a number of previous CfDs (e.g. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_12#20th/21st-century_sportspeople), organizing sportspersons by century is seen as not helpful. At the end of that discussion, someone proposed that more of these categories should be subsequently nominated, but I don't believe that has happened, so I am doing so now. I am bundling a number of categories together and I think the dynamics of them are generally all the same, but note that I have excluded Category:20th-century sailors, which seems to have naval officers mixed into it; the bizarre subcategories of Category:20th-century English cricketers, which seems to merit its own nomination; and some of these ethnic/national categories like Category:Czechoslovak sportspeople who only existed in the 20th-century, but I don't think these should be deleted, as they are clearly part of a different scheme. There are also similar schemes for chess and Go, which I've left alone as they are more extensive and not actually sports, so it introduces noise about including them in any sports-related category. From what I see, this will not leave any orphan categories or something that cannot be logically navigated from another scheme and for what it's worth, I created at least one of these and think they should all go. Lastly, I of course have no prejudice against listifying some of these, but I'll leave that up to anyone who feels particularly motivated to do it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per request, I am pinging anyone I've seen participating in previous discussions, including some that were deletes on some of the above categories and someone saw fit to recreate, such as Category:20th-century cricketers which was recreated by User:Smasongarrison without any apparent consensus to un-delete, but said user can tell us below if there was and I've missed it. Please inform us why you recreated this deleted material. Any omissions are accidents, except in the case of deceased users (RIP). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london, BrownHairedGirl, Good Olfactory, Autarch, Debresser, Explicit, Johnbod, Oculi, Mayumashu, Alansohn, Neonblak, Bradjamesbrown, Black Falcon, Davshul, Djsasso, Resolute, Ravenswing, RGTraynor, Pparazorback, RandySavageFTW, PeeJay, PeeJay2K3, DoubleBlue, Necrothesp, David Eppstein, Lugnuts, Grutness, Peterkingiron, Icarusgeek, Hugo999, Omnis Scientia, Deltaspace42, Marcocapelle, Joseph2302, Qwerfjkl, ForsythiaJo, Bearcat, and Place Clichy: ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per request, here are some relevant CfDs re: sportspersons and by-century categories. Any omissions are purely ignorance on my part. Other users please do inform me if there are relevant CfDs on this topic that I've missed. As I noted above, there is a broad consensus against these in most, if not all, cases, and some users have seen fit to recreate categories where there was an explicit consensus to delete them.

―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The 19th century categories aren't modern, and have numerous recent CFDs in support of keeping them Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 25#Category:19th-century tennis players, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_10#Category:19th-century_referees_and_umpires. You also omitted several more recent CFDs, including this one I pointed out Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 29#Category:20th-century sportspeople by nationality. The goal of these categories is to keep the many century category clear. Please tag the participants from those CFDs.Mason (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So keep what? All of them? Just the 19th-century ones? The triple intersections of century, nationality, and sport such as Category:20th-century English cricketers? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misgender me. For the record, I remade the parent category for cricketers because the nationality subcategories existed, and had existed for quiet sometime. Mason (talk) 01:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the above, so pardon me for the gender-neutral pronoun usage. Maybe I was unclear: you saw that there was consensus to delete the category and yet you recreated it. Was there some consensus to recreate it that I didn't know about or did you just personally decide that even though you knew there was consensus to delete it, you would recreate it anyway without any consensus to do so? Please also actually answer the questions I asked so I know what your !vote is. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From what little I can recall, my rationale in creating this category was that baseball was a very different game in the 19th century and it was very useful to have a separate category for a relatively small subset of baseball players. Gamaliel (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, are you !voting to keep all or just 19th-century baseball ones? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just the 19th century. I don't do enough work in sports articles to properly gauge the usefulness of 20th century categories. Gamaliel (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly delete 20th-century and 21st-century categories, we should do that for many other occupations too. The vast majority of biographies is about 20th-century and 21st-century people so the century characteristic does not discriminate at all. I am somewhat hesitant about the 19th-century categories because they may be a vital part of history of sports. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Occupation categories by century are completely pointless and should all be deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 17:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:20th-century FIFA World Cup players, simply not needed. No views on the others. Giant Snowman 17:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ardit Sadiku[edit]

Propose merging Category:Ardit Sadiku to Category:Films by Albanian directors

Nominator's rationale: Redudant category layer. There's not even a epon page for this category. Ardit Sadiku Mason (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (Not sure what nominator intends with merging in this case.) Marcocapelle (talk) 03:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century Nepalese film directors[edit]

Propose merging Category:20th-century Nepalese film directors to Category:Nepalese film directors and Category:20th-century Nepalese people
Propose merging Category:21st-century Nepalese film directors to Category:Nepalese film directors and Category:21st-century Nepalese people

Nominator's rationale: Modern occupations aren't diffused by century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_2#Film_directors_by_century Mason (talk) 00:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, but do the merge to Category:20th-century Nepalese people and Category:21st-century Nepalese people manually because many articles are still in a parallel screenwriters category. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

Furiosa Road[edit]

Furiosa Road → Mad Max: Fury Road (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not sure how plausible this search term is but if kept, would Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga be a more appropriate target? मल्ल (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is I take you you didn't watch "Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga", since that isn't a road movie. "Mad Max: Fury Road" is a road movie. "Furiosa Road" was a common nickname for the film when it was released. [48][49][50][51][52] -- so is a good search term. -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

metal age[edit]

The Metal Age → Thief II (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Metal Age → Three-age system (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

different targets, and there's an article for the metal ages... which is itself divided into 3 ages, the last of which seems to be referred to as "the" metal age, even though they're grouped together because they're different metals. i'll vote for retargeting both of those to metal ages, unless someone actually knows their stuff cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Tate[edit]

Tristan Tate → Andrew Tate (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete as misleading. This redirect was created a minute after the second deletion discussion closed, first pointing to the whole article and then to a subsection concerning the Romanian case(s), on what seems to me to be the very good reason that they are different people. During the GA drive this change was reverted. As it stands, the references to Tristan are sprinkled throughout the article, so it's hard to pick a single place to point the redirect at; but they are different people, and the current outcome suggests that to the unwary they aren't. Given the AfD outcome, I would suggest that deletion of the redirect and reliance on how search engines actually work is the best resolution of this so that those looking will get a succinct and accurate answer; failing that, the AfD could be reconsidered, or Andrew Tate's article could be so structured as to give a redirect some place to point to. The current arrangement, though, treats him like Zaphod Beeblebrox's second head. Mangoe (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment New RfD's go below the header, not above it. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re-target to Andrew Tate#In Romania: 2022–present per WP:BLP1E, where is he referenced under "Tate brothers" (that can be amended to "Tate and his brother Tristan" for first usage). 1E was the strong argument for deletion of the article second time around, despite not being mentioned in the closing summary, so redirecting to any other part of the article doesn't make sense based on his notability. Additionally, a redirect that is used 20 times a day does appear useful, but being pointed at Andrew Tate directly can be confusing for readers, even if he is mentioned from the lead onwards. I'm not sure why TheMainLogan changed the redirect back in March. I'm otherwise convinced that this redirect existed long before March and that the page history is missing after the 2nd AfD, but could be wrong. Maybe an admin could clarify. CNC (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won't even lie, I pointed the redirect at Andrew directly because they're basically the same guy. —theMainLogan (t•c) 15:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheMainLogan yeah but in my opinion, they are not. Tristan Tate is almost equally as well known as his brother, and is a different human being with his own life and internet personality. Sure, they live together, own the same cars, but they are still entirely different. Mr Vili talk 00:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Tristan Tate is almost equally as well known as his brother, and is a different human being with his own life and internet personality. Sure, they live together, own the same cars, but they are still entirely different." Then why shouldn't he have his own article? —theMainLogan (t•c) 03:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Restore Tristan Tate Draft I believe the redirect should be deleted, and Tristan Tate is notable enough to have his own page, I suggest the original page be undeleted, and converted into a Draft where further editing can be done to the original page in order to move it into mainspace Mr Vili talk 08:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While this isn't the place to debate notability (the talk page would be better) the source assessment in the 2nd AfD demonstrated only one article with WP:SIGCOV, hence notability was not proven beyond BLP1E. Since this AfD he is now accused in a second investigation in the UK, but per the closing summary of that AfD, WP:PERP is still an issue here. Even if another draft is worked on, the mainspace article still requires a decision on either deleting, keeping or redirecting. CNC (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refine to the section per CommunityNotesContributor. This is without prejudice to the former article content being worked on in draft, but unless and until an article is accepted (and such an article would need to demonstrate notability unrelated to the single incident) readers are better served by the redirect pointing to the content in his brother's article. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or Refine? Also, in response to CNC's queries, the page history is missing after the 2nd AfD because the article was deleted at the AfD, and the page created fresh as a redirect. Prior to deletion, the article was turned to a redirect to Andrew Tate for a short time per WP:TNT, and reverted within 3 hours.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gallophone[edit]

Gallophone → Geographical distribution of French speakers (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target. In the weird position of having a whole lot of online dictionaries claiming it means "French-speaking", starting with wikt:Gallophone, but I can't find a single such usage. Actual usage is rare but seems to be related to Gaul, not France or the French, e.g. Gallocentrism (thought I can't find a single one of its sources to check if they use the word that way). Rusalkii (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried asking wikt:WT:RFV about the Wiktionary entry? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it does look like the original creator @Thryduulf is an RfD regular, tagging them in to see if they have thoughts. (Sorry for dragging out decades-old pages!) Rusalkii (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are five quotations on the Wiktionary entry, all giving examples of use. I don't remember creating that (it was 2010) but the quotes have been there since start. A couple of minutes has found another three uses [53] [54][55] on Google books and it can also be found in our Gallocentrism article . I also came across [56] and [57] which use the word with different meanings (the first possibly related to Galilee, the second is in the context of Welsh so I'd guess from Gaelic).

Additionally, I'm seeing a few sources mentioning a Gallophone Records from the 1930s, with one that is probably not a reliable source, stating that it later became Gallo Records, but even if true this would be a partial title match. Thryduulf (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading the initial post here, it's not unique in having a meaning related to France while being etymologically related to Gaul - wikt:Gallic being the most obvious. Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The attestations provided by wiktionary, plus the additional mentioned above, are enough to a) determine that this is a plausible thing to search, and b) determine that the current target is appropriate. Fieari (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disidrose[edit]

Disidrose → Dyshidrosis (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Arbitrary non-English redirect (Portugues), subject unrelated to Portuguese or Portugal. —Alalch E. 13:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JDX[edit]

JDX → KJDX (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Doesn't appear to be the primary topic for "JDX"; quick google gives "JDX Performance Golf Apparel", "Job Builder JDX", "Jobs and Employment Data Exchange", a racing company, an instagram artist, guitar amplifier, etc. I can't even find the radio station. Hard to create a disambig page because none of these have wikipedia pages. Rusalkii (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate per nom. BD2412 T 19:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Never mind primary topic say, I can't find anything worthy of this becoming a DAB page with nothing created anyway in terms of articles yet, after looking at this title's page history. And BD2412, it seems the nominator was suggesting titles of articles of note worthy topics now but not yet created even to be considered for this at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intrisit (talk • contribs) 17:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate: draft provided. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Duke of Hum redirects[edit]

Sandalj Hranić, Grand Duke of Hum → Sandalj Hranić (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Vlatko Vukovic, Grand Duke of Hum → Vlatko Vuković (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Vlatko Vuković, Grand Duke of Hum → Vlatko Vuković (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Extension to bio's name in the article tile is misnomer in form of implausible noble title. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article leads specify that they are Grand Dukes (of Bosnia), and have holdings in Hum... heck, Vlatko is specified to be a Duke of Hum. Seems plausible to me that someone would mash the two facts together when searching for this person. A redirect doesn't have to be accurate, and mistakes and misunderstandings are perfectly acceptable reasons to have a redirect. The target is also unambiguous here. Doesn't really matter if there actually is a "Grand Duke" title for Hum or not. Fieari (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby Wii (tenative title)[edit]

Kirby Wii (tenative title) → Kirby's Epic Yarn (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"tenative" is not a word, and this isn't the only kirby game on the wii. it is the first one, though, so i'll give it that cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom BugGhost 🪲👻 13:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby Wii[edit]

Kirby Wii → Kirby's Return to Dream Land (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not the only (or even first) kirby game on the wii, though it is known in japan as "星のカービィ wii", so my unspoken delete vote is slightly weaker than on kirby ds cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.—Alalch E. 14:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Kirby (series) where the Kirby Wii games are discussed. The Wii section is primarily Kirby (series)#2011–2021: Evolution of 2.5D platforming although Kirby's Epic Yarn is (currently) in the previous section. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Byeol ui Kieby: Dauphin Ildang ui Seupgyeok[edit]

Byeol ui Kieby: Dauphin Ildang ui Seupgyeok → Kirby: Squeak Squad (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

does wp:rlang apply? truth be told, i have no idea why the korean name is even mentioned in the article. is it disproportionately popular in south korea or something? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete arbitrary non-English redirect.—Alalch E. 14:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby DS[edit]

Kirby DS → Kirby: Squeak Squad (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

there are 3 other kirby games on the ds, and squeak squad isn't even the first one cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.—Alalch E. 14:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Kirby (series)#2005–2011: Touch-based gameplay where the Kirby DS games are discussed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amoogus[edit]

Amoogus → Among Us (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

either a misspelling of "amogus", in which case fair enough, or of "amoonguss" (ironically usually based on amogus), in which case delete as dabifying between two misspellings used in shitposts would probably be a little unnecessary. this among us meme thing makes my brain go ouch cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's only one letter off from amogus, a well-known meme-spelling of Among Us; meanwhile, it's two letters off from Amoonguss, a mushroom Pokemon that predates Among Us, whose name is a simple reference to the phrase "a Fungus Among Us", and who quickly became associated with Among Us in meme circles just based off the name alone. One is less than two, which solves the WP:XY issue here IMO. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Lunamann above. Fieari (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is a common mispelling of amongus. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, overly vague. The search function exists for a reason. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. Amogus remains relevant forever. Even search results will redirect you to Among Us itself. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not similar enough to "amoonguss" to be vague. Just a misspelling of "amogus".—Alalch E. 14:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser[edit]

CheckUser → Wikipedia:CheckUser (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

CNR. Should we retarget to Wiki#Security? Ahri Boy (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wiki#Security has no info on checkusers or equivalent functions. Checkusers are not something which beginner editors, who might not realize the existence of the Wikipedia namespace, would search up. Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the question should be whether this is a potential useful redirect and whether it's unambiguous. I think it is, on both accounts. It being a cross-namespace redirect does not mean it's not useful. Those types of redirects aren't covered under WP:CSD R2, meaning, in certain cases, they're allowed. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All Google results appear to be for Wikipedia and I'm not sure if there is much non Wikipedia usage. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there is also Checkuser which should also be deleted or retargeted if this is closed as delete or retarget. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules[edit]

Template:Blink[edit]

Template:Blink (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has been deleted multiple times. The creator removed a speedy deletion tag, so rather than get in a dispute, here's a TFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous, unrelated version of this template was deleted because it didn't work (it used the actual blink tag, which has been deprecated for around twenty years). There was not a consensus to forbid any template from ever existing on the English Wikipedia with the pagename blink, although if it would make you happy, I could rename this to {{blink2}} so that it isn't a "recreation". jp×g 🗯️ 18:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chicu cabinet table[edit]

Template:Chicu cabinet table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-use table of article content with no template parameters, documentation, or categories. Copy into article and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bedroom Community[edit]

Template:Bedroom Community (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox lists four of the many recording artists whose work was released by the music label linked from the navbox header. These artists are not connected in the way that is intended for use in navboxes. A category will cover this need, if it exists. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Article card[edit]

Template:Article card (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Proposed and discussed in 2018 but never adopted. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cabinet of Bola Tinubu[edit]

Template:Cabinet of Bola Tinubu (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:First Cabinet of Muhammadu Buhari (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Second Cabinet of Muhammadu Buhari (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All three were single-use templates. I have substituted them on their respective cabinet articles. These should not have been created as separate templates as it would create a duplicate notes and references section and there didn't appear to be any article size issues for them needed to be transcluded through a separate space. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about their current use but (if I recall correctly) the reason these templates were created were to use them for the page of their specific cabinet and the Cabinet of Nigeria page. Watercheetah99 (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Static column row[edit]

Template:Static column row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions. Created in 2009. The documentation says that it is used by a template that does not exist. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SpokenWikipediaReminder[edit]

Template:SpokenWikipediaReminder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. Appears to have been used just once on an editor's talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom; I also have no idea what it means for a spoken article to be "incactive" [sic] or "expired". Queen of Hearts ^talk 06:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ddag[edit]

Template:Ddag (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Double-dagger (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Ddag with Template:Double-dagger.
add a "sup" param to {{double-dagger}} and redirect; see also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 June 6#Template:Dag Queen of Hearts ^talk 01:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany[edit]

User:MANJESH MANN[edit]

A stupid copy of Denim, mixed with some additional text that given the broken formatting was almost certainly copied from somewhere else on the internet. Flounder fillet (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the nominator says, this is a redundant fork, which causes attribution problems. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. This already causes attribution problems by being a fork of Wikipedia content, and it may count as plagiarism (or worse) as the other text seems to be taken without attribution from somewhere else. Glades12 (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Walwal20/RfC Hartley Jackson[edit]

This nomination is for IP user 101.186.135.169, who stated "Abandoned RfC draft - user hasn't edited in over three years" in a PROD. PROD can only be used for actual articles and IPs can't start deletion discussions, so I'm posting it for them. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User being inactive for some time is not a reason to delete their own productive subpages. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See the guideline on deletion of user pages of other users, which does not provide for deletion of abandoned user pages, which should in fact be retained in case the user returns. If the IP is the user and wants to delete the page, they can log on and tag it with U1 or G7. If the IP is someone else, they should leave the user alone. 16:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review[edit]

List of NCAA Division III independents football records[edit]

I'm not sure what should be done here. If the closer really felt that the keep votes should have been discounted as mentioned and that there was "a clear consensus to delete", then it should be deleted. The given merge target was only suggested by one person and thus feels like a supervote. Moreover, the given target very clearly won't support the giant off-topic stats dump that this would bring to it. As desperate as relists can be sometimes, maybe that would be better here to get some more eyes on this. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as the closer: if the appellant isn't sure what should be done, what is the remedy being sought here? When Delete is a valid outcome, and the content isn't in violation of policy, then both Redirect and Merge are valid alternatives. My use of "selective merge" in the result makes it clear there is no intention to include all, or even any of the content in the target, which may simply degenerate into a Redirect. The choice of what, if any, to merge is an editorial--not an administrative--one. There's no harm in relisting, and I had likely done so myself had the appellant contacted me directly prior to filing this DRV. But as said, it's not clear this is what they want, and I don't believe an outright deletion is correct with a valid ATD. Owen× ☎ 13:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was being generous with the relist suggestion. ATD doesn't require that you avoid a "delete" outcome if it's called for. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, ATD doesn't require avoiding deletion, it merely allows it, and I exercised my prerogative to pick an ATD that was minimally destructive. If you are arguing for deletion, as you now seem to be, please show us which part of the article's content violates policy to the point where it requires deletion. Owen× ☎ 14:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse-ish, I personally would have closed it as N/C, but a merger is an editorial action and not an admin one so it's one anyone could have taken, including OwenX following the close. While there wasn't support for retention as a standalone, nor was there a case that the information needed removal-just relocation. I don't see this as a super vote so there's nothing wrong with the close which certainly falls within closer discretion. Star Mississippi 14:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - not a single participant !voted "merge". This wasn't a close, it was a super vote. Absolutely unacceptable close. Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have missed Jweiss' unbolded merge suggestion (I did too at first) Star Mississippi 17:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I saw that. But it wasn't even their preferred stance, let alone the consensus of the discussion on a whole. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Down-ball[edit]

Closer did not allow adequate time for new voices to engage in discussion after AfD was re-listed for that express purpose. Closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly Rockycape (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~You do not appear to have discussed this with or notified @Drmies. The latter is required.~~ That said, endorse. It ran more than sufficient time after it was relisted on 28 June. Please do not bludgeon this discussion as you did the AfD.Star Mississippi 03:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Star Mississippi I could have done without a notification: tired of it already, haha. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've pinged Drmies as I was unable to add to Drmies User Talk due to restrictions Rockycape (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: I thought this too (and originally drafted a reply to the user on my talk page that pointed them to Drmies' user talk page), but in their defence Drmies' user talk page is ECP so they can't edit it. It was discussed with Drmies here instead: User talk:Rockycape#Nomination of Down-ball for deletion. It is for this reason I assume they couldn't post the talk page notification either. Daniel (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After the AfD was re-listed it was not the length of time (one week) that was the issue per se but it was that re-listing for one week did not result in any new voices. Closing did not allow adequate time for new voices to engage in discussion of AfD - For the record No Consensus Rockycape (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's allowed as part of the discussion here I'd like to raise the following point. "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." was not discussed on the Down-ball page. This was a new page and would have benefitted from time to develop. Before being listed AfD this author would have very much appreciated being given more time to develop the article. Rockycape (talk) 05:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"20 June 2024 Rockycape created page Draft:Down-ball": This means the page existed for approximately two weeks. The expectation that a newcomer has two weeks grace to get a newly created page up to scratch is not reasonable.Rockycape (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. You should have gotten it up to scratch before putting it in mainspace. —Cryptic 07:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions are not relisted indefinitely until a preferred outcome is attained. I'd support a restoration to draft with a lock on moving if an independent editor thinks sources actually exist. @Rockycape I really think you should edit about something else.

Thanks @Daniel for the correction on not advising the closer. My error. Star Mississippi 13:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – The AfD was properly closed. The policy-based comments were quite consistent in saying that the article's sources were insufficient to distinguish that there was a specific game distinct from other similar and similarly named games and thus the offered sources failed to establish notability. If new sources were to be discovered, it would be possible to create a new draft based on them, but it should not be accepted into mainspace until the issues brought up at this AfD are properly considered. My involvement was at IRC channel #wikipedia-en-help where a question was raised about behavior of another editor. I read through the AfD at that time and saw no reason to pile on. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two earliest revisions, which had been happily living as a redirect to Four square since 2006, should be restored, since they're unrelated to the article properly deleted at afd. (It can then be sent to RFD to determine whether Downball is a better target.) —Cryptic 07:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate and re-close by an admin in good standing. Locking out your Talk page from an entire class of editors is effectively a request for desysop, per WP:ADMINACCT. As with a compromised admin account, any administrative action taken by such an account can be reverted by any uninvolved admin acting in their independent capacity, with a notice left on WP:BN. If you're tired of interacting with the editing public, you are no longer an admin. Changed to Endorse after reviewing the exchange with the appellant that resulted from them emailing the closing admin. Thank you, Star Mississippi, for moderating this.

As for the substance of the appeal, it is without merit. WP:RELIST clearly spells it out: A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined, without necessarily waiting for another seven days. There is no need to keep that AfD open just to give the appellant more time to bludgeon participants. Owen× ☎ 10:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was an involved editor and have been dealing with the requester's sealioning at my talk page for the past few days, so I'll refrain from offering a !vote in this review, but I do believe the closer interpreted the consensus correctly. I will point out that despite the requester's protestations of being a "newcomer" and invocation of WP:DNBTN, they have been editing since 2018 and in every discussion seems unwilling to understand core Wikipedia policies on WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR, which is why the page was worthy of deletion and why they were unable to persuade other editors. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are an SPA only here to promote this game (and badger editors about it), which is why I believe we'll need an edit/move lock if this goes to draft space. Star Mississippi 14:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. After reading through the lengthy discussion which includes a lot of back-and-forth (including some bludgeoning by Rockycape), I observed there is only one “delete” vote outside of the nom, therefore can not be consensus to delete. If all of the keep/ATD votes are discarded, there is not a WP:QUORUM to delete, and would have to be closed as no consensus or relisted (not eligible for soft delete as it was previously prodded by the AFD nominator). Add in support for redirect, there is a quorum supporting this page not being kept as a standalone article. Consensus to delete or redirect could come with further discussion, thereby making relist my preferred option, though I would also support an overturn to redirect. Frank Anchor 14:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect added by McMatter is a reasonable outcome, largely per Cryptic above. So changing my !vote to neutral. Frank Anchor 18:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - There were only 2 options to interpret the policy based points in that discussion delete or redirect. The deletion has occurred and it can once again be redirected to one of the other games which both claim to be same game but yet not. I would also support moving the article to the draft space, that is technically outside the scope of this discussion. @Rockycape the constant badgering, didn't help your case at all and it is probably time to go through the WP:AFC process or move on to other topics. The only 2 keep votes were WP:IKNOWIT or WP:ILIKEIT votes and had zero bearing on the discussion. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note I have since re-added the redirect back to Downball McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a valid summation of the discussion. Also WP:QUORUM is for discussions with 'very few or no comments', I don't see that as a concern in this instance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse probably the correct outcome. It's clear from the few available sources there's a sport called down-ball which is different from four-square, but it appears to be just too colloquial enough to pass GNG right now. SportingFlyer T·C 16:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Version 1.0 Editorial Team 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 votings	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