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

< May 12	May 14 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Democratic Party for the Development of Carchuna[edit]

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

I couldn't find evidence it meets WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Victim (2012 film)[edit]

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

The film seems to lack notability, as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. The current sources in the article are mere announcements of its release and rely solely on statements from the film's producer. Despite being released in 2012, the film failed to garner any reviews. Fails WP:NFILM. GSS ^💬 19:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Goa. GSS ^💬 19:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Sharabeel[edit]

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

So, the BLP claims the subject is a DIREVTOR, but it appears the only thing he's directed is some show called "Twins Apart" The issue I'm seeing is that the coverage about this show is mostly in The News, like this, this and this. And per WP:SIGCOV, multiple publications from the same author or organization usually count as a single source, so at most, they count as one source. And I did find coverage on his show in other RS such as the Express Tribune like this, but nothing else. Also, it appears he has only directed this one show, which received some coverage in RS. So, is merely directing one show enough to pass WP:NDIRECTOR? Seems like a very ROTM DIRECTOR to me. This also raises the question: if anyone just directs a drama and gets some press coverage on it, do they automatically qualify for a Wikipedia BLP?

No offense to the creator of this page, of course but only a UPE would bother creating a BLP for such a ROTM director. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Compugoal College[edit]

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

It exists but I don't think it meets WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Wuteh Vakunta[edit]

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

Non-notable professor. I can't find a Google Scholar for him; ResearchGate indicates he's only been cited 22 times (which seems too low to meet WP:NPROF). A search for sources only turns up profiles for him and sites hawking his books. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of movie theaters[edit]

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

This appears to be an underinclusive and unnecessary duplication of Category:Cinemas and movie theaters by country, which includes many more theaters which are not on this list. I don't believe this page is particularly useful as a stand-alone list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an absurdly incomplete list. Taking France as an example, the creator seems to think that Paris is all there is in France, unaware that the oldest cinema still in operation after 125 years, is in La Ciotat (https://edencinemalaciotat.com/le-plus-ancien-cinema-du-monde/). Similar problems apply in other countries, for example Chile, which apparently has just one cinema, though I saw Jurassic Park and The Color Purple in two different ones. Even if the list was made complete it would still be pointless. Athel cb (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is obviously only a list of notable movie theaters that have articles because they are historic or otherwise significant, which is a typical criterion for SALs. It needs some clean-up and is likely missing many, but I don't think we have an article on the oldest theater in La Ciotat so of course it's not on here. Reywas92^Talk 16:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  OK. I failed to notice the qualification "notable enough for Wikipedia articles," but it's still a ridiculous list. You are right that there is no "article on the oldest theater in La Ciotat", but there damn well should be. Athel cb (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Perhaps you could make it? Then we should consider how List of oldest cinemas is not an article, but certainly notable. Conyo14 (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Perhaps I will, but I'm not sure my knowledge is sufficient. La Ciotat is about 45 minutes drive from where I live (at least, it would be if I still drove significant distances). I've passed the Eden Cinema, but I've never been inside. Athel cb (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I would note that Category:Cinemas and movie theaters by country is, of course, organized by country -- which is how this list is organized too. The difference is that there are a number of cinemas which Wikipedia has articles about, but which are not listed here on List of movie theaters. So this list is trying to fulfill the same function as Category:Cinemas and movie theaters by country, but not as well since it doesn't include all of the movie theaters that already have Wikipedia articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. With some work and dedication it has the potential to be an informative list of historical/notable theaters. Archives908 (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of leery of a page like this, though. The amount of work it would need to maintain would be kind of exhausting. I think that a far more manageable option would be for the page to limit itself to something like "oldest movie theater" by country, with the further requirement being that the theater would either have to be still operational OR the building itself would still have to be standing, in the case of a company that's now defunct but the building still stands. Otherwise this is a page that could potentially contain hundreds upon thousands of theaters. It would also be kind of prone to people coming around to list their mini (non-notable) theater as well. I'm not using that as an argument to delete mind you, just say that a page like this needs to be more limited out of necessity to make it more encyclopedic. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Allows an organised overview with photographs and notes, which a category cannot do. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirimongkol Rattanapoom[edit]

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

Nothing has been written that suggests notability, and any argument like there being sources that are full-length can shake the elephant in the room, the Catch-22 if you will: if this player is so notable, why isn't he playing? He's played zero minutes this season in Belgium's amateur third division. He has no international appearances, and in all due respect it's easier to be chosen for Thailand than for Brazil or Spain. He's 22 this month, so if he's some special player who passes WP:GNG without any professional appearances, when are they going to come? I know people like to make articles about teenagers at big clubs, based on hype press, but a 22-year-old at an amateur Belgian club is clearly a different kettle of fish. While I disagree with the old WP:NFOOTY regulation that a player was notable as soon as they made one professional appearance, it's a good measure at least. Also bear in mind that [1] this source comes from King Power, the Thai company that owns his Belgian club, so it is not independent anyway. Additionally, the creator made this article as an incomprehensible quote farm from Google Translate, suggesting an unfamiliarity with Thai sources. [2] Unknown Temptation (talk) 09:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I found [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], among manu more Thai sources. Clearly sigifficant young player in Thailand with ongoing career. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Google Translate: source 1 is brief coverage about 4 Thai players playing in Belgium; source 2 is not independent as per the nom; source 3 is paywalled; source 4 is routine transfer coverage; and source 5 is brief coverage about him playing for Thailand under-23. Where is the significant coverage? Giant Snowman 20:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how you interpreted the first source to be "brief coverage about 4 Thai players playing in Belgium", it is about him and most of the text is solely about his background alone. The third source is also not paywalled. The fourth source is sedifnityl not "routine transfer coverage" since he joined the team much earlier and it goes into his background as well. Clearly sigifficant young player in Thailand with ongoing career who has played for the Thaialnd olympic team and is one of few players abroad. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An Olympic team is an under-23 team. Footballers at the Olympics get some coverage, but per Football at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament, the only Thai going there at all is a VAR. As I said before, it's not hard to play senior football for Thailand, so if this guy is so great, why isn't he? Why are we treating someone as an exceptional promise for the future if he can't play for Thailand or for a third-division Belgian club when he's 22? Is that really an "ongoing career"? Unknown Temptation (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, the sources are good. Your other argument doesnt make sense because there are lots of notable footballers with good sources with Wikipedia pages who have not played for Thailand and saying its "not hard to play for Thailand" is completely dismissive. On the contrary, he is considered skilled enough to play abroad, which few Thai players do. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know people like to make articles about teenagers at big clubs, based on hype press – that may be the case, but I'm not sure there's any policy-based guidance that defines "hype press" or categorises them as unreliable for the GNG's purposes. That said, the Ballthai article appears to be the only in-depth piece of independent coverage. The others are brief updates and short interviews. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the Ballthai one, the other sources contain secondary coverage like "showed impressive form... is a versatile player in Midfield position Able to play both offense and defense. His highlight is his sharp reading of the game. And the interception is quite accurate. He is the third generation product of the Fox Hunt program" etc. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, they're brief. Maybe they could be considered significant taken together, but that's up to interpretation; I'm not yet convinced either way. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agha Mustafa Hassan[edit]

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

At first glance, the actor appears to be well-known with numerous roles in television serials, films, and what not. However, upon closer inspection, it becomes evident that the subject only had minor roles in the majority of those television serials and films, thus failing to meet NACTOR. Anyone wishing to argue based on GNG must provide THREE, i repeat, THREE of the best coverages in RS -only. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plunder of Murshidabad (1742)[edit]

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

Fails WP: NOTABILITY. The event is a part of the Maratha invasions of Bengal, and the prelude of First Battle of Katwa. Not much coverage in WP:RS, except some scattered lines. Not enough coverage in reliable sources for an article; and "Plunder of Murshidabad" is WP:OR as such an event is not named by any Historians. Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bangladesh, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Look, this article has already been accepted by the admin, and that's proof of its notability. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Akshunwar #Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Plunder_of_Murshidabad_(1742)_has_been_accepted] Even in Reliable Sources, this event receives significant coverage: 1. {{tq|In 1742 Maratha general Bhaskar Ram invaded Bengal and surrounded the Nawab at Burdwan, but he escaped. The Marathas plundered Murshidabad, the capital of the Nawab, and secured a booty of about 2 crores of rupees. They captured Orissa.}}<ref>{{Cite book |last=Vaish |first=Devi Charan Lal |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wvcgAAAAMAAJ&newbks=0&hl=en |title=The Rise of British Power and the Fall of Marathas |date=1972 |publisher=Upper India Publishing House |language=en}}</ref>

2. The nawabi had since 1740 been ruled by a Turkish adventurer, Alivardi Khan, who had, from the abundant treasury at Murshidabad, sent two crores of rupees to Delhi to secure his nomination as nawab. The British found him ready to sustain the conditions in which business flourished, but he was no match for the Marathas, who swept into Bengal in April 1742 and plundered Murshidabad. Their outfliers caused panic in Calcutta where the Company began to dig the Maratha ditch to keep them out. For the next seven years the golden province of Bengal was afflicted by roving armies, until Alivardi Khan bought off the Marathas by paying chauth of 12 lakhs of rupees a year. The merchants of Calcutta trembled, but one merchant in Bengal saw only advantage in the weakness of formerly powerful Mughal princes in the face of Maratha attack.

3. <ref>{{Cite book |last=Cavaliero |first=Roderick |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BxKJDwAAQBAJ&newbks=0&hl=en |title=Strangers in the Land: The Rise and Decline of the British Indian Empire |date=2002-06-28 |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |isbn=978-0-85771-707-8 |language=en}}</ref>

4. There are already articles on Wikipedia which are based on the place name where the event took place and this doesn't violate WP:OR. Akshunwar (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Several historic books use the exact phrasing "Plunder of Murshidabad", which dispels the notion that it is original research. Some of these are History of Orissa: From the Earliest Times to the British Period (1980) and Bengal, Past & Present Journal of the Calcutta Historical Society (1934).Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan G. Rasmussen[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO1E. Anything notable in this article is contained in SAS Flight 751. CapitalSasha ~ talk 19:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Germany, Indiana[edit]

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

Another spot back-entered to the topos from that 1870s atlas; Baker is really the only source besides that, which hasn't proven good enough. I tried looking for this in Baird's history of the county, but there are over a thousand occurrences of the word, so that was hopeless. Mangoe (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Baird [8] was very unimpressed with this place, as am I, see pg 86.James.folsom (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more policy-based discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Bangalore[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AFD was a mass nomination that ended in keep, for many reasons, except for the article's actual merits. Because there are none.

The deletion reason is the same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Ahmedabad, Madras, Oslo etc.: The list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN and WP:OR. There is little to nothing worthwhile in this list, be it content or context. Geschichte (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and Karnataka. Shellwood (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral None of these songs have their own articles, but some of the people singing them do, and the films they are in do as well. Dream Focus 03:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Raosaheb Ramrao Patil Mahavidyalaya[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability. College affiliated with a university. I'm normally pretty lenient regarding GNG sourcing for schools but this one has zero independent sources much less GMG sources. And I couldn't find any. North8000 (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge of the Killer Robots from Hell[edit]

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

The sources below do not provide the necessary WP:DEPTH needed for an article on the topic, and I can't find any that would. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Raymond (pianist)[edit]

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

Nothing on this guy but articles about a student of his, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Mumford[edit]

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

No sources beyond the ones here, which are not independent. Unfortunately, this means she fails WP:GNG and a lack of google scholar cites means she doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC either. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Management, Spaceflight, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Computer network naming scheme[edit]

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

It's self-evident that people who have a bunch of computers and want to assign them names according to some sort of system do so, and that the systems are completely arbitrary, and that they are often inconsistently followed, and that people who aren't into naming systems either don't give them names or pick an arbitrary name each time if they have to. It's just not a subject, period, much less encyclopedic. Mangoe (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is poorly written as is, and shouldn't focus so much on personal naming schemes, but the topic is definitely encyclopedic. The Domain Name System is the most prominent naming scheme, and there are other minor examples, such as the GNU Name System, and naming systems for Content centric networking (e.g. [9]). There needs to be an article on the general topic. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there even a name for this class of things? If I search for this exact phrase, I get six GHits, which either make no sense or still seem to depend on this WP article. Also, it seems to me that GNU Name System is simply a GNUish implementation of DNS, and that CCN doesn't even align with the notion of naming at all. Even ignoring the need for WP:TNT, I'm not convinced that this article name is the proper stating point, or even that thee is a thing to write an article about. Mangoe (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Naming system" or "Network naming" might be a better title. I trimmed out most of the unsourced content and added a bit more content with a source that discusses network naming systems in general. There are definitely other sources that could be used (e.g. [10]). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per [11] and [12], or at the very least merge to Computer networks. Conyo14 (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how those sources count toward verifiability, but not really towards notability. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage in reliable sources (RFCs etc.). Also Computer name, another clearly notable topic, redirects to this article. Coverage definitely could be improved in this area but deleting this is an unproductive WP:DEMOLISH. ~Kvng (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to think that there is a subject here, and that this could be demonstrated from text books (although maybe the subject is actually hierarchical naming schemes). But WP:DEMOLISH surely can't apply to a 20 year old article. And RFCs are a primary source, and RFC 2100 is actually a joke - one of a series of 1 April RFCs. I considered whether the subject is really DNS, but no - naming schemes exist in other spaces and domains too. LDAP, for instance. But what makes the scheme notable is likely the addition of structure. Ad hoc naming is not an independently notable subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree that DEMOLISH does not apply here. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article needs to be improved, but it definetly can be and is notable. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge I just don't see any evidence that this is a sufficiently notable subject for a stand-alone article. Mangoe's nomination puts it very well, the smattering of coverage that has been brought up here doesn't seem to me to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing how this is distinctly and coherently notable. It seems all of this info is better covered within its particular context at namespace? JoelleJay (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with a redirect to directory service, per Sirfurboy. JoelleJay (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Directory service. This one is tricky, but one thing I do believe is that the page should not be kept as it is. It has been around 20 years and it has not really settled on any independently notable subject. But a redirect to namespace, which seems like a good idea, is perhaps not the best as the namespaces that page primarily talks about are concerned with coding. Network naming gets talked about in various texts, but usually with respect to naming services and distributed systems. For instance Forouzan's Data Communication and Networking [13], page 910 in the fifth edition, discusses naming but in the context of the discussion of the DNS. The notable subject is the directory service, and the directory service page also links to namespace. Naming a computer is no more notable than naming anything else as a concept in itself, but naming computers in a manner that allows for distributed systems to uniquely identify nodes is indeed a notable subject, and there are plenty of papers and discussions of this. Indeed, whole books about it. So I think a redirect to Directory Service is suitable. There is, perhaps, a spinout page from Directory Services that is possible - an analysis of naming schemes (LDAP has a lot of literature on that) but I don't think this title is quite right for that, and as a result the content of this page is trying to be one thing and also another. If this were kept, I would want it kept on the basis it would be renamed and appropriately focussed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see the directory service article when looking for existing articles. A redirect seems like a good idea. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more discussion about the merge/redirect target
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment So I think we have a consensus on what the thing is that people in the discussion are thinking of, but there's still the problem that the name we have here is patently something someone made up one day. GBook hits are zero; JSTOR hits are zero; GHits, as I said above, are very few and seem likely to be the product of page scraping. Is there any reason not to delete a term that nobody is actually using? Mangoe (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the name is the only problem, it would be preferable to rename instead of deleting. ~Kvng (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Castolin Eutectic[edit]

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

This article has had maintained tags on it since 2019. While some promotional language has been removed, the article still only cites primary sources. Since the notability has been in question for 5 years, I think it might be time to review whether this article should remain. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diamonds are For Cocktails[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Deleted at AfD in 2022, but recreated recently. However, the sources are no better – they are all primary interviews with the author or PR websites (or both) and don't pass RS. The only claim of notability is a supposed endorsement from a Fox News reporter, but I can't find any direct proof of this, only reports of it by Zarah herself or in other non-RS sources. Richard3120 (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Cesar Bota[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, no usable citations included in the article; an internet search turned up database entries for "THE GRACIES AND THE BIRTH OF VALE TUDO", but no coverage that could serve towards writing an article about that film or Bota. Page also apparently has a history of WP:UPE. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Brazil. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Photography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Malitz[edit]

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

Autobiography sourced only to a database entry. No publications found in MathSciNet or Google Scholar; no evidence of academic notability nor of notability for more than one thing. My prod saying all this was removed by User:Kvng with no justification for disputing it, and with a suggestion to instead merge to positive set theory. There was nothing to merge; everything in this article was already there. I removed it from the positive set theory article as well because it was unsourced and had no hope of being sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with proposal to delete. Gumshoe2 (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers published in Kalgoorlie-Boulder[edit]

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

Proposed merge into Goldfields-Esperance newspapers. As far as I can see, all of these papers are already listed at the linked article. Does not seem necessary to me. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 17:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Australia. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 17:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Though a merge may be the outcome of an AFD debate, there are other venues for proposing mergers. Geschichte (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, this is my first time proposing something for merging. I'll have a thorough look for information on merging articles. Thanks for pointing this out. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 17:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Goldfields-Esperance newspapers per nom and WP:PAGEDECIDE. The amount of information available on the topic suggests it would be better handled by using the larger geographic scope. Sdkb ^talk 17:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matteo Zanusso[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Italy national rugby union players as I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. The most I found was a few sentences here, which would not suffice. JTtheOG (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Italy. JTtheOG (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Think there's enough in Italian wikipedia and Italian sourcing for a weak keep, would have no issue with redirecting if deemed not. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enrico Patrizio[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Italy national rugby union players as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Italy. JTtheOG (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Italy national rugby union players Online coverage does look to be limited, but there may be some offline. Redirect is suitable for now if anything crops up in the future. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Cerioni[edit]

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

Poorly sourced rugby BLP with no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of in-depth coverage available online. All I found was routine transfer news (1, 2). JTtheOG (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Italy. JTtheOG (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Struggling to see anything other than transactional announcements. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What Have We Become? (song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Created by a SPA who appears to be behind several articles related to Zarah (entertainer), none of which appear to be notable. The best source here, American Songwriter, is an article about the song which is allegedly the influence for this one... naturally, it has nothing to do with this song and doesn't mention Zarah at all. Once you remove this and the source from Zarah's own website, we are left with four sources, none of which pass RS, and all of which are PR sites that advertise for submissions for review – the interviews in Illustrate and A&R Factory (something of a giveaway there) are anonymous. Looking at the profile of the writer behind the Turtle Tempo piece, it states that her job at the website is being "tasked with approaching upcoming artists, offering them a chance to garner a larger fanbase via the medium of paid reviews or interviews."[14] So all of this is appears to be paid-for promotion, and there is no evidence of independent notability. Richard3120 (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Residencial Manuel A. Perez[edit]

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

Fails GNG, NGEO, NBUILDING. All sources are to news coverage, mostly of crime, that mentions the subject in passing as the location of the crime but does not provide significant coverage. No SIGCOV comes up in a BEFORE search either. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Puerto Rico. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 13*Keep May 2024 (UTC)
Keep They aren't just passing mentions, there are also the article headlines. Plus the fact the place is on the news brings it notability. People in Puerto Rico talk about the place daily. Jeanette Tu Loca Sexy Martin (aqui?) 19:31, 13 May, 2024 (UTC)

Being in the headline is not the test of significant coverage. The articles are about other things in the news (crimes, individual people) that happen to mention the event happened/people lived in the Residencial Manuel A. Perez. Those events/people are getting the significant coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PackCC[edit]

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

page does not seem to meet the nobility criteria and most content is copied from the GitHub page; the author of the page is also the creator of the software Howrued (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamharian Perfumes[edit]

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

Previously prodded, fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage, almost entirely promotional. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Claude Saclag[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:NKICK criteria, as well as does not have significant coverage. Passing mentions and event results are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Lekkha Moun (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to WP:WPMA/N, I believe he meets criteria 3 & 4. #3 because he is a former world champion (2014 Sanda World Cup Champion) and #4 because he has won multiple medals from tournaments such as the Asian Games and the Southeast Asian Games. D-Flo27 (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Asian Games, SEA Games and "Wushu Championships" do not constitute enough weight in martial arts to warrant a wiki page. We have to rely on WP:GNG and subject needs to have significant coverage in independent and reliable media outlet. Lekkha Moun (talk) 06:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really? The Asian Games and the SEA Games are the biggest tournaments in their regions. There are other Asian martial artists who have claimed notability through these tournaments such as Agatha Wong, Sun Peiyuan, Naorem Roshibina Devi, and a lot more. D-Flo27 (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you read on the top of WP:WPMA/N, it states that this is " an essay on notability". It is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guidelines and in no way supersedes WP:BIO. Therefore as of right now, their discipline "Wushu" do not have established notability guidelines. I have not taken a look at the three other subjects you mentioned, but the only way for them to have a stand alone article is by meeting WP:GNG. As for Jean Claude Saclag, routine coverage of events and lack of WP:SIGCOV  , I don't see indication that we have the type of coverage required to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Best regards.   Lekkha Moun (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward J. Crawford[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was first deleted in 2019 and despite being a WP:REFBOMB this new incarnation shows no additional evidence of notability under GNG or NBIO. Coverage is in school publications; WP:TRADES publications like local business journals and magazines (and without feature-length coverage that would permit the use of trade pubs to establish notability); self-published sources; or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs in longer lists of people. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Military, Louisiana, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Killi Luqman (2017)[edit]

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

Fails GNG as well WP:NEVENT - not WP:LASTING —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Afghanistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chamak Damak[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 15:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't even find ROTM coverage in RS, much less sig/in-depth coverage as required by GNG and it clearly fails WP:NTV also. Nominator beat me to AfD'd this one. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails WP: Notability (television) and WP:GNG. Doesn't provide substantial material to be notable on Google search as well. Sameeerrr (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Lawlor[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a sports figure, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for sportspeople. To be fair, at the time this was first created, Wikipedia had a consensus that simple presence at the Olympics was an automatic inclusion lock regardless of medal placement or sourcing issues -- but that's long since been deprecated, and a non-medalist now has to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability.
But a WP:BEFORE search turned up very little that could be used to salvage the article: apart from Olympic results reporting itself, I largely just get glancing namechecks of his existence and local high-school-athlete coverage rather than coverage that's substantively about him in any notability-building sense. I've further been completely unable to verify this article's claim that he was born in Sudbury — even the database entry present here as the article's sole source fails to claim that, and his local high-school-athlete coverage is found in Ottawa, not Sudbury. (And yes, I get that it's possible for people to be born in one place and then move to another, but we still need to be able to verify claims about a person's birthplace.)
Finishing ninth in an Olympic event just isn't "inherently" notable enough anymore to exempt him from ever having to have more reliable source coverage than I've been able to find. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Besides raising chickens in his backyard [15] -and it might not even be this person- nothing for notability. Aylmer is near Ottawa. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. @Oaktree b and Bearcat: Passes GNG, see coverage at newspapers.com: Ottawa Citizen feature (p2), more Ottawa Citizen, Harbor City Star, and The Standard. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ottawa Citizen is the local hometown coverage I mentioned in my nomination statement, the St. Cat's Standard is just a short blurb that nominally verifies a fact but is not long enough to imbue said fact with any notability points, and the Harbour City Star hit is literally just an advertorial to sell aquatic sport clothing that Tyler Lawlor is modelling, not an article about Tyler Lawlor doing anything noteworthy. So the Ottawa Citizen is still all we've actually got for GNG-worthy coverage, and that's still "local guy" coverage in his hometown newspaper (i.e. not enough if it's all he's got). Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ottawa Citizen is one of the largest newspapers in Canada, and as such should be given the full weight of a normal significant source (esp. considering that locality of coverage is irrelevant). The Harbour City Star piece: yes, it is about a business of Lawlor's, but it seems to be written by a valid journalist by a valid company (Southam Newspapers, owned by Postmedia Network) – it seems to have enough details on him IMO to be categorized as covering him "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" – as far as I'm aware a source does not need to cover someone for them doing something one subjectively things is "noteworthy" to be considered significant. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody dismissed the Ottawa Citizen on size grounds, but all newspapers can still cover local residents in local-interest contexts that don't necessarily clinch nationalized or internationalized notability in and of themselves for a person who has virtually nothing wider than just their hometown. For instance, a restaurant owner in Byward Market is not going to clear GNG just because a restaurant critic reviewed his restaurant in the Citizen, a local artist winning a local arts award from the SAW Gallery isn't going to clear NARTIST standards on that basis alone, and on and so forth. Even The New York Times features coverage of local people in local-interest contexts that don't establish permanent national or international notability all by themselves just because their local coverage came from The New York Times instead of the Palookaville Herald, because GNG does take into account the context of what the person is getting covered for and not just the raw number of hits that exist. Bearcat (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's still only one source, I don't see quite enough for GNG or any sport notability as being met. I don't think we have notability, still a !delete for me. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b and @Bearcat, there were actually four newspaper sources provided, not just one. Remember that a person does not need to be the sole subject (or even a primary subject) of a work for it to satisfy WP:GNG. I also disagree that "local" coverage is any less legitimate than national coverage in these papers, because their audience is the same, i.e. all Times subscribers will read it even if the subject is a New Yorker. For your specific examples (Byward Market restaurant owner, SAW Gallery award winner) – do you have specific examples of these types of subjects having articles deleted by community consensus? --Habst (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of the geographic range of a newspaper's readership, it's a question of the context in which the coverage is being given. There have been literally thousands of articles taken to AFD and deleted on the grounds that having a couple of hits of local coverage was not in and of itself enough to overcome the person's lack of a nationalized or internationalized notability claim — high school athletes (e.g. Marquis Fleming), local artists (Laura BenAmots), mayors (Cathy Heron) or municipal councillors (Corky Boozé) or unelected candidates for office (Tiffany Ford), people whose sole claim of notability was winning a minor award of exclusively local significance (Bob Frantz), restaurateurs (Emilio Vitolo) and on and so forth.
Again, I didn't say that local coverage is entirely inadmissible for use — but having a couple of hits of local coverage isn't enough all by itself to overcome not passing WP:NSPORT. And I already addressed above why the St. Catharines Standard (a short blurb) and Harbour City Star (a fashion advertorial in which he's present as a model and not as the subject of discussion) aren't helping. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat, thanks, I am interested in seeing at least one of the thousands of examples. Of the ones you linked,

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marquis Fleming: Only one source was provided actually mentioning the subject by name, more are provided in this AfD.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura BenAmots: No source links provided, not able to find any doing a web search either.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cathy Heron: Only one link provided, five are provided here.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corky Boozé: Subject is a U.S. politician, and Wikipedia articles involving post-1992 U.S. politics have higher quality standards than those for sportspeople. Despite this, only two different newspaper sources were provided (plus one dead link), while this AfD has three different publications cited above.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany Ford: Again a politician, and no source links were provided.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Frantz: Only one source link provided and it's a dead link.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emilio Vitolo: No source links provided.

Based on this, it seems like it is very rare, if it has ever happened, that an article with as much coverage provided here has ever been deleted. I have an open mind, but I haven't been able to find any examples. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the number of links that are or aren't listed in the AFD discussion that matters, it's the number of sources that were or weren't present in the article that matters. They're all articles that cited a handful of local-interest coverage, which was deemed not sufficient in and of itself to exempt them from having to clear the defined SNGs for their occupations just because the articles had a bit of local-interest coverage in them. The rules for notability of people always work the same way no matter what occupation they were in: either they have an "inherent" notability claim that meets a defined notability criterion for their occupation, or they have a depth and range and volume of coverage that marks them out as a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm among all the other people in the same occupation who have failed to meet the "inherent" notability criteria. Local politicians do not get articles just because they have a couple of hits of local coverage; local restaurateurs do not get articles just because they have a couple of hits of local coverage; athletes who haven't otherwise passed NSPORTS do not get articles just because they have a couple of hits of local coverage; and that always works the same way across all occupations. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat, I understand the distinction you are making, but it is one without a difference with respect to this discussion, because if we don't have the links to the actual sources, then we can't say that those articles were more well-sourced than this one.

> Local politicians do not get articles just because they have a couple of hits of local coverage; local restaurateurs do not get articles just because they have a couple of hits of local coverage; athletes who haven't otherwise passed NSPORTS do not get articles just because they have a couple of hits of local coverage

^ The above is what I'm looking for even one example of. All of the above AfDs linked have less available sources than this article, regardless of profession, so I don't think they are analogous. Until I find any evidence otherwise, I would have to disagree with the quoted text. --Habst (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per BeanieFan11. Themanwithnowifi (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per provided sources establishing WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. See my reply above to address nominator concerns. --Habst (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The current sources read like local people doing local things of [[WP:ROTM]. Let'srun (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Above !vote comes from an editor indefinitely blocked for AFD disruption. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Albanians killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine[edit]

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

Fails NLIST. Two item list, topic has not been discussed as a group by reliable sources. Neither of the two items is notable, article serves no purpose per CLN. // Timothy :: talk 14:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content should be moved to Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War if notable, the article could be made a redirect to there if not notable. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Albania, and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eat This Much[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:PRODUCT at the moment, unfortunately. The CNN article seems borderline, but I could not find anything else meeting even that standard. Broader topic of "meal planning service" might satisfy NLIST though, in which case it may be possible to mention and redirect it there in the future. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Technology, and Websites. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obinna Sunday Ejianya[edit]

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

Note that this same article existed at the title Godswill Obinna Ejianya, which was moved back to draftspace by the creator within minutes of my initiating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godswill Obinna Ejianya and then blanked, but was created at this new title almost simultaneously with all of that. So it isn't eligible for immediate speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted content, but the actual issues here haven't changed at all: it's still a semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a businessperson, still not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for businesspeople.
As always, businesspeople are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing -- but of the six footnotes here, two of them (actually one, reduplicated as two distinct footnotes for no obvious reason) are just "covering" him in the context of turning 50, which is not a notability claim in and of itself, and the other four are all covering him in the context of receiving a local "man of the year" award that isn't highly prominent enough to be a notability-making award. And even more interestingly, those four sources are all virtually identical in wording despite seemingly coming from four different media outlets, meaning that it's really either a wire service article or a self-published press release from the subject. But four media outlets reprinting the same article adds up to one GNG point, not four — we're counting the number of distinct articles, not the number of newspapers that reprint the same article — which means he hasn't actually been shown to pass GNG.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier published article; Godswill Obinna Ejianya was deleted because there seemed to be a name disparity issue. All cited media outlets has articles on the persona which I believe makes it notable. I have no idea why four different media outlets will publish same word to word articles about a person. Sayvhior (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Rosenfeldt[edit]

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

Hi; this is my first time both using Twinkle and participating in the AfD process, so try not to flame me too hard if I make a mistake here. This article has somewhat poor sourcing and I've done a check for his name to try and find anything on him but I've come up short. If anyone can find better sources for this, that would be great, but I'm unable to on my end. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and South Africa. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Denmark, Switzerland, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing in the article suggests notability per WP:MUSICBIO and I'm unable to find any significant coverage online. InDimensional (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: High ranking in a major TV contest gives notability but I'd suggest that coverage in English will be hard to find Sansbarry (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I found a couple of profile articles about him: in the Danish magazine Familie Journalen [16]; and on TV2 (Denmark) [17]. I don't think being a "semifinalist" on the TV Talent show is particularly impressive -- there are 35 semifinalists each year. But the two articles may be enough to pass WP:GNG. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These seem fine; it's probably the language barrier that makes finding sources harder. If someone's willing to add them in somehow (I can't at this exact moment) then I'd probably be willing to keep the article. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nothing wrong with submitting an AfD and not being 100% sure (I have withdrawn a good few after somebody came up with dece sources). jp×g 🗯️ 01:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Promo interview, fails WP:IS	1. Isbrand, Johan (8 November 2019). "Daniel creates magic in the Circus Building: I have taught myself everything". Familie Journalen.
Brief, but may meet WP:SIGCOV	2. ^ Jump up to:a b c Hansen, Sebastian Myrup (31 March 2018). "Was tapped on the shoulder - two years later he had been all over Denmark". TV 2 (Denmark).
Performance annoucement, fails WP:IS	3. ^ Daniel Rosenfeldt Performing at Skanderborg Festival 2014
Performance annoucement, fails WP:IS	4. ^ "Daniel Rosenfeldt Live at Louisiana". Archived from the original on 2015-05-09. Retrieved 2015-02-24.
Show promo trailer, fails WP:IS	5. ^ Det Stribede Show Trailer
Name mention, fails WP:SIGCOV	6. ^ Hansen, Sebastian Myrup (31 March 2018). "Dansedrenge gik videre til finalen i 'Danmark har talent'". TV2.
Database listing	7. ^ Discogs profile: Daniel Rosenfeldt

Nothing found in BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS. One ref above may meet SIGCOV, but that is not enough to show notability. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 12:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To remind you, sourcing level requirement for BLP is more stringent than GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Timothy's source review. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash Sirohiya[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a publisher, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for publishers. The main claim of notability stated here is that he exists, which isn't "automatically" notable in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him and his work, but two of the four footnotes here are a directory entry and his company's own contact information on its own self-published website, neither of which are support for notability -- and the other two are both dead links whose former content is unverifiable for the purposes of figuring out whether they supported notability or not, and even those were just jengastacked onto a statement of his existence rather than being used to actually expand the article with content.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to say more than "he exists", or having to cite more and better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Nepal, and India. Bearcat (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 SAM Air Cessna Grand Caravan crash[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. Event doesn't meet the event criteria and the general notability guideline. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to second this, the article is a stub documenting a disaster, i'd agree with deletion of this article in this sense. Lolzer3000 (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hexaware Technologies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tone seems improved but there does not seem to be any ORGCRIT eligible sources since the previous AFD. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and India. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Station (Florida)[edit]

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

Cannot locate any in-depth, significant coverage to demonstrate that this nightclub passes WP:GNG. Some passing mentions, but that's all I can locate. -- Mike 🗩 19:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Music, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP it's a good article. Evangp (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Evangp (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Richard3120 (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC) Note to closing admin Richard3120 is a person that wants to delete this article. Evangp (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC) It's necessary to mark who created the article in these discussions. – The Grid (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any policy-based arguments for keeping? 'It's a good article' is a textbook example of an argument to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:LIKE). -- Mike 🗩 17:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no, that is plenty sufficient as a basis to keep this article. Evangp (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP it's a good article. Evangp (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC) Duplicate vote stricken. -- Mike 🗩 20:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG, WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH. The only thing that can be verfied is that this was a venue in Fern Park, Florida – everything else is original research by the article creator. Setlist.fm fails WP:USERG and is not a reliable source, and for some reason a picture of a T-shirt with the venue's logo is considered evidence of notability. That leaves two very brief passing mentions in the local newspaper, which tell you nothing about the venue. Richard3120 (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not notable. And not a good article either.TheLongTone (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emji Spero[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for writers. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work in third-party media -- but this is referenced entirely to sources directly affiliated with the claims, such as the promotional pages of the subject's books on the self-published websites of their own publishers, with not even one hit of proper GNG-building media coverage shown at all.
There is a literary award in the mix here which would be a valid notability claim if the article were properly sourced, but as a specialty award it still isn't "inherently" notable enough to confer an instant inclusion freebie in the absence of any GNG-worthy sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Sexuality and gender, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

São José Incident of 1674[edit]

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

AI hallucination. WP:BEFORE check brings up no sources, and the only source in the article does not mention this incident at all. It instead briefly talks about an unnamed ship being seized in the north of Africa and their passengers being sold as slaves, which bears no resemblance to this article's subject. – Hilst [talk] 12:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Africa, and Portugal. – Hilst [talk] 12:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 as a hoax and sanction the creator. Mccapra (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that the user has created a number of similarly-sourced articles which should be investigated as well. See here for the list. Greenman (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under criterion G3. Blatant hoax. The page creator has created numerous pages with a similar style using the same source and page without adding any other sources.^[1] Every article feels written using an LLM. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Salgado, Augusto Alves (2022). Viagens e Operações Navais (1668-1823) (PDF) (in Portuguese). Lisbon: Academia de Marinha. p. 13.

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 ‎ closed as creator moved the page back to draftspace themselves a few minutes after this was opened. Bearcat (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Godswill Obinna Ejianya[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a businessperson, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for businesspeople.
As always, businesspeople are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing -- but of the six footnotes here, two of them (actually one, reduplicated as two distinct footnotes for no obvious reason) are just "covering" him in the context of turning 50, which is not a notability claim in and of itself, and the other four are all covering him in the context of receiving a local "man of the year" award that isn't highly prominent enough to be a notability-making award. And even more interestingly, those four sources are all virtually identical in wording despite seemingly coming from four different media outlets, meaning that it's really either a wire service article or a self-published press release from the subject. But four media outlets reprinting the same article adds up to one GNG point, not four — we're counting the number of distinct articles, not the number of newspapers that reprint the same article — which means he hasn't actually been shown to pass GNG.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Bearcat (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 and/or G11. Mccapra (talk) 12:51, 13 May 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Education and Research Opportunities in the UK[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/H.E.R.O. (Higher Education and Research Opportunities in the UK)

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

Defunct goverment website without any claim to notability. previous AfD was "no consensus" but keep arguments didn't seem to go past USEFUL (even then I can't tell if they were saying that the article is useful or the website itself) and the article has not had any sources since then.

The generic name makes searching difficult, but I find it highly unlikely that what was only ever an information portal would have seen significant coverage. I did find all of one entry in a directory which doesn't really establish anything. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Websites, and United Kingdom. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced and nothing to suggests notability.TheLongTone (talk) 14:01, 13 May 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.

Davide Sanclimenti[edit]

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

Not meeting WP:NACTOR. Not enough coverage to establish the notability. - The9Man ^(Talk) 11:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 11:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ekin-Su Cülcüloğlu - both of his notable TV appearences featured them as a couple. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar Shandermani[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:NPROF, and not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can’t read Farsi but he may be a GNG pass. A Google books search brings up his name in multiple publications though I can’t judge which are in-depth or independent. Mccapra (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra Yes, these are things I did as WP:BEFORE, they're mostly not about him directly but about events he's involved in or something of that nature. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chargrill Charlie's[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCOMPANY, lacks WP:CORPDEPTH. Noting the company’s website is a primary source and not independent. Previous PROD removed by anon IP, possible WP:SOCKPUPPET, without addressing the issue of notability. The article’s creator is currently blocked for disrupting other articles. Anon IP is potentially working around current block. Dan arndt (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Australia. Dan arndt (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the issues raised in the nom are not themselves justification for deleting the article. The current sourcing is poor but I have been able to find quite a bit of decent coverage such as this from the Financial Review, Mosman Living, Hospitality magazine, and the Sydney Morning Herald. This was from a fairly quick search. AusLondonder (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The article needs improving but a Google search found a number of sources that can contribute towards establishing notability under WP:NCORP. GMH Melbourne (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Conducted a BEFORE and found some useful sources. X (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PAG Asia Capital. This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as what seems to be the case here where most of the references rely entirely on information from the execs or the company. The references included above are thinly disguised promos or regurgitated company announcements or PR - I mean the articles in hospitality magazine (almost entirely consiste of quotes from company exec) and Goodfood (7 sentences, 2 of which are direct quotes) both use the same (PR supplied) pic even though they're written 3 years apart and neither of them come anywhere close to meeting ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. None of the references come close and I cannot locate anything on this company that meets GNG/NCORP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HighKing (talk • contribs) 18:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of the sources presented in this AfD would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An Ordinary Case[edit]

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

Disputed Draftification, suffering from WP:TOOSOON, and probably WP:NFILM. Draftify 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Will premiere at Cannes in a week or so. https://www.festival-cannes.com/f/le-fil/ ; https://variety.com/2024/film/global/cannes-film-festival-2024-lineup-1235966528/ Main actor/director is extremely notable so that there's no doubt that the article will exist. (French title: Le Fil) Filming has received coverage in French media. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Several reliable sources covered the film in details, eg. Variety[18], Screen Daily [19], Monaco-Matin [20], and the film already has a set premiere date (and it is in about a week time from now so production should have completed), doesn't fulfill WP:NFF.—Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 19:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's silly to nominate a film as too soon eight days before the premiere. It would be deleted on the 20th and then re-created on the 21st. This is a waste of time. Toughpigs (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sukaina Khan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. Previously deleted via AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sukaina Khan —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to meet WP:NACTOR with various significant roles in notable productions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I was unable to verify if she had significant roles. As I said in my nom, merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one inherent notable. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note The creator of this BLP has peculiar editing history. I've raised concerns about it on WP:ANI. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She is notable actress and she started working as child actress in supporting roles. Now she does lead roles as well and she does modeling as well recently she is working drama Sultanat on Hum TV.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC))^[1][reply]

References

^ "Suqaynah Khan making waves". Magazine - The Weekly.

I acknowledge that she is an actress and has appeared in TV dramas, which naturally garners some media coverage. However, this interview alone ( a primary source) is definitely not sufficient to establish that she had significant roles. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 08:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as per My, oh my! (Mushy Yank).182.182.97.3 (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

This is akin to WP:PERX —Saqib (talk | contribs) 18:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and found in BEFORE fail WP:SIRS, nothing from neutral, independent, reliable sources addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found promo material, interviews, name mentions/listings, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 12:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yonatan Steinberg[edit]

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

This appears to be a WP:BLP1E instance. There appears to little to no meaningful coverage of this individual as a subject before or after the one event involved, and all of the coverage on the en-wiki page is essentially obituary material and coverage. Based on this material as it is, as an encyclopedic entry the page devolves more towards WP:RESUME or WP:NOTMEMORIAL than anything else, with the material also largely coming from government and military obituaries, not independent RS. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like a significant figure, and we have managed to write a significant biography about him. PatGallacher (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:delete: this is one of about a dozen articles that seem to be violating WP:NOTMEMORIAL and linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_7. i've nominated those that i can, but many of them are additionally marked extended protected, which seems like an abuse of the designation in an effort to protect the pages from (rightful) editing and deletion. 814jjs (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC) not EC FortunateSons (talk) 09:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last comment may not have been encyclopedic, but I will reply anyway. These other articles may or may not be notable, but they should be considered on their own merits. If they are at the wrong protection level then I suggest raising this at WP:RPP. PatGallacher (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NOTMEMORIAL says "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet" [[{WP:GNG]]. This does not apply here. There are multiple secondary independent RS (Walla, Times of Israel) that provide coverage of the subject. Longhornsg (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Neither of the keep !votes really address the BLP1E argument advanced by the nominator. Relisting for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iftikhar A. Ayaz[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:PRIMARY: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." No secondary sources at all. AusLondonder (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Bilateral relations. AusLondonder (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG. @AusLondonder: Have added reliable secondary sources to the article now. Request withdrawal of AfD nomination. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of the sources you have added, I'm not sure a single one is actually significant coverage of him as an individual. One source is the Court Circular column in the Daily Telegraph which reports he awarded an Tuvalu Order of Merit to Prince William. Another article is about persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan which name-checks him. I'm not seeing this as meeting WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Iftikhar Ayaz easily satisfies criteria #1 of WP:ANYBIO, having received honours from Queen Elizabeth II as both a Knight Commander of the British Empire (KBE) and an Officer of the British Empire (OBE). On top of this, Ayaz satisfies WP:GNG, with significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, including this 2016 feature article published by AllAfrica.com, "Tanzanian Bestowed With Honours by Queen Elizabeth", which covers his entire life in considerable detail, from his early life and emigration from India to Tanzania; to his education in Tanzania and teacher training in Kenya; to his early career as a government education officer in Tanzania; his graduate studies in Britain; his return to Tanzania to found the Tanzanian Commonwealth Society; and his activism as a member of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. (Please log in to Wikipedia Library to read the full article on ProQuest.) The 2015 article in Rabwah Times, "Dr. Iftikhar Ahmad AYAZ awarded Knighthood by Queen Elizabeth II" covers additional detail about his work with the United Nations. Of course, in addition to all of this, as Honorary Consul for Tuvalu to the United Kingdom, he is frequently quoted on issues including climate change (such as in this 2007 article in Herald on Sunday in New Zealand "BRITAIN Plea to stop atolls sinking into Pacific", plus many others now cited in the article including the brief quotes in The Daily Telegraph and The Wall Street Journal Online. This article was in terrible shape when it was first nominated for deletion, but has been improved considerably (with room for further improvement and expansion), and overall it's quite a remarkable story of a life of a notable living person. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- specifically per Cielquiparle's analysis of criterion #1 of ANYBIO. Central and Adams (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware that ANYBIO #1 does not establish notability. WP:ANYBIO states clearly that "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." We still need significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erum Akhtar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. Furthermore, majority of cited sources fails WP:RS. No evidence indicating significant involvement in notable films, TV dramas, etc. being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. Previously deleted as per AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erum Akhtar —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is a well known actress. She started working in 1990 and she has portrayed leading roles in dramas now she does supporting roles as well sometimes lead roles.^[1](BeauSuzanne (talk) 05:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]

References

^ "معروف اداکارہ ارم اختر کی بیٹے کیساتھ تصاویر وائرل". Jang News.

Fyi, the comment above was made by the creator of the BLP. The reference they provided to establish WP:N is merely a sensational news story. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems to meet WP:NACTOR with various significant roles in notable productions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I was unable to verify if she had significant roles. As I said in my nom, merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one inherent notable. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR clearly. TheChronikler7 (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note The creator of this BLP has peculiar editing history. I've raised concerns about it on WP:ANI. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She has appeared in numerous notable dramas. I remember her in leading PTV dramas roles. She was a model as well.(2400:ADCC:160:1F00:C166:DEA8:28EC:A094 (talk) 10:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Not enough! you've to provide references to support claims made about her significant roles —Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep- meets WP:NACTOR, rationale provided for deletion is weak.182.182.97.3 (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

This is akin to WP:JUSTAPOLICY —Saqib (talk | contribs) 18:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further review of the sources, and to allow for further discussion within this debate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Cape Verde, Washington, D.C.[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No secondary sources and no in-depth coverage available. AusLondonder (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Ivory Coast, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Babcock-Macomb House, its location. The fact that it is now the embassy is stated there. Mangoe (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Babcock–Macomb House per Mangoe. Excellent example of a subject that benefits from consolidation with an article covering the same topic. BD2412 T 16:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haini Wolfgramm[edit]

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

Member of a notable band, but per WP:MUSICBIO, not sufficiently notable independent of the band for a separate article. In a WP:BEFORE search, I can only find passing mentions of him in articles about the band. The Grammy nomination was for the band. He and his large family were interviewed on a national TV programme in 1994, and that interview was covered by some other media, but that would appear to be WP:BLP1E, and doesn't quite get him over the line for WP:MUSICBIO. A redirect to the band article could be an alternative to deletion, but I'm bringing it here first for discussion. Wikishovel (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Wikishovel (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Jets (Minnesota band). He has done nothing independently notable outside the band, and the article is simply an attempt to fill space with some tidbits from his personal life. The fact that he owns a small record company could possibly be mentioned briefly at the band's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also recommend doing the same for Eugene Wolfgramm and Elizabeth Wolfgramm, for the exact same reasons. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German interventions in the Mexican Revolution[edit]

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

Synthetic. There seems to be insufficient treatment of German interference in the Mexican Revolution as a unified concept, only each incident. 📴 Remsense诉 10:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Germany, and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Germany–Mexico relations as ATD. Mccapra (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohanjit[edit]

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

Does not seem to have established notability in either English or Punjabi-language media. Remsense诉 10:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, Delhi, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination, clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Office[edit]

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

This is a borderline WP:A1 case: I am not sure whether the article is talking about one thing (are the offices organs, buildings, programs? It seems to state all three). Please, someone tell me if UNO are an identifiable thing that exist. Remsense诉 10:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A. K. Infradream Limited[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Formerly soft deleted per a rationale by User:TimothyBlue which I repeat verbatim:

Fails GNG and NCORP. Nothing found that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found routine mill news articles, mentions, nothing showing this meets NCORP, or SIGCOV meeting GNG. Remsense诉 09:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasoning. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Delta State Statesmen in the NFL draft[edit]

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

No evidence that this grouping meets WP:NLIST, the article is just a straight copy of the single database source. Can at most be merged to Delta State Statesmen and Lady Statesmen#Football if this is deemed of some importance after all. As can be seen at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 420#DraftHistory.com, there are concerns about the source anyway, so new creations based on this source should probably be stopped. Fram (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Education, American football, and Mississippi. Fram (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Yuan Hui[edit]

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

sources only or mainly about the company; not enough right now both reliable references and person's notability 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and China. Shellwood (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a very interesting figure to me as creator of Xiao-i robot and "China's ChatGPT". his views on AI have been featured extensively by Chinese media (when he spoke at Boao forum for Asia etc; has been attending this prestige event eight years in a row). believe the article can stand as being about an AI expert from China to diversify the discussion. also to mention the patent litigation with Apple is kinda intriguing as well. XiaoMming (talk) 09:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral mainly per nom. Are Caixin articles worth anything? Remsense诉 10:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MobPartner[edit]

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

prnewswire sites, etc. not seeing notability here. may be a good reason to redirect to Cheetah Mobile 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and France. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the possible destination-redirect page Cheetah Mobile Inc 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 09:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cheetah Mobile: per nomination, currently fails WP:NCORP. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guy St. Clair[edit]

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

I have made mistakes with AfD regarding academics before, and I do apologise if I'm wrong for this. After searching Google though, this article is the first thing to come up, and other sources that may be about him (not the Australian one, for which there are a few obituaries) are personal blogs or thing by him. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 07:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 07:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TalkLocal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. Previously deleted at AfD but I could not verify whether G4 applied. There is some not-totally-worthless Washington Post coverage [21] [22], but (1) the company is Maryland-based and so WaPo coverage is not as significant as it otherwise would be and (2) we need multiple independent sources. The rest are either unreliable or non-independent. My source checks covered both "TalkLocal" and its former name "Seva Call". – Teratix ₵ 05:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Maryland. – Teratix ₵ 05:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The WaPo coverage falls under ORGTRIV (product/funding announcements) IMO. Doesn't seem to be much after excluding the press releases in the TWL databases either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031 The article with funding in the title is not just a funding announcement. It has 10 (albeit kinda short) paragraphs unrelated to funding. The 2.6M is probably just a way for "clickbait".
Both of these sources do seem like borderline significant coverage, but as the nominator said, I'd prefer to see other media outlets' coverage. The only other sources I see are tech.co and Bisnow, which seem questionable to me. Thus, I'm currently thinking of a weakest keep. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do want to emphasise the WaPo sources are from its Capital Business column, which focuses on businesses local to Washington. I worry that if we were to take these as notability-providing coverage this would lead to a situation where run-of-the-mill businesses based in areas that happen to host high-quality newspapers will be disproportionately deemed notable. This seems to me exactly why we have WP:AUD. – Teratix ₵ 07:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Liu, I'm not sure if this is some sort of misunderstanding but any "funding announcement" is pretty much all like that. Like, literally just take a random sample of PR Newswire or TechCrunch or something, they all take a few sentences about the company from the press release or quotes, otherwise nobody, even the people who are interested in that kind of thing, would read it because there wouldn't be enough context to know what the company is. That doesn't make it independent or significant coverage. Basically every funding announcement is like this. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that is way more than a few sentences about the company. It has a lot more content than the average funding adcopy, and doesn't put the funding at the forefront either; in fact, it's not even news-format. If we removed the funding part from the article title, would you agree? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hanna's Into the Wild[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; no sources. Merge with Jack Hanna. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Animal, Biology, and United States of America. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Italy, Tirana[edit]

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

Article is based on 1 primary source and merely confirms it exists. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Albania, and Italy. LibStar (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DayxDay[edit]

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

I didn't find significant coverage in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Zella Day. toweli (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of MLS Cup broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS; one is a Twitter post, one is a now a dead link and the other is an announcment; neither doing anything to establish notability and the rest is unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Over 120 different sources have just been added, bumping the current total to about 123 references. If that doesn't establish the notability, then I really don't know what else there is that could do it. Also, Major League Soccer, is one of the big five North American professional sports leagues alongside the NFL, NBA, Major League Baseball, and NHL. It's also the official #1 professional soccer organization in North America, and has been since it launched in 1996. Broadcasting information about the MLS Cup is further detailed in the individual articles for each MLS Cup event. So it isn't like there is little remote interest about this particular subject overall. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This will definitely pass in 2009 but c'mon, this is 2024. Sourcing guidelines has changed since. First of all, Twitter does not count as a WP:RS, neither do YouTube. Bornon, Have you ever voted delete in any of my nominations? SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Big 5? LOL No such thing. Of course, there's the big 4. Back to the subject; these all consists of announcment posts, WP:PRIMARY, two are Twitter posts, most others are about the game and less the broadcasting. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:LISTN. I reviewed the sources and I can chalk it up to this: TV announcements (WP:NOTTVGUIDE), WP:PRIMARY from mlssoccer.com, and of course WP:ROUTINE announcements about the schedule/broadcasting team. None of which provide justifiability for this article's existence. Conyo14 (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacedFarmer: First of, why do you insist on replying to virtually single counterargument that somebody makes when you make an AFD? That's if you ask me, bordering on WP:BLUDGEONING? Also, like I said, there's broadcasting info in the individual MLS Cup articles themselves, such as the very first one in 1996. They're sourced or as good as the sources could possibly or remotely be. Here's some further articles about the MLS Cup broadcasting coverage, after the fact. BornonJune8 (talk) 7:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, Major League Soccer actually is considered part of the "Big 5" among North American professional sports franchises. Los Angeles Football Club, according to this article, was in the year 2023, valued at over $900 million. That's more than the Pittsburgh Penguins, Seattle Kraken, and Calgary Flames of the NHL. BornonJune8 (talk) 7:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Information about the viewership averages for the MLS Cup dating back to 1996 has now been added to the bottom of the article. BornonJune8 (talk) 7:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

List of Presidents Cup broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS; one is a dead link and the other two is a YouTube link; neither doing anything to establish notability and the rest is unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Golf, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:LISTN, all the sources I found were press releases or WP:ROUTINE mentions. This is just WP:TRIVIA. Conyo14 (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lin Zhijian's paper plagiarism case[edit]

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

I've already suggested what could happen here (WP:BLAR) but haven't gotten a bite yet; meanwhile I'm a bit worried about potential BLP issues here. Many of the sources are very low quality, and the article's level of detail seems idiosyncratic, unencyclopedic, and more than a little POV if treatment of plagiarism by other public figures in articles is anything to go by. I feel I have little choice than to bring it to AfD, I'm not even sure what else needs to be said about the plagiarism on Lin's own article. Remsense诉 06:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lin Chih-chien for all the reasons you give. Policies and guidelines may include WP:SUSTAINED and WP:POVFORK. As you say there's not a lot more to be said on Lin's article, although that section of his article could use a bit of editing. Oblivy (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KYNM-CD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New Mexico. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This article needs reducing, not deleting. Searched the station, and was able to pick up a source from the LPTV Report, and even then, the article seems to have enough to justify saving it. --Danubeball (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG and I did not find any significant coverage on the article or online. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arora Akanksha[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a former candidate who got exactly 0 votes. Since her 2021 run, she did absolutely nothing that is notable, so I'm renominating this article for deletion. All the sources fit squarely in WP:BLP1E territory. Mottezen (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Canada. Mottezen (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not passing WP:NPOL does not mean that she cannot be notable through any other criteria. The previous AfD from 2021 was kept on WP:GNG grounds; can you clarify why you think that result was incorrect? Curbon7 (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the previous nomination, the 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection was not yet completed. While, most !keep voters in the previous AfD did not even acknowledge the BLP1E issue, those that did exaggerated her importance in the election.

Example for exaggerated importance: even if the coverage relates to one event (where both the event & the role of the subject is significant); such articles are usually kept. and Invoking WP:BLP1E here isn't right because she pretty clearly has a significant role in the selection. Remember, she got no votes and no country endorsements, so her role in the event was insignificant. Even the UN ambassador for her own country didn't reply to her request for a meeting to discuss her candidacy.

Of note: about a year after the end of her campaign, her campaign website https://unow.org/ went down, and her last campaign post on facebook was before the 2021 selection. Arora moved on to become a lecturer. Mottezen (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as in the first AfD, I think the question of notability centers on WP:BLP1E, since WP:GNG is clearly met. BLP1E states that we should not have an article if all 3 conditions are met. Here, Criteria #1 and #2 are clearly met (only covered in context of one event, otherwise low-profile). So is Criteria #3 met? Well, the UN Secretary-General selection is clearly significant, so that's ok. Was Arora's role "not substantial" or "not well-documented"? As GNG is met, we can cross off "not well-documented." On "not substantial", we come to a matter of opinion. Since she received no backing or actual votes, I can see why those in favor of deletion would argue her role was insubstantial. On the other hand, this candidacy was outside the norms of the UN system and attracted reliable media coverage for that reason. I would argue it was substantial enough to merit her inclusion as a standalone page. However, a merge to 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection would also be a reasonable outcome. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection. Not convinced there's enough here for WP:GNG.-KH-1 (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a BLP1E similar to an article about a losing candidate - if there's anything to cover, it can be done on the election page. SportingFlyer T·C 04:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Ganesha811 points out, with the amount of coverage received this is not a case of Arora being "not well-documented". I see WP:GNG met in this case, and losses can be notable if covered in reliable secondary sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To those who argue her run for Secretary-general is "well-documented"... it's just not, especially in the crucial stages of her campaign. Let me illustrate: these are the dates the 9 secondary sources in the article were published:

AFP (February 19, 2021)
Arab News (April 4, 2021)
NYT (February 26, 2021)
Hindustan Times (February 27, 2021)
Business Today (March 2, 2021)
The Print (February 13, 2021)
CBC (April 4, 2021)
Forbes (May 7, 2021)
New Yorker (June 14, 2021)

Note that there is only one source published in June 2021, the month the vote took place, and thus the month that attention to the UNSG selection was most warranted. Sadly, the most crucial period of her campaign is barely documented. The June New Yorker source is also one of the lesser quality sources because it merely recounts a day the author spent with her; it's storytelling rather than journalistic work. Mottezen (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Again, our standard is to delete or merge articles on unsuccessful candidates for political office. This was kept at the first AfD likely erroneously because those arguing for keep either met GNG was met (which is irrelevant for candidates, who always meet GNG - political candidates are exceptions to GNG under NOT) and that her run was significant for purposes of BLP1E (she ended up not even being eligible to run.) She's also not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 06:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as BLP1E. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There are widely diverging opinions/arguments in this discussion on whether or not this subject meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. Editors who are proposing a Merge/Redirect outcome must provide a link to the target article they are proposing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hovhannes Mkrtchyan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Ineligible for PROD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Armenia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Single EL source in article is not an independent source addressing the subject directly and indepth, BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 23:56, 8 May 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!} 05:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

England women's cricket team in Ireland in 2024[edit]

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

Fails GNG, sources in article are passing mentions in routine sports news, nothing meeting WP:SIRS.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	1. "Ireland to host South Africa in Abu Dhabi". ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	2. ^ "Ireland to host South Africa in Abu Dhabi in September". CricTracker. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	3. ^ "Action-Packed Summer for Ireland Women, Sri Lanka and England Tours Await". Female Cricket. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	4. ^ "T20 World Cup in focus as Ireland outline busy summer schedule". International Cricket Council. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	5. ^ "Fixtures released for 2024". Cricket Ireland. Retrieved 13 May 2024.

Draft has been disputed. It is unlikely this match will generate WP:SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 04:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, Ireland, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace it's likely that when the event happens, it will gain coverage (as most England women's cricket internationals do). But too soon for a mainspace article, as it's 4 months until the event, and so 3+ months until coverage will likely start generating for this. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Per Joseph2302s comments. WP:TOOSOON currently. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabwean cricket team in Ireland in 2024[edit]

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

Fails GNG, sources in article are passing mentions in routine sports news, nothing meeting WP:SIRS.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	1. "Ireland to host South Africa in Abu Dhabi". ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	2. ^ "ICC confirm Ireland's fixture list for next four years". Belfast Telegraph. 18 August 2022. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	3. ^ "Ireland to host South Africa in Abu Dhabi in September". CricTracker. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	4. ^ "T20 World Cup in focus as Ireland outline busy summer schedule". International Cricket Council. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	5. ^ "Fixtures released for 2024". Cricket Ireland. Retrieved 13 May 2024.

Draft has been disputed. It is very unlikely this match will generate WP:SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 04:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, Zimbabwe, and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or, at best, draftify). No indication how this single/planned/"friendly" cricket match meets WP:NSPORTSEVENT and WP:GNG. If, after the event occurs, it is clear that WP:LASTING and WP:SIGCOV are met, then the article could be recreated. As it stands, this seems to be a classic example of why we have WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTCRYSTAL guidelines. Guliolopez (talk) 10:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoliy Korniychuk[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources found in article and BEFORE fail WP:SIRS. BEFORE found name mentions and government statements they released, nothing meet WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from independent reliable sources.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Appears to be the blog of a Russian nationalist and fiction writer. Fails WP:SIRS	1. "Anatoliy Korniychuk". web.archive.org. 2017-08-10. Retrieved 2024-05-07.
Government annoucement, fails WP:SIRS, does not provide indepth coverage needed for SIGCOV	2. ^ "On the dismissal of A. Korniychuk from the position of the head of the Pervomayska district state administration of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea" . Official website of the Parliament of Ukraine (in Ukrainian) . Retrieved 2024-05-07 .
Government annoucement, fails WP:SIRS, does not provide indepth coverage needed for SIGCOV	3. ^ "About the appointment of A. Korniychuk as the Permanent Representative of the President of Ukraine in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea" . Official website of the Parliament of Ukraine (in Ukrainian) . Retrieved 2024-05-07 .
Government annoucement, fails WP:SIRS, does not provide indepth coverage needed for SIGCOV	4. ^ "On the dismissal of A. Korniychuk from the post of Permanent Representative of the President of Ukraine in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea" . Official website of the Parliament of Ukraine (in Ukrainian) . Retrieved 2024-05-07 .
Appears to be the blog of a Russian nationalist and fiction writer. Fails WP:SIRS	5. ^ "Anatoliy Korniychuk". web.archive.org. 2017-08-10. Retrieved 2024-05-07.
Same as above	6. ^ "Anatoliy Korniychuk". web.archive.org. 2017-08-10. Retrieved 2024-05-07.
Same as above	7. ^ "Anatoliy Korniychuk". web.archive.org. 2017-08-10. Retrieved 2024-05-07.

// Timothy :: talk 04:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Subject would pass WP:NPOL as a member of the autonomous Verkhovna Rada of Crimea, but this needs a source. Curbon7 (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found the archived source here. Ivan Milenin (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request to close as Draft: Based on the response from the author here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ivan Milenin and poorly sourced BLPs, I request an uninvolved editor close this as Draft to give the author time to work on sources. // Timothy :: talk 15:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General (film)[edit]

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

Can't seem to find any credible sources about it. It looks like the person who created the article only used the IMDB as a reference. Okmrman (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Germany. Okmrman (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the current state of the page, and with all due respect to its creator, a speedy deletion should be considered. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(But apparently CSD was declined in the past). @Dr. Blofeld:, hello, do you happen to remember anything else about that film (director, original title, cast)? I could try to help and improve it but I need more than just the country, year and this very generic title. Thanks. (even the original IMDb link is not giving any info). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, couldn't even see it on German wiki. I've db authored it but if that isn't accepted Speedy delete. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maicol Azzolini[edit]

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

Italian rugby player who fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I found this interview and a couple of transactional announcements (1, 2, 3), but nothing substantial. JTtheOG (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Italy. JTtheOG (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think there is just about enough here to suggest a WP:GNG pass. Obviously a lot of team announcements and transactional stuff, but there are a few bits in there that could pass WP:GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aida Vee[edit]

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

lack of notability. little to no 3rd party articles detailing artist Minmarion (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Music, Africa, and Uganda. Minmarion (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Seems to have enough sources to satisfy the WP:GNG criteria. ([23][24][25]). GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Franco (soccer)[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Joeykai (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PES PU College, Mandya[edit]

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

The references do not indicate that the subject passes the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for organizations, and a quick search for sources turned up nothing to disprove that. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Karnataka. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamath Shoffner[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Joeykai (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], among many more sources. Ongoing coaching career with pro Belgian team (helping them reach semifinal of Belgian Cup) and has coached one of most high profile Luxembourg teams (F91 Dudelange) and was assistant of Luxembourg natiomal team and a Major League Soccer team, not to mention a pro playing career. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPM Govt High School, Adavimallanakeri[edit]

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

This is a contested draftification. The references do not indicate that the subject passes the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for organizations, and a quick search for sources turned up nothing to disprove that. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Karnataka. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the sources meet WP:SIGCOV, and the single sentence of article barely makes grammatical sense. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources found (outside the ones provided by the article). No prejudice towards a redirect to Advimallanakeri as well. Sohom (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck It, I Love You (Malcolm Middleton song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC; lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, and has been tagged for notability for over a decade. BilledMammal (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A Brighter Beat per WP:NSONG. 162 etc. (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A Brighter Beat: Other than the paragraph in this article, I could only find passing mentions of the song. Shows no signs of notability; Big Yawn is a blog and gives me no immediate reason to believe it would pass a reliability check. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hayeson Pepito[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Filipino men's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Philippines. JTtheOG (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pink II[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NALBUM. Single source in article is to a message forum, nothing found in BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject (the album) directly and indepth by independent reliable sources. Nothing is sourced for a merge, I don't think a redirect is useful or appropriate. // Timothy :: talk 02:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lancey Foux: Found no coverage myself. Redirecting existing albums/songs to the artist's page is standard AtD. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrella fund[edit]

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

Failing notability that contains a single source only. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 12:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve the article a lot. The concept of “umbrella fund” or “fund with sub-funds” is certainly notable in UK law. [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]. So meets WP:WEBCRIT. Contributor892z (talk) 05:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen Brown (artist)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an artist and writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for artists or writers. As always, creative professionals are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists -- the notability test doesn't hinge on sourcing their work to itself as proof that it exists, it hinges on sourcing their work to external validatation of its significance, through independent third-party reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work in media and/or books.
But this is referenced almost entirely to directly affiliated primary sources -- the self-published websites of galleries that have exhibited her work, "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations she's associated with, etc. -- and the only footnotes that represent any kind of third-party coverage are a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person and a single article in the local newspaper of her own hometown, which doesn't represent enough coverage to get her over the bar all by itself.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Women, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: subject of a 16 minute segment on CBC radio, holds a residency, has exhibited in many exhibitions. Plus, this well-referenced article seems to be the work of a new editor participating in an editathon, who submitted their work to AfC and had it approved, and has since created another well-referenced biography of a different artist; to delete this would be a slap in the face for a serious new contributor to the encyclopedia. (I was initially suspicious of COI or paid editing because I noticed that the editor had made 10 varied edits a little while before starting this article, but I note that the artist's name was on the list of "Suggestions for notable artists / writers / curators / contributors, etc. without articles:" at Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver/ArtAndFeminism 2024, so I believe this art historian is a genuine enthusiastic new editor in the field of artist biographies.) PamD 11:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artists do not become notable for having exhibited in gallery shows by sourcing those gallery shows to content self-published by those galleries (as was done here) — artists only become notable for having exhibited in gallery shows if you can source the gallery shows to third-party content about the gallery shows, such as a newspaper or magazine art critic reviewing said show, but not a single gallery show here has cited the correct kind of sourcing to make her notable for that.

And the CBC source is an interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, which is a kind of source that we're allowed to use for supplementary verification of stray facts in an article that has already passed WP:GNG on stronger sources but not a kind of source we can use to bring the GNG in and of itself, because it isn't independent of her. And no, articles aren't exempted from having to pass GNG just because they came out of editathons, either: editathons still have to follow the same principles as everybody else, and the articles resulting from them still have to properly source their notability claims. Bearcat (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the CBC radio piece is an interview, surely her selection as the subject of an interview in a series on a major radio station is an indicator of notability? As is her selection for two residencies: the organisations hosting the residencies are independent of the artist, and there are sources from those organisations. PamD 21:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The CBC interview is from one of the CBC's local programs on one of its local stations, not from the national network, so it isn't automatically more special than other interviews just because it came from a CBC station instead of a Corus or Pattison or Rogers station. So it isn't enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's the only non-primary source she has.

It isn't enough that the organizations hosting the residencies are independent of the artist — they aren't independent of the residency, so they're still affiliated sources. The source for a residency obviously can't be her own website, but it also can't be the website of the organization that she worked with or for either — it has to be a third party that has no affiliation with either end of that relationship, namely a media outlet writing about the residency as news, because the organization is still affiliated with the statement. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, reluctantly. It seems to me I've previously read something about this artist, and her work has been exhibited in well known galleries. I'm just not finding any additional independent reliable sources beyond the first one in the article. Willing to change my vote if better sourcing is found. Curiocurio (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per PamD. This was not a person-picked-off-the-street interview. BD2412 T 01:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: borderline but I think tagging the article for relying on primary sources might be sufficient without needing to delete the entry. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If primary sources are virtually all it has, then just tagging it for relying on primary sources isn't sufficient — it's not enough to assume that better sources exist that haven't been shown. Better sources have to be demonstrated to exist, not just speculated about as theoretically possible, in order to tip the balance between an AFD discussion and just being flagged for better sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not speculating, read your discussion above with PamD then made my decision. FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG as well as the four criteria set down by WP:NARTIST. The nominator's report is spot on. After discarding the interviews and the primary sources, we're left with a non-existent case for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a directory of artists, nor a collection of indiscriminate information. And the extensive discussion is rather surprising for such an evidently straightforward issue. -The Gnome (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why are you discarding the CBC interview? FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the CBC feature, combined with the weight of what seem to be adequate sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What adequate sources? I see exactly one. Curiocurio (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With the Guleph Today piece and CBC coverage, there is non-primary coverage. Whether aspects of the biography sourced to primary sources are wholly due as paragraphic body text or could be better rendered as a list of works/residences is a content question at the article level rather than an inclusion/deletion question at the encyclopedia level. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nicely done bio on the notability borderline. Don't we have more serious things to worry about? Carrite (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - most of the sources are primary, and not high-quality at that, as they are very promotional. She has very little reliable third-party coverage. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 03:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A dozen warm-up edits then creation of a detailed article with mostly commercial non-archival references. Article has a cereal-filler claim to notability ("She is primarily known for her sculptural works which incorporate a variety of natural and industrial materials.") This looks like some kind of fan-page or COI. 2600:1700:8650:2C60:89EE:CBB:BDD3:F68E (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not finding any RS online to add to the article. She does exist as an author and artist but fails WP:Artist. WP:TOOSOON. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
above people mentioned Guleph Today and CBC, both are RS FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned in a RS source does not indicate that the coverage contributes evidence of the subject's notability. I agree with other commenters that this falls short of WP:Artist, her importance in Maple Ridge, British Columbia notwithstanding. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All these guidelines that allow us to say "passed xyz standard", or "fails XYZ standard" is handy to have. But the fact of the matter is, we have articles like this one, where it should be obvious that this is an accomplished artist. Maybe she does/or doesn't exactly fit into the guidelines we so love to haul out for our assessment. Wikipedia has kept stubs and others with far less content and substance than this one. As far as I'm concerned, her article shows her qualifications to be here. We get carried away sometimes on one view or the other. I say she's notable as an artist, and I'm sticking to my perspective on it. — Maile (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Committee of Gagauzia[edit]

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

Fails GNG, Single source is primary, nothing found in BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject 'directly and indepth. Nothing sourced in article for a merge, but no objection if there is a consensus for a redirect to Autonomous territorial unit of Gagauzia // Timothy :: talk 02:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Politics, and Moldova. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: This appears to be an incomplete new creation and should have been draftified instead of AfD'd. Curbon7 (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A cursory search shows multiple independent RS covering the subject in English, Romanian and Russian.Anonimu (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Los Zodiac[edit]

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

This was hard to assess, especially as there are varying spellings used. I couldn't find enough to show it meets WP:NBAND / WP:GNG. Survived 2005 AfD ([[40]], but standards very different then. Boleyn (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Peru. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Peruvian rock:

From this it seems like there is some level of coverage in 2018's Demoler. El rock en el Perú 1965-1975 by Carlos Torres Rotondo
There may be some leads from this: "Very little has been written about the History of Rock in our environment. Only sketches (as some newspapers usually publish) and some studies such as the one done by Jose Miguel Gonzalo Garcia, entitled Development of Youth Music in Peru, give us a brief idea of this whole matter. But the closest thing to a treatise on the so-called underground current or alternative music comes from the university works of which I mention (but always from a giraffe perspective, based more on journalistic data or conversations with subways, than on personal experiences), the job that my friend Miguel Lescano did at the beginning of the 90s, or the Underground Rock -10 Years of Wild Operas by Alvaro Olano Dextre. All of them are the first formal attempts to capture a history of underground rock. Someone will try to object to me by saying, what about Pedro Cornejo's book? I'm sorry to contradict you little brother, but the Game without Borders - Approaches to Contemporary Music that Pedro published in 1994 is not considered, not even by Pedro Cornejo himself, a total work, at least it is not what many (like me) expected from Pedro Cornejo Guinassi, graduate in Philosophy, professor at La Católica, participant in the first years of underground rock, editor and collaborator of alternative publications and other publications."
es-wiki does not have an article for them, and nor are they actually covered at es:Rock_del_Perú or es:Historia_del_rock_en_el_Perú
They are not the Los Zodiacs from Getxo in Spain who had a song in a Pepsi ad (see this from El Correo)

I can't see what's in Torres, etc, but there's otherwise a dearth of reliable sourcing for the band other than being one of a number of early 60s Peruvian rock bands. Unless adequate info is discovered in Torres or other RS, redirect with retention of history and categories seems the sensible option. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, is there more support for a Redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Premier League overseas broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. No context to assert notability either. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, United Kingdom, and England. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Upon a search, I just get WP:PRIMARY sources from NBC, CBC, and tweets announcing who does which games. It's trivia and can be placed into the main broadcasting article. Conyo14 (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant information and sources have been added to the article that will help give it more notability. [41], [42], [43], [44]--Claudio Fernag (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTCRUFT still applies, you think an article on some junk list makes a list notable, think again. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Claudio Fernag. Esolo5002 (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is well passed here and the sourcing for this list is certainly not in question, while the article is monitored closely to revert any errors or vandalism near immediately. We disqualify outright press releases, but certainly not reliable news sources, and the nominator is advised that they are perfectly acceptable to source a broadcast partner. Nate • (chatter) 18:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are as of now, at least 84 different sources in the article to back up its notability efforts or quota. BornonJune8 (talk) 9:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but all but 6 are for articles, the rest are excuses to claim WP:RS. This argument is so 2007. Try harder next time. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes there are 84 sources, but not many are actually WP:SIGCOV of Premier League broadcasters, they're just saying "in country X, company Y have a contract for Z years and W money". I don't see any good quality sources e.g. linking overseas broadcasters together in one source (apart from [45], which is one source), which is a suggestion at WP:LISTN for when a list might be notable. This just read like a TV directory. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is the one on broadcasting rights that has the best and most sources, I see no reason to delete it, it is completely encyclopedic.

PIKACHUNESS (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like WP:ILIKEIT. An analysis of the sources would help. Conyo14 (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is very valuable resource about the topic. Regpath (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another WP:ILIKEIT, please provide a policy-based rationale for keeping. Conyo14 (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, WP:ITSUSEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is no longer just an article about a list of broadcasters as it was in the beginning, now a context has been added that gives it notability and verifiable and reliable sources have been added, so the information must be maintained, but maybe in this case what should be done is move this to List of Premier League broadcasters, as it was previously, so that everything is grouped in a single article, both local and international rights.--Edu1388 (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the merge suggested above over deletion. Conyo14 (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here, one editor supporting a Merge but I see no target article mentioned here, just a proposal for a rename. This article has been expanded greatly since its nomination and a review of those newly added sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airbiquity[edit]

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

All sources for this company are WP:ROUTINE coverage. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Software, Transportation, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep very difficult to find under all the regurgitated press releases but the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has done a couple of more substantial pieces on the company,^[1]^[2] which looks to have been more prominent in the 2000s. (I don't think the articles are still available online – if anyone would like me to email the full text to review, let me know). I'm not yet fully convinced of notability – we would want to see decent coverage from more than one source – but the situation is not quite as bad as it looks. – Teratix ₵ 06:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cook, John (21 October 2005). "Ex-startup Airbiquity experiences a rebirth". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
^ Cook, John (22 January 2008). "Airbiquity rebounds with funding, deals". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I opened all of the refs, they are routine press releases, 404, tangential and such. Nothing to establish notability. A 1997 startup that had 50-100 employess before being bought up recently and has now disappeared. Desertarun (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look for sources that weren't in the article? – Teratix ₵ 04:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep the page seems to be notable, and the routine coverage is not so bad, while better sources should be added by the locals or those who know the topic better. 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Tash Garrison[edit]

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

Cannot find any sources besides the one 2003 report. Given it seems to lack official government recognition, WP:GNG applies over WP:NPLACE and I can find basically nothing about this place. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iraq. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. There was a refugee camp there and I believe it was notable per 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and other sources. I think “garrison” is just a mistranslation of “مخيم” and the intended meaning is “refugee camp”. Mccapra (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that, since this place is not government recognized, WP:GNG applies. The first four here are primary sources, 5 is WP:ROUTINE coverage, and 6 about another camp and only mentions this one in passing. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:03, 22 April 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) 17:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rename to Al-Tash refugee camp. Several thousand people lived here, the refs are good and satisfy gng. Desertarun (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, it would be helpful if the sources mentioned here could find their way into the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Pattani bombing[edit]

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

The sources are all from the time of the event. Need lasting coverage and impact to meet WP:EVENT. A search for sources yielded sources for a different bombing in Pattani in 2016. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Thailand. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is well sourced and the incident has continued to be discussed both for itself and as part of the overall security situation in Thailand. A short documentary was made about one of the suspects. I've added links from 2018 and 2020. Article needs some cleanup especially the "attack" narrative that lacks inline citations. Oblivy (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Surikov (diplomat)[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NBIO. Recently deceased Russian diplomat. Sources found in article and BEFORE fail WP:SIRS. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Government obit, fails WP:SIRS, all the normal obit problems plus the Russian government should not be considered a reliable source	1. www.mid.ru https://www.mid.ru/ru/activity/shots/vnutrivedomstvennye_novosti/nekrologi_pamyati_kolleg/1949977/ . Retrieved 2024-05-13 .
Government decree, fails WP:IS, does not contain SIGCOV about the subject.	2. ^ "Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 29, 2017 No. 348 “On the Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation in the Republic of Mozambique”" . Archived from the original on 2019-01-26 . Retrieved 2017-09-14 .
Government decree, fails WP:IS, does not contain SIGCOV about the subject.	3. ^ "Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of February 16, 2018 No. 76 “On the Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation in the Kingdom of Swaziland on a part-time basis”" . Archived from the original on 2018-02-16 . Retrieved 2018-02-16 .
Government obit, fails WP:SIRS, all the normal obit problems plus the Russian government should not be considered a reliable source	4. ^ www.mid.ru https://www.mid.ru/ru/activity/shots/vnutrivedomstvennye_novosti/nekrologi_pamyati_kolleg/1949977/ . Retrieved 2024-05-13 .
Obit based on government sources, fails WP:SIRS, all the normal obit problems plus the Russian government should not be considered a reliable source	5. ^ "Russian Ambassador to Mozambique Died" . TACC (in Russian) . Retrieved 2024-05-13 .

BEFORE found name mentions and government statements they released, and an interview, nothing meet WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from independent reliable sources. // Timothy :: talk 02:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First and foremost, lower your tone while nominating the article for deletion. Secondly, government decrees can be used as secondary sources as if you can type the full name in a Russian, many sources will pop up, (in Russian of course), apart from the official government statement. Here's my third point, he is the ambassador to Mozambique, the highest office of any diplomat in office. Would you delete the ambassador of the United States of Mozambique for that reason? Ivan Milenin (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Africa, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary Chaplain to the King[edit]

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

This page is fundamentally flawed. The position of Honorary Chaplain to the King is a military appointment, for serving regular and reserve chaplains in the British and some Commonwealth armed forces. However much of the text refers to Chaplains to the King, who are members of the Ecclesiastical Household of the Royal Household, and are civilians, usually senior parish priests. I do not believe that the article can be repaired. As an alternative to deletion it would have to be wholly rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncox001 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC); listed on the log at 21:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Christianity, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The inaccuracies can easily be ironed out but the topic is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. Nothing found in article or BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. If sources are found that provide direct and indepth coverage, ping me. // Timothy :: talk 03:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator's contention is incorrect - Honorary Chaplain to the King is NOT a military appointment. In recent times a number of HCs have been appointed from the forces but many are also appointed who have no link to the forces. All are absolutely part of the ecclesiastical household. As such, the assertion that the article "cannot be repaired" is flawed. It should be improved, perhaps by starting here (p304) which details the creation of the position in 1881.----Pontificalibus 06:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As lacking significant in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Also per WP:TNT: if someone believes this topic is notable, create a new article that's not a mess like this and with sufficient sources. AusLondonder (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TNT is not necessary for a small stub such as this, any corrections can be made in situ. Has reliable sources book coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here, the discussion is ongoing and would benefit from editors knowledgeable about this subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An interesting and informative article about a position not necessarily written about often, nor well-known outside the UK. This would be even better with expansion. — Maile (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supermium[edit]

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

Supermium is essentially just Chromium backported to Windows XP. Is this really notable enough for its own article? Seems like it could just have a short mention in the Chromium page. Bringing up the phrase "Supermium" on Google news just reports two articles related to the program, and two related to a Spotify subscription tier. There are several videos made on it however on YouTube (though, mostly by small creators). HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it also seems like the article was originally created by a sockpuppet, if that contributes anything. HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mjd made a video on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsSMmdwh89Y plus backporting is not easy esspcialy to windows xp and it has restored support for a lot of things

-Aero Glass and Aero Glass-style titlebars instead of Windows 10-style ones (#force-xp-theme in chrome://flags for the latter)

-Turnaround for major vulnerability patches generally less than one week from upstream disclosure

-A functional sandbox for enhanced security

-Google Sync

-On Windows 7 and up, Widevine CDM support for viewing DRM content

-GDI font rendering, using #force-gdi in chrome://flags

-Persistent dark mode on the browser's UI elements, using #force-dark-mode in chrome://flags

-Custom tab options including trapezoidal tabs, transparent tabs, and outlined tabs

-Many flags from ungoogled-chromium

-Support for SSE2-only processors in the 32 bit build 74.92.169.153 (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Supporting old versions of Windows is a large enough niche, and the article already has 2 external refs because of it. (Plus there are plenty of other browser articles for even smaller, less-relevant niches.) -Pmffl (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Fusitua[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a New Zealand rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Think there's just about enough when sourcing snippets are combined, such as this, this, this among others. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- For future reference, a database profile and two primary sources do not come close to meeting GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per JTtheOG, can't see any thorough coverage of this person. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a young player at the beginning of his career and he is playing regularly for the Blues now. There are already more sources available about this player than used for this stub and it is foreseeable that there will be more written about him in the future. Ruggalicious (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ruggalicious: Which sources did you find? JTtheOG (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to get a review of sources establishing GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akade[edit]

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

No clear notability. Creation tends to indicate an undeclared conflict of interest. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. MeltPees (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC) — MeltPees (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Atlanta[edit]

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

Lacking secondary sources specifically about the consulate. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Taiwan, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). AusLondonder (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a defacto consulate, and not the same level as an embassy. Fails GNG and WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles regarding the Taiwanese offices in Ho Chi Minh City and also São Paulo. Would those also fall under this blanket reason? Toadboy123 (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if they fail GNG, yes. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Toadboy123 embassies, consulates and other diplomatic offices must meet WP:GNG which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" AusLondonder (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States#Consular districts by missions, where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources in my searches for sources. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is there to merge? Also of course ATD is only part of the deletion policy. The eighth point at WP:DEL-REASON which describes valid criteria for deletion, states "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline" is a valid reason to delete. AusLondonder (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support a redirect (with the history preserved under the redirect). A redirect gives editors like Toadboy123 (talk · contribs), the article's creator, the option of doing a selective merge of content to Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States#Consular districts by missions. Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Atlanta discusses the subject's location; how it was established on 1 March 1979, the day after the signing of this communiqué; what its former name was; what states it represents; and the cultural center it oversees. Some of this content could be merged to the target article. Cunard (talk) 05:55, 30 April 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) 01:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Silvestri[edit]

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

Not notable - no significant coverage of the subject and possibly promotional Pprsmv (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, United States of America, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not a strong keep, but there appears to be sufficient notability - The sources in the article currently are not useful due to being interviews or dead links, but there are some reviews of his work that can be found with minimal effort that tend to indicate notability (Exclaim, The Diamondback, Vulture) - There are also interviews, Q&As and other sources, but generally they are not as strong as the 3 reviews above to establish notoriety. Shazback (talk) 19:38, 30 April 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) 01:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fayse Goh[edit]

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

the article appears to be very promotional. I also searched up the name, and it appears to plagarize his youtube channel's description. Gaismagorm (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Malaysia. Gaismagorm (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2024-04 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 6 May 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) 01:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 13 May 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 Draftified‎ with consent of creator Star Mississippi 02:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bunker (upcoming film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence found this meets N:FILM with this the only piece newer than what's in the article and not enough to indicate notability for an unreleased film. Star Mississippi 01:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film. Star Mississippi 01:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's too soon for the article to be in mainspace, then I vote draftify. The Film Creator (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My only argument for the article to be kept was that these three sources from Screen International, Deadline Hollywood and JoBlo.com were published at different dates and each of them were about different topics and yet all of them are related to this film. IMO, I believe at least three (or four) reliable sources are needed for a film-related article, particularly if the film is upcoming or unreleased, to be eligible for mainspace. The Film Creator (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The latter two are from 2021 and I can find nothing to indicate this has progressed sufficiently for N:FILM or that it will be released. I have no objection with it being re-draftified if you'd be willing should it close that way. Star Mississippi 02:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi Per WP:NFF, WP:NYF and WP:CRYSTAL, I'm content that the article be moved back to draftspace until new and reliable information about this film is published. The Film Creator (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have done so. I suggest waiting for its release, which I note you also suggested at the first deletion discussion for this film. Star Mississippi 02:38, 13 May 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.

Hannah Ryder[edit]

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

Very questionable WP:SUSTAINED notability Amigao (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Kenya. Let'srun (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Head of a UN Agency might be notable, but sourcing is about the initiatives of this agency, not about this person. I don't find much else we'd use for RS either. Oaktree b (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the subject worked at a UN Agency as head policy and partnerships. She was pivotal to the Initiative which is why I used as source Gold Junior (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete present version, which definitely does not comply with NPOV policy. "As the chief executive of Development Reimagined, Ryders's Afro-centric posturing is implicit in her reports" - for goodness' sake (and since when is her surname "Ryders"?) Deb (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hannah is very adamant on Africans developing Africa with win-win partnerships with other blocs. I should have put it this way to underscore this fact Gold Junior (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that it was you who wrote that sentence? Deb (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted that sentence, but added other coverage of Ryder. And, to be clear, the typo in her last name was my fault. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though I have edited the article a bit. She is cited in multiple reliable sources in conversations about Africa-China relations, and I have added some of this information to the article. The best coverage of her is here [46], [47],[48]. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those. The main problem, as far as I'm concerned, is the undeclared conflict of interest and the original promotional intent. If we keep it, we'll need to ensure it complies with NPOV. Deb (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, though to be clear I have no COI on this article. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep" I must state that for me I have no COI regarding this article.

GJ Stoutimore[edit]

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

There is zero evidence of the subject's notability on any standard. Virtually every source is either to the subject's own writing, links to buy the subject's book, or marketing material. (Even apparently reliable sources are not; the Kirkus Reviews source is actually from "Kirkus Indie," a paid placement, and the BookTrib.com reviews are also paid placements on a book marketing platform.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The book has no notable reviews as explained, and there is no coverage of the author otherwise. What's used now in the article is primary sourcing or product placements. Oaktree b (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, England, Florida, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrightspeed X1[edit]

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

This article dates from 2006, a period when one might argue with success that Wikipedia was in a major growth phase, and that poorly sourced articles were acceptable on the basis that they might be improved. This one has been edited periodically, but not improved. It has a single source, and does not pass WP:GNG. It is interesting, but gives undue weight to the vehicle, which is only notable for its power train, not for anything else about it. There is thus no objection to merge and redirect as an outcome to this discussion, with the merge target being the source of the powertrain, or with the manufacturer of the chassis. There appears to be no individual article on the designer himself, or that might be a valid target. I am thus asking for consensus not only on the fate of the article, but on any merge target as well. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I've found a few sources for this [49], [50] (Old CNET, so still good), [51], [52] but I feel they don't really have the WP:DEPTH here to satisfty WP:GNG, so I'm gonna second the nom here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Allan Nonymous By seconding the nomination please be aware that merge and redirect to a so far undetermined target is a suitable outcome. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some coverage found, [53] and [54]. Merge to Wrightspeed or the Ariel Atom? I'm not sure. Oaktree b (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Given that choice, I think it is more relevant to Wrightspeed than the Aerial Atom. However, Wrightspeed ends up at an article of a different name, but mainly about Wrightspeed. I think there needs to be some background work here by someone who can rationalise what is what. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see some support for redirect, but no consensus as to a target. We shouldn't need another full week to settle on a target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Wrightspeed" seems like a good redirect choice. Oaktree b (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Revo Powertrains which is the powertrain company founded by Mr. Wright (under the Wrightspeed name?). Redirect doesn't make sense to me as Revo doesn't include anything about this car. Oblivy (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Onsgard[edit]

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

Bridge player. Seems like a total failure of WP:GNG. Specifically, there is not a single independent source in the article, and I was not able to find any either. From WP:GNG: "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it". Within bridge, "affiliated with the subject" means bridge federations, leagues, and tournaments - and of course also the subject herself (here, I'm referring to the Amazon page for a book.) Prolonged attempts to explain the creator what a significant and independent source is, have not bore fruit at all; a discussion of this nature might also come up during this discussion. References to a bridge SNG might also come up, which is irrelevant as long as GNG is not met. Geschichte (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We have already gone through this review process with this user. My account is autopatrolled, new articles I create should not have to go through the review process as I am supposed to be trusted to know what types of articles meet Wikipedia guidelines.

Kristen won a North American Bridge Championship (NABC). These Bridge events are open to players around the world and many fly in, including the world's top professional players, to compete at these 10 day tournaments. Winning an unlimited event at an NABC is very prestigious achievement. I created Kristen's page, and also included a picture.

Geschichte decided to move this new article to Draft space. There was discussion on this user's Talk page about this. I asked for more senior Wikipedia editors to review the submission. They decided that the page was notable, overruled Geschichte, and Star Mississippi moved the article to the main Wikipedia on April 7, asking Geschichte to take it to AfD if there was any issues.

One would have thought the discussion was over, but Geschichte retaliated by adding

to Kristen's page on April 11, having just been overruled on that very issue.

Since April 11 the page has been edited by others, including additional information about Kristen and more references added.

I removed the "no significant coverage" banner today. Geschichte then retaliated again by submitting this to AfD.

I have created 7 pages on Bridge players this year. All are similar in style, scope. None of them have been sent to AfD. I have probably created 300+ Wikipedia pages for Bridge players over the last few years.

I don't want to get into a flame war, but "Prolonged attempts to explain the creator what a significant and independent source is, have not bore fruit at all" is not what has happened. Another Wikipedia editor, Star Mississippi overruled Geschichte issues. This is Geschichte second retaliation to being overruled. The first retaliation was adding the banner, the second retaliation was submitting this to AfD almost a month after it was approved.

A general rule of thumb in Bridge is anyone who has won a World event, won a European event, or won a North American Bridge Championship is meets the notability requirements, based on comparisons with other sports.

Kristen meets that criteria.Nicolas.hammond (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She more than likely does meet notability criteria, but we need sourcing about this person in order to build the article. What's used now isn't acceptable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it", the article's subject in this case is surely Kristen Onsgard. Someone affiliated with her is surely intended to mean a family member, friend, or someone who is part of the same circle. Surely interpreting it as excluding works produced by a national bridge federation is interpreting it far more broadly than was intended? JH (talk page) 09:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Direct quote from WP:SPORTCRIT: "governing sports bodies are not considered independent of their players" Geschichte (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please can someone confirm which source(s) show significant coverage of Onsgard? I have checked each one and can't find any. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as I was pinged. I don't view myself as having overruled Geschichte as that's not really a thing here. I believed the article deserved a chance in mainspace, and I restored it acting as an editor, not as an admin. I have not looked further and likely will not during the run of this discussion so I take no point on this deletion discussion. Geschichte disagreed with my restoration, as is within their right as an established editor, and brought it here for the community to discuss. That's exactly the process that should happen. Nicolas.hammond, being autopatrolled does not mean your articles can't be brought for deletion. I'd venture a guess that every editor who has written more than a handful has had one of the articles they started brought for deletion. It is not personal, although it may feel it. Please look for independent, reliable sources which will help determine whether Onsgard is notable, not any "rule of thumb". Star Mississippi 01:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This needs input from someone who understands who Wikipedia works. The comments above need not be characterized by me as they speak for themselves, with non-existing concepts such as "approval", "overruling", "retaliation" etc. Geschichte (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please avoid interpersonal drama, and focus on substantive arguments relating to notability as determined by our guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Outside of team profiles, there is no coverage for this person. Even what's used now in the article is ranking listings from various bridge federations. We need articles in media of some kind about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. I was unable to find any SIGCOV during a search and none has been presented here. I am also not seeing anything wrong with User:Geschichte's process on the matter. When drafting and tagging the page gets rejected without any improvements then the next logical step is to take them to AfD. Alvaldi (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kristen's picture was on the front page of the International Bridge Press Association May 2024 bulletin, https://www.ibpa.com/, for the NABC win. This bulletin is not yet archived so is only accessible to IBPA members, so I can't add to her page. In other words, winning an NABC event is a big deal.Nicolas.hammond (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is current no SNG for Bridge. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports). I added a proposal for Bridge in the Talk section. I based the SNG proposal on other non-common sports.

For example, curling, kickboxing, orienteering, triathlon. In all of these the equivalency (winning a major event) merits a Wikipedia page.Nicolas.hammond (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created Kristen's page the day after she won the NABC. The issue for me is not Kristen's page per se, but the application of the criteria for SNG/GNG. Hence the reason for creating the Bridge SNG proposal. In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Subject-specific_notability_guidelines

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG); and
It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

This article has its equivalence to the SNG requirements for other less well known sports. Nicolas.hammond (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For a sport like curling, it says: "Significant coverage is likely to exist for a curler if they ...". Likely to exist being the keywords, it is then up to us to find that coverage. It might be quite difficult for earlier, non-Western participants, whereas the easiest participants to cover should be current, American or British ones. Geschichte (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12Go[edit]

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

Does not meet the WP:NCORP/WP:GNG. Sources are based on what they say or adverts. There was this one by The South African but the author is "a junior campaign management who inspires and empowers you to create marketing that your customers will love; igniting real results for your business" so not reliable/independent so I removed it along with blogs and other non-RS (written by contributors and/or sponsored). I was unable to find any reliable sources about the company. S0091 (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, and Asia. S0091 (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article. Here is some more sources:

https://www.ttrweekly.com/site/2024/02/12go-shines-a-spotlight-on-its-sales-stars https://www.traveldailynews.asia/column/interviews/transforming-ground-transportation-a-conversation-with-ron-hoffman-ceo-of-12go/ https://nl.mashable.com/travel/8863/12go-pioneering-multimodal-travel-from-south-east-asia-to-the-world https://lamag.com/contributor-content/empowering-solo-journeys-12gos-guide-to-top-solo-female-travel-destinations-in-asia-for-2024 https://www.freep.com/story/special/contributor-content/2024/04/02/leadership-in-data-driven-travel-insights-deciphering-12gos-top-2024-new-year-destinations-in-asia/73182956007/ https://www.azcentral.com/story/special/contributor-content/2024/01/25/12gos-revealed-insights-reflecting-on-the-top-2024-new-year-destinations-in-asia/72352136007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/special/contributor-content/2023/08/30/redefining-leadership-a-glimpse-into-the-team-and-philosophy-of-12go/70721506007/ https://www.stltoday.com/news/nation-world/streamlining-group-adventures-how-12go-is-transforming-travel-planning-in-asia/article_24825eec-3456-5d22-b87b-b9f0eb401291.html https://www.thesouthafrican.com/business/travel-business/12go-charting-the-course-of-innovative-travel-in-southeast-asia-october-2023/ https://www.ttgasia.com/2022/10/07/airasia-12go-create-all-in-one-transport-booking-solution-for-travellers/ https://techcrunch.com/2022/05/10/bookaway-books-35m-to-scale-up-its-ground-transportation-booking-platform/ https://newsroom.airasia.com/news/2022/10/3/airasia-super-app-expands-the-booking-capability-to-include-land-and-sea-transportation-modes Stromeee (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stromee, about half of those links will not even open for me. The others are telling me something - that 12GO aspires to be a one stop travel solution and such like, but there is a lot of reporting here and not much analysis. WP:ORGCRIT says:

These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals.

and so per WP:CORPDEPTH:

The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.

We need multiple sources of this level. So, which sources do you think meet this level of significant coverage? I am not seeing it - but again, five of those links simply won't open in Europe. If we can focus our attention on the best sources, I can make the effort to access those via VPN. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To @Sirfurboy's point, @Stromeee I suggest following WP:THREE. Also, contributor posts like USA Today are not WP:RS and per WP:TRADES, trade publications generally cannot be used to establish notability. S0091 (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's pretty tough sifting for actual coverage among all the promotion. This 2017 Skift article covers the subject in two short paragraphs, with some original analysis.[55] --Paul_012 (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all the suggested sources are trade publications (WP:TRADES), sponsored content, or otherwise non-independent coverage. I doubt there's independent coverage outside of trade publications. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merdeka Memorial Clock Tower, Kulim[edit]

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

WP:MILL structure that fails WP:GNG and WP:NGEO. No sources to describe the significance; two news sources provide evidence in cursory coverage that it was constructed but no detail to constitute WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional evidence of notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of hits about the clock tower in the Singapore National Library, such as [56], but it seems you need to open them on-site in order to be able to read the articles. I've been able to pull these up [57]. Oaktree b (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at this @Oaktree b. There are actually numerous merdeka (aka "independence") towers/monuments in Malaysia, and this article is specifically about the one in Kulim. The searches you linked are for other cities' merdeka towers. A search adding "Kulim" brings up just the one cursory result already sourced in the article, see here. Just sharing in case this info changes your !vote; thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

● Keep - Found a few more sources to establish notability.

https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model/ce1b4842-51cd-4107-891f-94cb820ff093/Merdeka-Clock-Tower-kulim-kedah

https://www.pressreader.com/malaysia/the-star-malaysia-star2/20180825/281513637011166 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your first source is just a 3D model of the building. What makes you think this is a reliable source or provides significant coverage? What does this add to the article? Reywas92^Talk 15:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources each have a paragraph about the place. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think what @Reywas92 may be getting at is that that 3D model page is user-generated content. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files[edit]

File:Wilfred Rhodes.jpg[edit]

No source information given; replaceable by File:Rhodes bowling front 3.jpg. Wikiacc (¶) 00:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Between You and Me MusicVideo.jpg[edit]

Screenshot's easy to explain in brief words already. No need to display band members in the video just to identify them there. No proof that omitting the screenshot detriments understanding of the whole song (or music video). May fail "contextual significance" criterion. George Ho (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dctalk betweenyouandme3.jpg[edit]

No proof that this cover art is of one of commercial releases. Found one promo-only release using it (discogs). Other (retail) cover art already used. Fails "minimal number of items" and "contextual significance" criteria. George Ho (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stewart Farm - Memoir of Aura Stewart historic marker.jpg[edit]

Per c:COM:FOP US, freedom of panorama only extends to buildings. This historical marker is dated 2003 and there is no evidence to suggest that the text is freely licensed. As c:COM:CB#Noticeboards and signs states, "detailed informational and educational noticeboards/signs [...] are almost always copyright-protected". ✗plicit 00:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—since the marker originates after 1989, the text on it is protected by copyright. The photo must be deleted to avoid infringing. (As a reminder, state government works like this are not automatically placed in the public domain like federal government works, unless state says otherwise, and Michigan's does not.) Imzadi 1979 → 00:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Ahri.boy (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clash of the titansposter.jpg[edit]

Remove from Andromeda (mythology). Pretty sure this image fails WP:NFCC#8 with its use in Andromeda (mythology)#In film since the subject of the article is not the film. Readers can just go to Clash of the Titans (1981 film), which is linked at Andromeda (mythology)#In film, to see the poster since the poster meets all WP:NFCC in Clash of the Titans (1981 film). Steel1943 (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The Clash of the Titans is directly discussed and reliably cited in the article, where it l makes a visual point vital to the article. Thee point made by the scholar is that the film can be criticised for casting a white actress (pictured) as the (black Aethiopian) Andromeda, This is important to the article, as Andromeda has a long tradition of being shown as white, and the film is the major modern case proving the misrepresentation has continued. Saying folks can look elsewhere misses the point that the film's poster directly and visceral demonstrates the enduring and still-current image, which a footnote that most readers will skip simply fails to achieve. I have extended the non-free usage rationale to this effect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I agree the rational for that citation, the poster does not really illustrate that point, so I don't know if it is valid here. It does predominantly feature two actors who appear to be white, but it's a stylized image and doesn't represent the cast at large. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for agreeing that the rationale is correct. I'll note that the article is not concerned with the cast at large. The article is about Andromeda, who is played by Judi Bowker, the white woman in the poster. The image is ideally suited to the scholar's point made in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Twelfth Man Statue TAMU.jpg[edit]

Copied from [58]. Now unused. (Unclear if F9 applies because the uploader initially claimed fair use.) Wikiacc (¶) 02:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ankit Tiwari Photos.jpg[edit]

Contains a watermark that doesn't seem to correspond to the uploader's username --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 02:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upon searching on Google, it wasn't his own work. Delete. Ahri.boy (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carlton logo 1995.jpg[edit]

This should be considered to be a fair use file due to its background and since this file isn't used in mainspace, converting it is moot and should be deleted. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 02:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wuthering Waves logo.jpeg[edit]

Now superseded by File:Wuthering Waves logo.svg. Ahri.boy (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harold Kelly Hill Top Dance Hall Stark Galleries.jpg[edit]

This painting may still be under copyright; the uploader asserts {{PD-US}} without giving a reason. Painter is Harold Osman "Cowboy" Kelly (American, 1884–1950) and limited information on the painting is available online. Wikiacc (¶) 02:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Day the Mountain Thanked the Sea Stark Galleries.jpg[edit]

This painting may still be under copyright; the uploader asserts {{PD-US}} without giving a reason. Painter is Dorothy Hood (American, 1919–2000) and limited information on the painting is available online. Wikiacc (¶) 02:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dawson Watson Landscape Stark Galleries.jpg[edit]

This painting may still be under copyright; the uploader asserts {{PD-US}} without giving a reason. Painter is Dawson Dawson-Watson (UK/US, 1864–1939) and limited information on the painting is available online. Wikiacc (¶) 02:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edward Schiwetz Academic Building TAMU Stark Galleries.jpg[edit]

This painting may still be under copyright; the uploader asserts {{PD-US}} without giving a reason. Painter is Edward M. "Buck" Schiwetz (American, 1898–1984) and limited information on the painting is available online. Wikiacc (¶) 02:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Silver Taps TAMU.jpg[edit]

Photo copied from [59], plus the sculpture is likely copyrighted. Claimed {{PD-US}} without justification. Delete or relicense as non-free. Wikiacc (¶) 02:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Menos TAMU.jpg[edit]

The sculpture depicted is copyrighted (as a US sculpture from 1992) but erroneously claimed {{PD-US}}. Delete or relicense as non-free. Wikiacc (¶) 02:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Victory Eagle Statue TAMU.jpg[edit]

Photo copied from [60], plus the sculpture is likely copyrighted. Claimed {{PD-US}} without justification. Delete or relicense as non-free. Wikiacc (¶) 02:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:7sealpost.jpg[edit]

Seems to clearly fail WP:NFCC#8 in Culture of Sweden, given that this image is a poster about the subject at The Seventh Seal. It seems that the only page which this image would meet WP:NFCC#8 would be in The Seventh Seal, but this file is currently not in that article. So, delete unless the file gets put back into The Seventh Seal in a way that meets WP:NFCC. Steel1943 (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm the original uploader. Must have got this when there was not a lot posters for older art house films. All good for delete vote per the above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anup Gurung.jpg[edit]

Orphaned user photos, no foreseeable encyclopedic use. ✗plicit 03:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salehsadman.jpg[edit]

Used for self promo on userpage. No other use. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 04:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thames Television logo (1990-1993).webp[edit]

Doubt this is an own work. Permission needed, too complicated to be licensed as {{PD-textlogo}} --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 04:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thames Television 1997.webp[edit]

Doubt this is an own work. Permission needed, too complicated to be licensed as {{PD-textlogo}} --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 04:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hot and Spicy Sweet Potatoes.jpg[edit]

Weird border on the right. Possibly a crop. Permission needed. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 05:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kitkatextracream.jpg[edit]

Unused, contains copyrighted packaging. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 05:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Freshmen shiur 2010.jpg[edit]

Small, low-res, no metadata. Doubtful own work. Unused as well. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 05:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mby-students.jpg[edit]

Small, low-res, no metadata. Doubtful own work. Unused as well. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 05:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fruit Shoot 300mls.jpg[edit]

Small, low-res, no metadata. Doubtful own work. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 05:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ESC 2024 album cover.jpg[edit]

This image of an album cover is being used on an article about the contest itself and only has 2 sentences of text plus a table about the album. As such, fails WP:NFCC#8 as it doesn't significantly enhance a reader's understanding of the contest. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roger Fortson.jpg[edit]

Image is already on Commons and has been confirmed to be from the USAF, thus making it public domain. 🌙Eclipse ^(talk) ^(contribs) 12:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schloss-vogeloed-german-movie-poster-md.jpg[edit]

Public domain, now available on Commons: c:File:The Haunted Castle (1921), poster, 2.jpg. Yann (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not 100% sure about this one. Isn't Germany have some very strict copyright laws that could cause issues? Otherwise, fine with the Commons version, but I know things like this can be complicated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe Andrzejbanas is correct. The signature looks to me like Josef Fenneker (1895–1956), whose works will not be public domain in Germany until 2027. hinnk (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The version on Commons just got deleted. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Trinitrotoluene[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Trinitrotoluene to Category:TNT

Nominator's rationale: Category name should be consistent with the title of the article TNT. HertzDonuts (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as there are lots of meanings. Unlike articles, where it's easy to find and correct mislinking ("TNT" but not the chemical meaning), cats are less well patrolled, harder to notice, and and create more problems when mis-set. In fact, the original Category:TNT was about the Russian TV channel even though the the chemical article was already at TNT. WP:MOSCAT notes:

"Avoid abbreviations. Example: "Category:Military equipment of World War II", not "Category:Military equipment of WW2". However, acronyms that have become the official, or generally used, name (such as NATO) should be used where there are no other conflicts."

and in this case the name is not "official", just COMMONNAME and there is a conflict. I have no objection to {{Category disambiguation}} or similar solution (I see that Category:Disambiguation categories does have other entries where the eponymous page is a redirect to a better-named article). DMacks (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals notified of this discussion. DMacks (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American communists of the Stalin era[edit]

Propose deleting Category:American communists of the Stalin era (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Communists in the United States are not necessarily defined by the leader of another country. User:Namiba 17:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers published in Western Australia by region[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Newspapers published in Goldfields-Esperance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Newspapers of the Goldfields-Esperance region of Western Australia
Propose renaming Category:Pilbara newspapers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Newspapers of the Pilbara region of Western Australia
Propose renaming Category:South West Newspapers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Newspapers of the South West region of Western Australia

Nominator's rationale: I'm proposing renaming these categories for consistency with the following existing categories:

Category:Newspapers of the Mid West region of Western Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Newspapers of the Peel region of Western Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Newspapers of the Wheatbelt region of Western Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There are also four other regions (the Gascoyne, Great Southern, Kimberley and Perth metropolitan regions) without categories at present, but I plan to work on articles for as many of Australia's newspapers as I can so I expect these categories to be necessary at some point. The only reason for this nomination is for consistency amongst sub-category names, so I wouldn't be opposed to another naming scheme. This one just makes the most sense to me. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 16:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ernest Cline[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Ernest Cline (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary layer of categorization. The "works by" category suffices as a top level parent category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Electoral reform in Jersey[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Electoral reform in Jersey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: No need to differentiate the electoral reform referendums from the others. At the very least, have it nested under the referendums in jersey category rather its own separate category alongside it. Saltywalrusprkl (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Yoruba police officers[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Yoruba police officers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEGRS. There are MANY Yoruba occupation categories which could also be nominated. Moreover, many of the people in these categories are put their because of their name, not because sources say that they are Yoruba. User:Namiba 14:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beringia[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Beringia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, anachronistic content, Beringia is a concept from prehistoric geography, but the category only contains current-day geography. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Marcocapelle's definition contradicts the maim article Beringia, which defines it as a current region. Dimadick (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does not. It was one coherent region because the Bering Street was dry land. That is no longer the case. Beringia is not usually on any current-day map. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 11:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Dimadick. Nom seems to ignore the fact that the English term Beringia is also used for a present-day region. That it doesn't usually appear on present-day maps is an argument from anecdotal evidence. If nom could demonstrate that the category arbitrarily mixes up past and present in a confusing manner, that would be interesting to consider for a renaming or split, or something. NLeeuw (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except a spurious touristic source, all sources referenced to are related to prehistory. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... wait, I may have judged too soon. NLeeuw (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. That one source, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/beringia/index.htm, claiming that Beringia still exists today, evidently represents a fringe view not supported by the first 10 other sources I checked. All other language versions also support the idea that it is a region which no longer exists, and equivalent to "Bering Land Bridge". So let's remove that spurious source, and delete the whole category that has nothing to do with the geological, geographical and human migratory aspect of Beringia. NLeeuw (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/him) 13:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles involving Bengal[edit]

Propose merging Category:Battles involving Bengal to Category:Battles involving the Indian kingdoms and Category:History of Bengal

Nominator's rationale: merge, battles are diffused by (former) countries and Bengal was not a country. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Battles involving Bangladesh, The battles in the category are involved Bengal region and Bangladesh is created from the a big part of the region. It would be better to rename the category and make specify it for country-wise battle category. Mehedi Abedin 09:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that would be highly anachronistic, and some of these battles were in West Bengal. – Fayenatic London 09:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Military history of Bengal. IMHO this is a useful division of Category:History of Bengal. – Fayenatic London 09:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that is a reasonable alternative, but then still the content should be added to Category:Battles involving the Indian kingdoms too. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Marcocapelle: it should only be a selective merge to that parent, because many of the articles are already in other subcats of that one, and I'm not sure whether the others belong there. I suggest you watch the category and merge any valid missing items yourself if the rename goes through. – Fayenatic London 15:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Input in general would be great, but in particular input on FL's proposal would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/him) 15:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/him) 13:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons[edit]

Propose merging Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons to Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football

Nominator's rationale: Only one page in category. Let'srun (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; standard cat scheme. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Saying something is standard, so we should keep it, is not a compelling reason. Having only one category is not helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. Parallelism matters and should be considered a central pillar of Wikipedia. If this cat merged as nominated, then 1943 Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football team is lost from the tree at Category:College football seasons by team. User:Let'srun's notations here are becoming tiresome and obstructive. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the problem, it should also be merged to Category:College football seasons. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcocapelle, did you mean Category:College football seasons by team? Jweiss11 (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean a new category, of which Category:College football seasons by team should be a subcategory, and to which articles of current one-article subcategories would be moved. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there's already Category:College football seasons in the United States, which is a parent of Category:College football seasons by team. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I overlooked that. It is quite confusing that the parent category has "in the United States" in the name while Category:College football seasons by team has not. Then Category:College football seasons in the United States should be the new merge target, at least in theory. But the article is already in a year subcategory of it, so then my comment becomes about a second merge target entirely moot. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/him) 13:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic bishops in Macau[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, per article List of bishops of Macau, Catholic bishops are primarily bishop of a diocese. This is follow-up on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_16#Category:16th-century_Roman_Catholic_bishops_in_Portuguese_Macau. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Although I'm on the fence about merging to Category:FOO-century Macau people, because not everyone is from Macau. Mason (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This category tree is now a big mess. · There were Catholic bishops who were appointed bishops or titular bishops elsewhere but stationed in Macau, some of them as coadjutor/auxiliary bishops or administrators or governors of this diocese. These bishops were not bearers of the title Bishop of Macau although they were bishops who worked in Macau. Further the diocese covered a much much larger area in the Far East. It's only since the 1950s (or the 1980s if the two parishes in Malacca Malaysia and Singapore are taken into consideration) the Diocese of Macau is coterminous with the present-day territorial extent of Macau. From its founding in the 16th century hundreds of dioceses have been carved out from this diocese. The first proposal regarding Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Macau is therefore opposed. · Likewise the second and the third proposals for the 19th and 20th century categories are opposed for the reasons as stated above, and that this is also a vote for the restoration of the 16th to 18th century categories. If the 19th and the 20th century categories (and the 16th to 18th century categories as well) were to be merged the target should be Portugal since the territory was over the period a Portuguese province (save for the last twelve days of the 20th century). · For the fourth proposal on the 21st century category, bear in mind that the bishop does not participate in any conference of bishops or anything similar of the Chinese catholic church, and that the present bishop is not a native of Macau – There is no point to proceed as proposed. · Overall this is a keep vote (and a vote to clear the mess under the preexisting structure prior to CfD 16 April). 58.152.55.172 (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To the closer, this IP is WP:HKGW and has been the one making a mess of this and other similar categories. Mason (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user labelled me as such with no explanation and I simply don't understand why she gave me such a label. It appears she just labels when she's running out of supporting arguments. I took no part in making this mess. The categories nominated in this CfD or the 16 April one were created by other editors, and I'd done nothing to change them. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By all means purge bishops who were appointed bishops or titular bishops elsewhere, but stationed in Macau. If the tree is a mess we simply should have a clean-up. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They were nevertheless bishops in Macau and these articles fit well within the wider Category:Roman Catholic bishops by country of work tree. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For information the bishops attended meetings of the Conferência Episcopal Portuguesa, as in this case in 1973. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 09:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of a larger categorisation scheme. Moving articles from categories of dependencies to those of the sovereign powers is not uncontested. 42.200.80.48 (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/him) 13:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional animals by taxon[edit]

Propose merging Category:Fictional animals by taxon to Category:Fictional animals by type

Nominator's rationale: No reason has been given why this unnecessarily WP:NARROWCAT has been created. It only contains two taxons which is not enough to justify an entire separate category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category:Fictional animals by taxon, but merge Category:Fictional invertebrates and Category:Fictional vertebrates into Category:Fictional animals by taxon. AHI-3000 (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately doing that is just shuffling around deck chairs and makes no real difference. But I think the more longstanding categories (since 2006) should take precedence over your new 2024 category, not things be merged just because you want your category to be prominent. You have just stated an opinion but not provided a reason to back why taxon is better than the vertebrate/invertebrate split. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: My suggestion is to leave "Fictional animals by taxon" with 8 subcategories instead of 2, if your only argument is that it's too small right now. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both the nominated and the alt proposal could be an improvement, but I prefer the alternative, in order to keep taxa together as a recognizable attrribute. I have tagged the two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: So do you support my suggestion? AHI-3000 (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I already said I prefer your alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/him) 13:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish communities destroyed in the Holocaust[edit]

Propose listifying and deleting Category:Jewish communities destroyed in the Holocaust (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Disclaimer: I would like to say that this is a sensitive topic that should not be treated lightly. I am going to make some observations that seek to address what I see as inappropriate categorisation practices, but I thereby do not seek to deny or diminish or trivialise the severity of The Holocaust. That said: I think this is an WP:ARBITRARYCAT that should be listified, and every entry supported by WP:RS.

Detailed explanation

Firstly: We cannot say that a city or town, which had at some point a "Jewish community" (something which should also be properly defined first in terms of numbers and characteristics) living in it, should in its entirety be included in this category. The precedent Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 27#Category:Hungarian communities in Slovakia comes to mind: a minority community within a populated place or administrative region cannot be WP:DEFINING for the identity of that place or region as a whole. This is a wider issue within the Category:Historic Jewish communities in Europe tree, but also in similar category trees of "communities" that categorise entire places or regions based on a minority of ethnic group X living within its borders.

Secondly, what exactly "destroyed" means is also not clear, as there have also been many Holocaust survivors. Is a "community" only destroyed when 100% of its members did not survive the Holocaust, or is 90% enough? I'm sorry if that seems like a strange or inappropriate question, but it is one we need to ask to avoid having arbitrary percentages, and thus WP:ARBITRARYCATs. It is the same reason why we can't have Category:Fooian-speaking countries just because, say, more than 50% of inhabitants in country X speaks Fooian, because '50%' is arbitrary. (So I had those categories all renamed last year as well).

What "destroyed" means exactly may also vary. A few years ago, there was a long dispute on Dutch Wikipedia about "List of castles destroyed by the French during the Franco-Dutch War" (it had many different titles, all of which were quite arbitrary and untenable; link: nl:Wikipedia:Te beoordelen pagina's/Toegevoegd 20201103#Lijst van kastelen in Nederland, die door de Fransen rond 1672 of 1794 verwoest zijn). There, it turned out that some castles were rather "damaged" than "destroyed", or "demolished" outside of combat, and that a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH was involved in developing the list. Like this category, that list mostly sought to highlight and quantify the extent of the destruction wrought by a group of perpetrators, but failed to properly define what it was exactly about. "Community" is an even vaguer concept than "castle", and how one can "destroy a community" is really a question I would rather like to leave up to sociologists than us category Wikipedians.

If we listify this category, we could at least provide reliable sources in which scholars explain what they mean; categories cannot do that for us. NLeeuw (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the category contains articles about current-day European cities and towns rather than articles about pre-1945 Jewish communities. No objection against listification per se, but I think this task is far too big for someone to start with on a short term. The category content may be listed at the talk page of a relevant WikiProject before deletion, for someone, or maybe for multiple editors together, to start listifying in their own pace. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a good idea. Perhaps the creator @Eladkarmel is willing to do so? NLeeuw (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These populated places are not notable for being Jewish communities. Dimadick (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not enough commentary on the proposal to listify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimadick Do you support the proposal to listify before deleting? NLeeuw (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only if there are enough independent sources for such a list. Dimadick (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there are plenty of libraries full of sources writing about this. But as Marco said, documenting and verifying all that takes a lot of time, so it would probably be best to list the content on a relevant WikiProject talk page. I think the most appropriate would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history. NLeeuw (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will drop a note at WT:JH.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/him) 13:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American buskers[edit]

Propose renaming Category:American buskers to Category:American street performers

Nominator's rationale: This was previously discussed and agreed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 31#Category:American buskers before it was suddenly moved back without any discussion. WP:ENGVAR allows us to use the American English term. Buskers is not a word generally used in the United States. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename in the spirit of WP:G4 but keep a redirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@QuietHere: as you listed this at WP:CFDS you might want to react as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted when I nominated this for a speedy move in January (see here), the relevant parent category is Category:Buskers by nationality, in which all other entries use that same word. I don't think it makes sense for just one category out of the tree to use different terminology, so I am opposed to this proposal as is. However, I would not oppose renaming the whole tree (and every other relevant category in the greater Category:Buskers tree) based on this given "busking" and "busker" are both redirects to street performance, and I would think it best for all categories to match with that. Plus, I would imagine "street performer" to be a better known, more readily understood, term than "busker". If you wish to extend this proposal to the whole tree, then I will gladly change my vote, but as is I think matching category names is ideal regardless of what terminology is in use. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What you are arguing goes against WP:ENGVAR. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/him) 13:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Migrant to the Ottoman Empire people from British India[edit]

Propose merging Category:Turkish people of Hindkowan descent to Category:People of Hindkowan descent
Propose merging Category:Turkish people of Kashmiri descent to Category:People of Kashmiri descent
Propose merging Category:Turkish people of Pashtun descent to Category:People of Pashtun descent

Nominator's rationale: option A: merge, three categories for only one article is not helpful for navigation. Option B:delete, the article is already in Category:Emigrants from British India and Category:Immigrants to the Ottoman Empire which seems to suffice. For a citizen of the Ottoman Empire it is irrelevant which specific Indian ethnicities all of his ancestors had. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military history of Lorraine[edit]

Propose merging Category:Military history of Lorraine to Category:Military history of Grand Est

Nominator's rationale: merge, Lorraine is a defunct administrative division, meanwhile part of Grand Est. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New South Wales rugby union team players[edit]

Propose merging Category:New South Wales rugby union team players to Category:New South Wales Waratahs players

Nominator's rationale: The two are covering the same team and should be merged. Especially as New South Wales rugby union team redirects to the Waratahs. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles in Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur[edit]

Propose upmerging Category:Battles in Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur to Category:Military history of Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN and recent precedents. NLeeuw (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manually merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles in Grand Est[edit]

Propose upmerging Category:Battles in Grand Est to Category:Military history of Grand Est

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN and recent precedents. NLeeuw (talk) 06:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manually merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kyrgyzstani politicians of Korean descent[edit]

Propose merging Category:Kyrgyzstani politicians of Korean descent to Category:Kyrgyzstani people of Korean descent

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. there'd no need to diffuse Kyrgyzstani people of Korean descent by occupation. Mason (talk) 04:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per given reasoning. Also only one page in the politician cat 104.232.119.107 (talk) 07:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jules Dassin[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Jules Dassin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous parent category for one subcategory of films. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OCEPON. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Analysts of Ayodhya dispute[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Analysts of Ayodhya dispute to Category:Scholars of the Ayodhya dispute

Nominator's rationale: Alternative name sounds more consistent with other categories in Scholars and academics by subject Mason (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - as the page creator. I have no objection. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the spirit of WP:PERFCAT, this is just one of many topics that the subjects in this category were involved. No objection to listification. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political linguistics[edit]

Propose merging Category:Political linguistics to Category:Sociolinguistics

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge/delete. This category contains one page and a redirect, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't think the article belongs in Category:Sociolinguistics. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños faculty[edit]

Propose merging Category:Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños faculty to Category:City University of New York faculty

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This is an institute Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños within Hunter college. This category is too small to be helpful with navigation right now. Mason (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the upper-level category of City University of New York faculty is for a system of colleges and institutes, and the articles in it should be diffused into the appropriate subcats for each of the different colleges within the system in the same way as categories are done for other university systems. Ideally, all of the articles in the CUNY faculty cat would be diffused into subcats of the different colleges or institutes. Additionally, from what I understand, the centro is housed at Hunter College, but is a separate institute within the CUNY system. Semper Fi FieldMarine (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. No objection to diffusion as such, as long as it colleges are big enough to contain lots of articles, but that does not seem to be the case here. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NBA 2K players[edit]

Propose merging Category:NBA 2K players to Category:NBA 2K

Nominator's rationale: Only one subject in category Let'srun (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century Canadian people (post-Confederation)[edit]

Propose merging Category:19th-century Canadian people (post-Confederation) to Category:19th-century Canadian people

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between century and confederation status. There isn't a Canadian people (post-Confederation) category. Mason (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the problem is rather in pre-Confederation Canada, when Canada did not yet exist and the term British North America is controversial. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fran Saleški Finžgar[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Fran Saleški Finžgar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Works by Fran Saleški Finžgar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose merging Category:Novels by Fran Saleški Finžgar to Category:Slovenian novels

Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. This entire category tree only has two pages in it: the author and one novel they work, which isn't helpful for navigation. (Notably it has just as many categories as pages). Mason (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete, the novel article is already in Category:Slovene-language novels and Slovenia did not yet exist. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fran Levstik[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Fran Levstik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. This category only has two pages in it, the author and the list of their works. That's not helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't object to deletion. Thanks for the notification. --TadejM ^{my talk} 03:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fujiwara no Shunzei[edit]

Propose merging Category:Fujiwara no Shunzei to Category:Hyakunin Isshu poets

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This category only has two pages in it. One of which is the author's work and the other is the author. That's not helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

⇢[edit]

⇢ → Arrow (symbol) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This refers to birational maps. Right now the target article has a hatnote for three of the arrows redirecting there, but I'm not sure expanding that indefinitely would be the best option. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Birational geometry#Birational maps or the more general Rational mapping (which also uses either this or the similar notation ⤏), someone copy-pasting this specific symbol is much more likely to look for what it means than for a generic "arrow symbol" page. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / refine to the "Usage" section and mentioned dashed arrows there. They also occur in sequence diagrams and various other places including commutative diagrams. —Kusma (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient United States[edit]

Ancient United States → Pre-Columbian era (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

It's a bad redirect, folks. Remsense诉 08:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the United States weren't a thing in the pre-Columbian era for obvious reasons. A retarget to History of the United States (which does mention the pre-Columbian history, but makes it clear the US didn't exist back then, calling it the lands that became the United States) would also be an option. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Immediately I wish I could be more civil but there is no better way to put in back in 2006-2009 I was a toxic cunt, how I didn't get banned back then is a mystery to me. There are far too many pointless redirects I made back then some people aren't even aware of. That's the main reason I want ALL my editing history gone and start entirely from scratch. And even after recovering I doubt my stance will change. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to History of the United States - while it may not be an ideal title, the fact of the matter is that if someone is looking for information from the ancient period on the landmass known as the United States, this article is where it is. If they're looking for information on the country from the ancient period, well then they might just learn something. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point indeed! I'm honestly split between retarget and delete on this one, both are fine with me. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to History of the United States per Ivanvector. Deletion doesn't seem helpful, since we have relevant content and it's a plausible search term. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Ivanvector. The new target is more geographically specific than the current, and is more similar to the target of Ancient Germany. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 17:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to History of the United States per Ivanvector. Not exactly the best fit but I agree that this is the closest target for it. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination. Ancient United States simply isn't a thing that existed. TarnishedPath^talk 10:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete! Ancient United States implies that there was a giant united empire in North America at the time, which clearly didn't happen. Okmrman (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't mind retargeting, but in this case I lean toward deletion because this redirect has received 0 page views from before this nomination. Had it actually been used more often than never at all, I would change my mind about it appearing to be an unlikely search term. If it were to be retargeted though, I would prefer History of the United States. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or retarget. The vast majority of values of X in articles and redirects titled Ancient X didn't exist in ancient times. So until we delete Ancient France and move Ancient Egypt to The Two Lands, that's not a very good argument. I actually prefer the current target—history of the United States only briefly covers the periods that, elsewhere in the world, are called "ancient", whilst Pre-Columbian era covers them in depth—but that's not so important. – Joe (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sucking peepee[edit]

Sucking peepee → Fellatio (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Peepee sucking → Fellatio (talk · links · history · stats)

I think the title makes it obvious why. Yes, it's technically pointing to the correct page, but seriously. I doubt "Sucking peepee" is really an encyclopedic redirect to have. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Redirects are allowed to be "unencyclopedic". This is an unambiguous redirect, so it's valid. Fieari (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Being a comprehensible synonym isn't sufficient grounds to include an expression. Yes, redirects are cheap—very cheap—but that doesn't mean we need to go Full Neelix and include every possible comprehensible synonym that no one would ever use. If there are actually instances of people searching for this, I'd be fine with it; but are there? Google Trends says no. (That one spike today is me just checking.) Please delete this, before someone decides that if this works, then so does hoovering hoohaa, lapping labia, tonguing twat, and savoring snatch, none of which are on Google Trends.^{[citation needed]} (Actually, I didn't bother to check; but wouldn't it be something if one of them *is* on Trends, whereas sucking peepee is not? Then what are we gonna do?) Mathglot (talk) 05:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Mathglot. Can successfully get to this target from a plethora of different searches, including but not limited to, Google. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unlikely/unhelpful search terms. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
torn between voting to delete based on "peepee" being a general term for the thing that expels the bladder juice (i'm sure there's a better term for that), and to keep based on it being funny
ultimately though, i'd say retarget them to sexual intercourse or a more general target. can't check for a specific target at the moment, my isp would have me killed within the next 3 hours cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Utopes. Jay 💬 18:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mathglot; we don't need redirects for every euphemism people might invent. And when it comes to sex acts, there are a lot. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CHEAP and as plausible search terms, and tag with {{R from colloquial name}}. To respond to concerns in the nomination, redirects are allowed to be unencyclopedic - I’m not aware of a policy/guideline that disallows such redirects, and WP:RNEUTRAL states that perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. Arguments have been made above regarding the likelihood of these as search terms — however, google:"sucking+peepee" tells me that the phrase is one that is in use on the wider Internet, and these therefore strike me as plausible search terms (engaging WP:R#K3). The question I’m asking myself is ‘could these redirects potentially refer to articles besides the current target?’ - and, from what I can see, they seem fairly unambiguous.
Would I have created these redirects myself? Probably not. However, are they problematic such that they require deletion? My answer to that question is no — and therefore, my !vote is to keep: just because Wikipedia doesn’t need these redirects doesn’t mean that the project and/or readers are harmed by their existence. To respond to Mathglot’s and Crossroads' concerns regarding potential other redirects being created, pandora’s-box-style arguments are a form of WP:OTHERSTUFF: if such redirects are created, they can be judged on their own merits (including deletion per WP:R#D8 if a novel or very obscure term without a mention in the article) - and the currently nominated redirects should be judged on their own merits likewise. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 10:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If your argument is based on a google search telling you that "that the phrase is one that is in use on the wider Internet" I would have to respond, "Do you have any idea how small a number 49 results is on the entire internet?" That is functionally equivalent to zero. Some statistician among us might estimate the number of unique English bigrams on the internet with over 49 hits, and that number would be enormous, but they don't all rate redirects, only the ones searched for possibly do. There is no evidence that anybody searched for this bigram (at least, before this thread was started). Mathglot (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it would help, I could link individual pages which use this term. In my mind, the question is whether or not this is a novel or very obscure phrase, and - based on the usage I found from the search - my opinion is that it doesn’t meet that bar. (As a side note, I’m unsure where 49 results originates from - for me, the search returns ~1,700.) Given the size of the internet, lots of terms could be said to have a usage functionally equivalent to zero; however, if a redirect from such a term would potentially be helpful, and its existence wouldn’t be problematic, I don’t see why it couldn’t exist - just because a phrase is insignificant compared to the internet as a whole, doesn’t necessarily mean that that phrase is novel or very obscure. While evidence of usage can be a factor in favour of keeping, a lack of usage is not a reason to delete a redirect. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 10:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per {{R from colloquial name}}.See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_25#Kissing_pussy GobsPint (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you voted 'Keep' there, per... this discussion. Hmm. Mathglot (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if a reader wants information on these topics, the current target is where they will find it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – an Unlikely and unhelpful search terms. Drdpw (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless. Wikipedia is not a profanity de-censorer. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete? (I count 9 deletes and 4 keeps.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 07:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Mathglot. What next? Tongue poking the one eyed snake? Does every possibility need to exist regardless of whether it is likely or helpful? TarnishedPath^talk 07:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per arguments already put forward above, and also anyone who actually searches for this term is likely to be a child. Plenty of other redirects lead to fellatio (65 in total) and as far as I can see none of them are as juvenile (with the possible exception of cockgobbling) and unlikely to be searched. Obviously, juvenile content is allowed on Wikipedia but together with the rest of the arguments put forward is it really necessary in this case? Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 12:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't English learners also search for this term? Air on White (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am a language learner. When learning Dutch, I learnt the word "penis" (admittedly I could have taken a guess at that one) long before the colloquial "lul". In Swedish I know the word "manslem", and in Spanish "pene" but don't know any other ways of saying penis in either language. Maybe I'm an oddity, but in my experience language learners learn the actual word first and then the colloquialisms. I'm sure language learners are more likely to use the word "penis" as it's the same in Dutch, German, French (with an accent), Swedish, Portuguese (with an accent), Danish, Bosnian, Norwegian, Turkish and Latin, I'm sure amongst others. The point is, I don't think the argument that maybe English learners will use a relatively obscure euphamism for male genitalia holds up under scrutiny. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 18:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not because it is particularly bad, but to avoid a repeat of the WP:X1 Neelix issues, even if those were more prominently about breasts. —Kusma (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: Forgive me for asking this, but isn't this just WP:OTHERSTUFF? If this redirect isn't particularly bad, I don't see why it should be deleted based on the idea that other redirects might be created - if they are, RfD can deal with them as/when they occur. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 15:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a policy, it is Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially not a slang dictionary. We even have WP:NOTURBANDICT as a shortcut to that page. Ignoring this just leads to [61]. —Kusma (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of WP:NOTDICT is that it applies to the content of articles rather than redirects, and so would be applicable if e.g. someone wrote a dictionary-definition article on a slang term (which is where Wikipedia is not a...slang...guide would apply). However, per WP:R#K3, redirects from plausible search terms for article subjects are allowed - redirects existing from colloquial terms doesn't violate NOTDICT by my understanding. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 20:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite how silly these redirects seem, they are still plausible search terms. Google shows 1,700 results for the exact phrase "sucking peepee." Meanwhile, the alternate spelling "sucking pp," which does not yet have a page, records 11,100 results. The arguments that "sucking peepee" is an unlikely search terms are speculative, as these two were nominated for deletion within an hour of being created, leaving no time to collect pageview data. The likelihood of a redirect being useful should correspond with how often it is viewed, after all. Why not just keep these new redirects? There's no harm. If they truly are useless, we can always RfD again. Air on White (talk) 06:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try… Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shuggie[edit]

Shuggie → Hugh (given name) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention of "Shuggie" as a nickname at the target article. Could also be confused with Shruggie. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. Shuggie and Shug are Scottish diminutives of Hugh, but we can't forget about Shuggie Otis. - Eureka Lott 05:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as noted, Shug and Shuggie are Scottish nicknames for Hugh. I don't see the need for a disambiguation page though, perhaps add Shuggie Otis to the Hugh article instead. I've already added Shuggie to the infobox as a nickname. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 12:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not the Scots Wikipedia, and "shuggie" could be confused with a diminutive form of "sugar". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector Just to note, Scots is a distinct language. Scottish English is a recognised variant of English. We use American English, British English, Indian English, Canadian English, Australian English, South African English, etc. as appropriate on the English language Wikipedia. I don't think that Scottish English should be ignored and relegated to the edition of Wikipedia in another language. See MOS:ENGVAR, "The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety over others." This isn't to say this particular redirect should be emphatically retained (I've indicated my preference above), just that the use of a nickname (or word in general) predominantly or exclusively in Scotland doesn't automatically mean it's a Scots word. I don't speak Scots, aside from some vocabulary which has made its way into Scottish English, but I do use "Shug" and, to a lesser extent, "Shuggie" as a nickname for people called Hugh. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 14:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to see how someone imagining "shuggie" to be a diminutive form of "sugar" (!) will be helped by deleting Wikipedia's redirect to the actual Scottish English usage. NebY (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shuggie Otis describes the nickname: "short for 'sugar', according to his mother", and also see wikt:shug#Etymology 2. Fair point about Scottish English vs the Scots language, I'm just not sure that this is the best usage for this redirect. Besides Shuggie Otis there's also Shuggie Bain; only one of those is about a person named Hugh. I feel like search results would be better. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate - When I see arguments in an RfD about what the best target should be, it often (not always) means that the disambiguation option should be seriously considered. This is one of those cases, it looks like to me. Fieari (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drove[edit]

Drove → Drovers' road (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Yet another confusing vocabulary word redirect, since "drove" is also the past tense of "drive". I suggest either disambiguating between driving and drovers' road or retargeting to wiktionary. Duckmather (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think your first suggestion sounds good. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the past tense of a verb isn't necessarily a good target when the word is also a noun. A hatnote to driving should do the job, no need for a standalone disambiguation page to maintain. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in my area of Scotland there are a few rights of way named Drove Road, rather than Drovers' road, so a redirect from Drove road might be appropriate, but as noted drove has multiple meanings and I'm not sure this is the most appropriate target. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 12:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - neat, I'd never heard that term before, but the target is unquestionably correct. A hatnote would solve the ambiguity. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify with the above entries plus the following: Drove chisel and Drove, a group of hares. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lenticel: For the record, I'm fine with dabbing - and thanks for the findings! Duckmather (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dabify per lent Okmrman (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or dabify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anonima italiana petroli[edit]

Anonima italiana petroli → Gruppo API (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

delete: the correct name of the company is Anonima Petroli Italiana (API), what can be found on the Internet about Anonima Italiana Petroli (AIP?) concerns other companies (for example in one book he talks about Anonima Italiana Petroli of Piacenza, another says that it subsequently became Società Petrolifera Italiana...). InterComMan (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, from the first sentence in the article "Italiana Petroli S.p.A. (until 2019 Anonima Petroli Italiana S.p.A.), also known by the acronym API or Gruppo API" - it would appear their name has changed but their acronym has not, and has dropped the "Anonima" from its name. This seems like a plausible redirect to me. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 12:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The company was never called Anonima Italiana Petroli, but Anonima Petroli Italiana. In 2019 it changed its name to Italiana Petroli. InterComMan (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point was, which I may not have made as well as I could have, with the name having changed it is plausible for a reader to mistake either "Anonima Petroli Italiana" or "Italiana Petroli" for "Anonima Italiana Petroli" given the change in name. As such the redirect is worth keeping. Redirects are not exclusively used for former official names. This Google search shows that there are several examples of this precise mistaken word order on the internet. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 15:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the Internet, as I showed you, they are mostly references to other companies. However, if it is a common mistake it does not mean that it should be "legitimised". InterComMan (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might have missed one of the points of redirects. They don't legitimise mistakes, they correct them. For example, Scotchland and Scot Land are both redirects to Scotland. I don't think anyone is going to mistakenly type in Scotchland, be taken to a page titled Scotland, and think that Scotchland is the correct spelling. Similarly, AmericA redirects to United States, Neatherlands redirects to Netherlands, Itali redirects to Italy and Russiya redirects to Russia. (I realise these are all countries, not companies, but it's much easier to think of examples for countries). Redirects exist in part to correct mistakes, not to reinforce them. See WP:POFR for more information on when to use redirects. From the search results linked above, any other companies with this name are likely to be non-notable entities and are unlikely to be searched for or have articles created at this page so I feel this is a valid redirect for a possible mistake. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 19:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 8.2[edit]

Windows 8.2 → Windows 10 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Windows 8.2 does not exist, and does not refer to Windows 10. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 17:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous RfD. I know it was 9 years ago and Wikipedia:Consensus can change, but the arguments made back then are still convincing. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kafka-trapping[edit]

Kafka-trapping → List of fallacies#Kafkatrapping (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Kafka trap → List of fallacies#Kafkatrapping (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Kafka trapping → List of fallacies#Kafkatrapping (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Kafkatrap → List of fallacies#Kafkatrapping (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

List of fallacies#Kafkatrapping no longer exists because "Kafkatrapping" isn't a recognised fallacy described in the literature about logic. The list violated WP:LISTGLOSSARY because "Kakfatrapping" does not have a Wikipedia article (and does not qualify for one), just a Wiktionary entry. There has been a prior deletion discussion for Kafka-trap which ended with User:Guarapiranga undoing my removal of List of fallacies#Kafkatrapping and starting a Talk page discussion, which involved getting a third perspective. Since that third perspective was emphatically in favour of removing the entry, I've removed it again. MartinPoulter (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per removal as discussed at talk page. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not too late, I'm bundling in Kafka trapping and Kafkatrap as avoided double redirects, to avoid a second RfD for those two after this one (although I realise that this might necessitate another relist...sorry!). Courtesy ping MartinPoulter, Chaotic Enby. Note that I am neutral with regards to this nomination, this is a procedural bundling only (if such a term exists). All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 14:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural. The last two redirects have only been tagged for a day.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knightfall (comics)[edit]

Knightfall (comics) → List of DC Comics characters: K (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Knightfall (character) → List of DC Comics characters: K (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. No mention of "Knightfall" in the target article. Mika1h (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget "(comics)" to Batman: Knightfall, a DC Comics comic book storyline; when Bruce Wayne Batman broke his back and was replaced by Azrael and then Nightwing as Batman -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion on Knightfall (character). Also notified of this discussion at the current and proposed target talk pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget Knightfall (comics) per 65.92.247.66, Delete Knightfall (character). -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged Knightfall (character) with {{R with history}}. Its AfD had closed as redirect last year. Jay 💬 11:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm reverting my close (and relisting) because, as Jay pointed on my talk page, this discussion would be better served by a relist. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the Knightfall (character)'s AfD, 5 out of 6 participants voted merge, and two list targets were proposed. However, Explicit closed the AfD closed as redirect, not merge. Merge to the current target, or restore and tag with a {{merge to}}. Retarget "(comics)" to Batman: Knightfall per all. Jay 💬 16:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Road (upcoming film)[edit]

The Road (upcoming film) → The Road (2023 film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No longer unreleased. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kokkarakko[edit]

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

This should've been a quick WP:G7, but with Srivin also having edited, it no longer is, right? But I still hope both of us can agree, that it be deleted. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RDRAFT -- per this RfC, [t]here is a clear consensus against deletion of draft namespace redirects. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 12:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:RDRAFT and A smart kitten. (Although for other cases, I don't think that the fact another editor has edited the article has any bearing how/if a redirect left from a move can be deleted.) Skynxnex (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LGD redirects[edit]

List of nominated redirects

These 282 "foo LGD" redirects were created in the last two days, on 11 and 12 May 2024.[62] Chocolateediter briefly described their intent as to aid editing "When you have long-ish lists";[63] they are intended to redirect to UK local government districts, hence the novel initialism "LGD". They have now been used to shorten the targets of piped links, eg changing [[London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham|Hammersmith and Fulham]] to [[Hammersmith and Fulham LGD|Hammersmith and Fulham]] (with 30 other such changes) at London boroughs [64] and similarly with 7 other new redirects at Greater Manchester [65]. This obscures the targets for other editors and does nothing to help readers. "LGD" is not an initialism in common use in the UK and can't be expected to make searching easier for readers. NebY (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural request: how best can we consider all 285 new "foo LGD" redirects? Must each be tagged and how, and do we want a full list here? Totally outside my experience and toolkit. NebY (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NebY: I can go through and tag them semi-automatically using WP:JWB if you'd like. I'm unsure of whether there's a standard for how to list large nominations; but two ideas I had are (a) placing the list on the log's talk page and linking to it from here, or (b) including them above but wrapping the list in {{cot}}/{{cob}} tags. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 12:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@A smart kitten Thank you! Tagging them all seems good and proper, as long as it doesn't make far too much work for the closer if they're kept. I guess having them listed on this page would be better - but yes, definitely wrapped. NebY (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doing... ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 12:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done (courtesy ping NebY, as I modified your nomination slightly to reflect the fact that all the 282 redirects are now bundled.) ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 13:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's great - thanks again. NebY (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

intitle:/ LGD/ insource:/REDIRECT/ limited to article space seems to find basically all of them (not sure why it appears to be finding only 282 as of this writing), in case it helps. Skynxnex (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, 282 is correct; turns out my crudely pasting a list of contributions into a spreadsheet's no good. NebY (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOT:DICTIONARY[edit]

NOT:DICTIONARY → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a dictionary (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The "NOT:" namespace doesn't exist, nor it is short for a real namespace. This is the only page of its kind that uses the NOT pseudo namespace and has seen zero usage. (Special:PrefixIndex/NOT:) A (standard) redirect to this page that it points to is WP:DICTIONARY, which is already shorter. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 01:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, generally shouldn't be having redirects from mainspace to project space. BilledMammal (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#DICTIONARY works and is sufficient. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NOTDICTIONARY exists -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant to WP:NOT#DICTIONARY --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't need an entire pseudo-namespace just for redirects to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given the issues currently being faced by the 'MOS:' pseudo-namespace. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules[edit]

Template:Uw4mu[edit]

Template:Uw4mu (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Very poor grammar version of uw-4im that misquotes policy. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arusha Rural District[edit]

Template:Arusha Rural District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Arusha District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Arusha Rural District with Template:Arusha District.
{{Arusha Rural District}} is fuller. Template:Arusha District should be turned into a disambiguation because {{Arusha Urban District}} exists as well. Aldij (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Missing rationale[edit]

Template:Missing rationale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Di-no non-free use rationale-notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Missing rationale with Template:Di-no non-free use rationale-notice.
This template (Missing rationale) needs to be merged because it seems to have an similar wording. Missing rationale was often used in the 2000s before Di-no non-free use rationale-notice, and most people do not use "Missing rationale" anymore. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is meant for when a file has only been tagged with a boilerplate rationale template and the second is where there is no rationale at all, but I think there's no major issue merging them if the first one isn't being used. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 11:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany[edit]

Draft:Constantin Wolf Cordes[edit]

Non-draft content incompatible with WP:BLP. —Alalch E. 11:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is a draft, but it is an unreferenced biography of a living person. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review[edit]

janno Lieber (closed)[edit]

janno Lieber – Speedy closed as a disruptive appeal for a disruptive AfD. Anon appellant blocked for one week, User:Railrider12 indef blocked as an account created specifically for this trolling AfD. Both were warring with the non-admin closer, who correctly speedy closed the disruptive AfD. Owen× ☎ 18:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Disputed closure of bio article. 170.167.196.16 (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

[1] Salgado, Augusto Alves (2022). Viagens e Operações Navais (1668-1823) (PDF) (in Portuguese). Lisbon: Academia de Marinha. p. 13.

[2] "Suqaynah Khan making waves". Magazine - The Weekly.

[3] "معروف اداکارہ ارم اختر کی بیٹے کیساتھ تصاویر وائرل". Jang News.

[4] Cook, John (21 October 2005). "Ex-startup Airbiquity experiences a rebirth". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

[5] Cook, John (22 January 2008). "Airbiquity rebounds with funding, deals". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

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