Wikipedia:XfD today

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Deletion today)
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
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]

Candidates for speedy deletion
Apni Party Pakistan
User talk:Guyweisz
User:KEN DIGITAL
Draft:Linilxinth (Lynx) (Twitch)
List of Egyptian basketball players in foreign leagues
List of Egyptian football players in foreign leagues
Opay
Draft:Parabellum Investments
Pyem language
Draft:Rami Cassis
Shahid Siddiqui (politician)
Draft:West Port/West Port Charlotte
User:WikiSQX/sandbox

Articles[edit]

< June 03 June 05 >

Purge server cache

List of battles in England[edit]

List of battles in England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to

@Nederlandse Leeuw, I see no issues with the article, but it should have been merged not deleted. Am i getting this right. I split them because the parent article was very large, yet that lists don't have to be sourced. I would like to merge the content to List of battles by geographic location. I have no idea why my creations are getting reduced; I am current not happy with it. ToadetteEdit! 23:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, why don't you also nominate List of battles by geographic location too? ToadetteEdit! 23:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you're not happy about the fact that I am successively nominating articles for deletion that you just so happen to have created. I rarely look at who created it, only at what the contents are, and how valuable they might be. I've got nothing against you or your work in particular. That said, these split-offs are a cut & paste job that takes less than 5 minutes of effort each. Recycling existing content is a lot easier than writing brand new articles with proper sourcing.
The reason why I am nominating the lists is in this manner is that I am following a step-by-step approach, building broad consensus based on easy precedents before going on to complex cases. Since actively participating in CfD and AfD from 2023, I learnt that that is the most realistic strategy to solving issues, and avoid WP:TRAINWRECKs. The second reason is that List of battles by geographic location had already been AfD'd in 2022, closing as Keep but Split: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles by geographic location. If I still want to get it deleted anyway, then overturning that consensus is going to be difficult. The split-offs provide a good opportunity to show in smaller cases why creating lists of battles by modern countries' geographical borders is not very useful, and difficult to justify when done almost completely WP:UNSOURCED. It seems to be working, as 4 split-off lists have already been deleted, and a consensus has been building that they should be deleted, especially most recently in the Croatia case.
The new round I am going for now is Afghanistan, England, Egypt, and medieval India. You didn't create the latter two articles, so this is nothing personal. If all 4 are deleted as proposed, then perhaps I may nominate List of battles by geographic location next. But we'll see what fellow editors have to say first. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- This is a well-populated list, which provides better detail than is available from a category. It might be useful to purge by moving battles of the Civil War (War of the three kingdoms into
a more specific list.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francois Esterhuyzen[edit]

Francois Esterhuyzen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was this routine news piece and a few interviews in Russian-language media (1, 2, 3). JTtheOG (talk) 20:44, 28 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! 22:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Swing Championships[edit]

Canadian Swing Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The three non-primary sources in this article contain only trivial coverage. A WP:BEFORE search for the event name in English and French turned up nothing usable. (In terms of precedents, there are currently no other articles on individual swing dance events, and I would expect to see one on the more significant International Lindy Hop Championships before this.) Sdkb talk 20:25, 28 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! 22:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leyla Abdullayeva[edit]

Leyla Abdullayeva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Comment: The other language Wikipedias seem to have a better sourced version of this, with around ten separate sources, however I'm not sure about their quality.
=== Russian language ===
=== Azerbaijani Wikipedia ===
Testeraccount101 (talk) 13:52, 14 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! 22:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you believe an editor is a sockpuppet, please file a reports at WP:SPI. It's not a matter that can be resolved in a discussion about possibly deleting an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Azerbaijan's ambassador to France and former spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign affairs is a notable diplomat, and meets WP:GNG.--Nicat49 (talk) 20:07, 3 June 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! 22:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LYCONET[edit]

LYCONET (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability with reliable sources being primarily about Lyoness. Related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyWorld. IgelRM (talk) 21:04, 21 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! 22:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Keep per presented sufficient newspaper coverage and general notability presented as a significant cashback entity, possibly one of the first global ones (operating since 2003).--Welcome to Pandora (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carey Schueler[edit]

Carey Schueler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject's only claim to fame is that she was the first woman MLB drafted and thus, they lifted their ban on drafting women, both of which are already mentioned in Women in baseball and her dad's articles. While that may be the case, she never actually played in any MLB or even MiLB game unlike Kelsie Whitmore. Her time in high school and college are not worth mentioning as she was not a star athlete in either cases. The sources backing these claims are either dead links or only mention her briefly and I cannot find enough coverage for her in general to meet WP:GNG or WP:NATHLETE anyway. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Besides the fact that it feels wrong to relegate a woman who broke through in a male dominated field to a mention in her male relative's article (in an encyclopedia which already has a gender gap issue), her drafting was very significant, lead to a rule change and also, notably not a publicity stunt but based on a genuine assessment of her talent. She is well covered in literature on the subject (1). The article could certainly use expansion (I'd like to find information on her performance in her senior year season, for instance), but that by itself is not reason to delete it any more than any other stub article. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How you "feel" is not a legit reason to keep an article. I am sure many other editors' personal point of views conflict with the rules here, but they can do nothing about it. Most of those books in that Google search only mention her for a single sentence or paragraph. That is certainly not "well covered." The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first word in my comment is that besides the fact that it feels wrong. I'm also not talking about my personal feelings here, but commenting on how doing things like redirecting a woman's page to her male relative's only enforces systematic gender bias on wikipedia. Many of the books contain only a paragraph mention, but several of them do contain more coverage than that. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Women in baseball per WP:BLP1E. While being the first female drafted in MLB is a big deal, the subject did not sign with, let alone play for, any professional baseball organization. Outside of that, she had a rather unremarkable college basketball career. This person is clearly defined by a single event. She can adequately be covered at the proposed target article, even if information about her high school baseball career is added as suggested by Wasianpower. Frank Anchor 22:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:BLP1E. She was drafted by a team which had her father as general manager, she wasn't signed to a contract, and (per the Chicago Tribune reference) she hadn't played baseball for two years before being drafted. The facts suggest this was a stunt for attention. As there is no substantial coverage of her other than that event, I must vote to redirect. Leaning towards Ron Schueler as the target over Women in baseball, as that article is more likely to contain more than de minimis discussion of her. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose Ron Schueler as a target. Casey Schueler is most notable for being the first woman drafted by MLB, not for being Ron’s daughter. Frank Anchor 00:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree with this. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for two reasons: First, there is a discrete entry about Carey Schueler in two different baseball encyclopedias: Donald Dewey, Nicholas Acocella, and Jerome Holtzman's The New Biographical History of Baseball: The Classic—Completely Revised (Triumph Books, 2002) and Leslie A. Heaphy and Mel Anthony May's Encyclopedia of Women and Baseball (McFarland & Company, 2006), indicating that in the field of baseball history Schueler is considered sufficiently notable for inclusion in encyclopedias. Second, the second criterion of WP:ANYBIO is has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field, and Schueler precipitated the MLB to change a rule about signing contracts for women), an enduring contribution to baseball. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:36, 23 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! 22:28, 28 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! 22:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: At least passes general notability with the sources given in the comment above; gender bias here in Wiki is a thing also, there is no point redirecting to her father's article. Publicity stunt or not, the drafting got her attention in the press, so it's enough for wiki notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cầu Diễn station[edit]

Cầu Diễn station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero sources to meet the GNG. The source cited doesn't mention this station. The only others I could find list it as one among several stations [7][8] and say nothing more. No significant coverage. Toadspike [Talk] 15:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please redirect this to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro). Toadspike [Talk] 15:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and Vietnam. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the position data, etc. to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) and redirect there if sources cannot be found (they're most likely to be in Vietnamese, so do check in that language). There is no reason to delete the information present in the article which will be useful if it is expanded in future. Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge there isn't enough coverage (or content) for a separate article from Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) yet, but there might be in the future. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references from the corresponding article in Vietnamese. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. All these metro station articles can be expanded (and their references improved) using the information already present in the corresponding articles in Vietnamese and other languages. Reviewing relevant articles in other languages is an important part of WP:BEFORE. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per my talk page: I checked the Vietnamese Wikipedia articles for most of these nominations and their sourcing was no better. In this example, there is a map from Hanoi Metro [9], which isn't an independent source and has no information to boot, and this source [10], which doesn't mention the station at all.
    Source review on enwiki: Four sources never mention this station [11][12][13][14] (yes, I even watched the full 56-second video). There is also an article which lists the names of eight stations but says nothing more about this station [15].
    I assume good faith when people say sources exist somewhere, but in this case there are even fewer sources there and none are useful for notability. I do not appreciate the casting of aspersions about my BEFORE checks. Toadspike [Talk] 06:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll go further than Toadspike. You are completely out of line, Eastmain. You make a habit of dumping any source you find online and then saying keep without actually reading them, and have an idea of what constitutes significant coverage that is utterly out of line with community consensus. Your AfD match rate is below 60%, while Toadspike is at nearly 90%. If anyone needs to improve their behavior at AfD, it is you (I'm at 83%, if you're wondering). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:26, 22 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! 22:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Appears to have sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Metro stations that have tens of thousands of riders annually are almost always notable. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to object to the claim that WP:HEY applies. The article has 5 sources for one sentence of prose content, and as Toadspike notes, there isn't coverage there. In fact, none of them even show the station is open, much less has "tens of thousands of riders". There is no improvement that suggests any outcome other than a redirect should happen. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still divided between Keep and Merge/Redirect. Rather than close as No Consensus, I'm relisting once more.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juhani (Star Wars)[edit]

Juhani (Star Wars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Source analysis from reception: Of all sources that have been used, Gizmodo [16] is the only sigcov here. [17] Passing mention. [18] A trivia coverage from a listicle. [19] trivia coverage. [20] just a passing mention of Juhani being a lesbian character and can have lesbian relationship with trivia coverage [21] passing mention [22] listicle [23] just talked about her being created as a lesbian and the romance, a bit useful but this and Gizmodo isn't enough to pass the notability threshold. The rest of the sources that I didn't mention aren't reliable/situational and cannot help WP:GNG. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the character list. The reception consists of trivial mentions with no indication of standalone notability at all. Simply being a milestone for something is not enough to merit a page, unfortunately. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The character's milestone status does seem to have gotten her some attention from outside the normal fan-coverage sources, however. Whether it's sufficiently significant coverage, I'm a terrible judge. But see: Dym, Brianna (2019). "The burden of queer love". Press Start. 5 (1): 19–35. (pp. 24-26 in particular) and Shaw, Adrienne; Friesem, Elizaveta (2016). "Where is the queerness in games?: Types of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer content in digital games". International Journal of Communication. 10: 3877–3889. (admittedly, only one paragraph on p. 3883 but includes context and analysis outside the first game). Snippet view (and Google Scholar) suggest there might be some discussion of the character in chapter 8 of this Routledge-published book, but I don't have immediate access and my library doesn't have a copy handy. Lubal (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect There are only passing mentions of this in reliable sources. It isn't enough to pass the notability threshold. Jontesta (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, if suggesting a Merge or Redirect, you must supply a target article at the same time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. And, as I said, specify a target article, by linking to the desired page, do not say things like "merge to the character list". Name the specific article. The closer probably doesn't know Star Wars and you don't want them guessing where content should be merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mario vs. Donkey Kong (video game)[edit]

Mario vs. Donkey Kong (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am procedurally nominating this article for deletion, as it has been WP:BLAR'd multiple times despite clear opposition to it, which its detractors claim is pointless bureaucracy. I have no opinion on whether or not it should be kept or redirected yet, but I should note that this spin-off series has several mentions in reliable sources, which makes me think it should be put up to a real AfD discussion rather than hidden on a talk page. Despite technically being part of the Donkey Kong series, the "Vs. Mario" sub-series is long-running and its games have gotten large amounts of coverage, making it possibly undue to simply be merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (EDIT: See below) I'm trying to follow what's going on here. There's a video game (and its remake) with the same name as the series that it is part of. All of this is fairly well-attested. Currently, the non-disambiguated title is the article for the series, and the game(s) of the same name are at the "(video game)" article. At least one editor is unhappy with this arrangement and wants the main article to be the video game. There has been blanking and redirection attempted to enforce that desire, and so this has ended up here as a "procedural" nomination, despite no one having forwarded a reason why we should actually not have an article for a series with like 7 games in it. Did I miss something about how all this process is intended to work? Lubal (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have to also make a case for why it should be kept. For example, an argument you could make is akin to the nominator's, that it's discussed in reliable sources, or that it would be given undue weight if redirected. I don't agree, but those would be arguments you can make. You can also make "per nominator" rationales for keeping, though when tallying results, weighing in with more may be beneficial to the article ultimately being kept. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand how AFD works, just not how this AFD works. What is the actual reason we're here? Even the nomination cites sources suggesting this is a valid topic. Additionally, this is a listicle but it's a list of entirely this series's games, bylined, and from a site with a stated editor and editorial policy. This book about platform games mostly talks about one specific game in the series, but does take time to deem it a "series" and list the then-included games. What is an argument for retention being asked to argue against here, exactly? Lubal (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator opposed a redirect on procedural grounds, my understanding is that the nominator does not want the article deleted and believes that because two users want it to be merged, it should go through AfD. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lubal: The reason we're here is because this is a procedural AfD on behalf of editors who simply wished to soft delete the article without prior discussion, despite WP:BLAR being reserved solely for uncontroversial topics. I believed it deserved a full deletion discussion so that others outside said narrow, stringent group had a chance to gauge its notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be entirely clear, it was extremely clearly uncontroversial. There had hardly been any major edits to the article for several years, there was nothing in the article suggesting individual notability. The only reason it could be said to be controversial is because you opposed it, an opposition that did not exist until after the move. BLAR was perfectly appropriate in this case. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What was the controversy? I don't see any opposition on the talk page or in the recent page history. Sergecross73 msg me 03:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I've spent way too long reading through the sources and discussion here. What's almost certainly going to happen is: 1) move this article to Mario vs. Donkey Kong (series) over the current redirect, 2) then redirect it to Donkey Kong#Mario vs. Donkey Kong (to preserve history), 3) move Mario vs. Donkey Kong (video game) to Mario vs. Donkey Kong over the move-created redirect. That said, I would have structured all of this differently from first principles. Sources are split about whether some of these games (especially the Donkey Kong Country games, but to a lesser extent these as well) represent their own independent series or are merely facets of a larger gorilla gestalt. From an outside observer, it's not immediately clear why a Lemmings-inspired game where you play as Mario is in the same series with a game where you play a rhino-riding monkey, and not all sources treat them as if they are. But some do, and editorially, that's where this went. The result, at least for now, is fine; what we have at AFD right now is effectively a content fork. But while I've come around to endorsing the current structure, I'd also urge those working in this area to be open to the idea that, if content continues to release for this sub-series or whatever you want to call it (or especially if some miracle revives Donkey Kong Country) that it may become reasonable and prudent to treat them somewhat more separately. And with that, this is off my watchlist. Lubal (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. The BLAR was entirely valid, and this is definitely an AfD done for bureaucratic purposes. I also find the argument of reliable sources highly questionable considering the nominator cited an article that discusses Mario vs. Donkey Kong as part of the overall Donkey Kong series, which I would argue makes the case for redirecting, not keeping. The fact that the Mario vs. Donkey Kong series is itself, with only one exception, sequels to Donkey Kong for Game Boy and not its own unique thing like Paper Mario or what have you is also very telling to me of how independent it is from Donkey Kong. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect The original BLAR was an entirely valid move, and the sources cited by the nominator only help support that the sub-subject is perfectly valid to discuss within the context of the main Donkey Kong series article. Additionally I feel this AfD disrupts an ongoing move discussion at Mario vs. Donkey Kong (video game), where the nominator had several established editors not only agreeing with the decision but with the assessment that the sources found by Zx only helped to re-affirm the BLAR was the right move. While I assume good faith on the nominator's part, that should have been taken into account, especially as the individual that did the original BLAR has been actively working to improve articles related to this subject on wikipedia.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per others. This discussion shouldn't even exist, there is one already ongoing where many agree with the BLAR, including me. Even if this series was notable, I believe that it's better off as part of something else as it is uninformative and not necessary as a standalone article. We don't need a useless split off. λ NegativeMP1 02:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect a move discussion is not how you discuss deleting articles. It's something you do after the discussion is over and the pages have to be organized, rather than a backdoor deletion venue. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a misstatement of the sequence of events. The article was redirected to Donkey Kong, and then a move discussion due to the redirect. The point being made is that the discussion had several editors making clear that they viewed the series article as not being independently notable from Donkey Kong. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - series articles aren't necessary when there's little to no content actually about the concept as a series. The article largely just sloppily regurgitates basic outline info from each individual article. We've got the individual articles for that sort of thing. Sergecross73 msg me 02:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect No significant coverage of the series outside of the context of the Donkey Kong franchise itself, given that the games are considered spiritual successors to the DK series. --Masem (t) 12:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I understand the nom's procedural BLAR here. Unfortunately, with the discussion ongoing, I feel this should not have come to AfD until a true outcome was available. Here it just feels like the redirect should have happened regardless. Under normal circumstances, it still would have been a redirect from me. Conyo14 (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Speaking as the one who originally redirected the article, I've been rewriting Donkey Kong for the past several months and there simply isn't really much to say about Mario vs. Donkey Kong that can't be said at Donkey Kong. What you'd have is little more than a list of entries, a purpose already served by List of Donkey Kong video games, and it's worth noting that there already exists consensus that Donkey Kong Country, a subseries with a far greater claim to notability than Mario vs. Donkey Kong, doesn't need to have an independent article. JOEBRO64 19:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, it's not clear to me what the possible redirect target article is agreed upon here as several different "Donkey Kong" or "Mario" articles are mentioned in editors' opinions. There is agreement on the outcome of having this article Redirected, I just wish it was clearer what it was to be Redirected to. Once that is clear to a closer, this discussion can be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shoro (tribe)[edit]

Shoro (tribe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do we really need a standalone WP article on each and every tribe that exists on this planet? Fails WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a major tribe of the Sindh region of Pakistan. You should avoid speed nominating multiple articles without hesitation and get yourself familiarized with South Asian caste related articles. Perhaps engage in a talk page discussion first with major contributors. This tribe was involved in a rebellion against the Arghun Dynasty of Sindh. It is clearly relevant, at least for historical reasons. Sir Calculus (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned on your talk page, I do agree that this would have needed a broader preliminary discussion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:36, 14 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! 05:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the case, I wouldn't have nominated this for deletion. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 00:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. If you believe this article should be kept, please name the sources you believe establish GNG is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bronwyn Labrum[edit]

Bronwyn Labrum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:AUTHOR. No inherent notability in the roles she held. LibStar (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, History, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just barely. The Stuff profile and Wanganui Chronicle article establish some notability. I'm not sure if WP:AUTHOR is the only criteria that applies here, as she has been a curator and researcher at multiple museums and universities, most notably Te Papa which is the New Zealand national museum. To me, this establishes notability as an academic. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How does she meet WP:NACADEMIC? LibStar (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Likely passes AUTHOR as "Ockham New Zealand Book Awards finalist in 2016" per [28] and some book reviews here [29] and [30]. Appears to be a published academic author as well. Oaktree b (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: She also edited this rather comprehensive volume on clothing in NZ [31] Oaktree b (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freya Jayawardana[edit]

Freya Jayawardana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this subject doesn't meet WP:GNG criteria and can't stand-alone (WP:NLIST) as a musician (WP:MUSIC and WP:BANDMEMBER). May this subject have to be redirect to List of JKT48 members page. Ariandi Lie Let's talk 17:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She may not be as famous like a Hollywood celebrity. However, she is one of the notable members of JKT48. WJetChao (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starwing Paradox[edit]

Starwing Paradox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Digging around on this, there's nothing online that I could find but announcements of the game's development and content (mostly press release regurgiation), with zero reaction, review or critical response. The most notable aspect was a tournament being cancelled, but that was due to Yoshiyuki Sadamoto being tied to the game as a character designer and not the game itself. Game required a server connection that's since been shut down, with little commentary about that either. WP:BEFORE just shows no real indication of notability. Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, leaning keep: Does someone know the Japanese sources? I imagine that they'd be the most relevant for determining notability of an only-in-Japan game. In general, JP media tends to be more "fannish" than American video game outlets (lots of open regurgitation of the plot & characters), but I'm seeing some coverage. Famitsu has an overview here (yes, with lots of fannish "here are all the characters" rather than commentary, but see above, it's a Japanese game and it's going to get JP media standards), including links to 6 interviews with the voice actors, staff, and singers. Of which the staff ones are probably the "most" relevant (e.g. [32], [33]). Even if the game flopped, flops are interesting too. I'd be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to a case of borderline notability if this was a Sunrise collaboration, Sunrise is a big deal. SnowFire (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SnowFire: The problem isn't that it was a flop, it's that there was no reaction to the game itself. We still need at least some sort of reception here, even for an arcade game, for the purposes of notability. Even Japanese sources didn't indicate that from what I dug through, just famitsu's interviews and the usual "this is what's in this update!" sort of PR articles.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • There does exist media that is only questionably notable as media (i.e. a game / book / film / etc.) but are notable anyway under GNG. Comes up with canceled games most obviously, which never get reviews but might have eaten up a bunch of time / money at a studio. The whole "tournament canceled" thing seems similar - obviously not relevant as a game, but sourced and covered overall on the topic-as-a-whole.
    • I do agree that the coverage is not very substantial by English-media standards, but it does look like there is at least some coverage. This Famitsu first-look report talks about the game-as-a-game. And I know you've already mentioned it, but there are trivial-ish "Here's what's in this update!" stories floating around, a la the 5 related articles at the end of [34] - all dealing with the work, just in "Hey you can buy this" or "there's a new mode now" form.
    • And to be clear, yeah, I'm not saying that the delete argument is that it was a flop, but the fact it doesn't appear to have done too well is surely the cause for why it's a bit difficult to find sourcing. Don't get me wrong, this is a very borderline notability game, but when the sources are largely not in English but clearly existent, I'd be inclined to kneejerk on the side of keep. SnowFire (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. In addition to the current sources (of which Siliconera is probably the highest quality site), there's initial announcement reporting from Anime Herald. I'm not familiar with them, but they have a reasonably large set of staff editors? But perhaps more to the point, this was primarily a Japanese release, and so we should be looking for Japanese reportage. Forcing Google to give me what it thinks are Japanese news articles relevant to "星と翼のパラドクス"... reminds me that I do not speak or read Japanese even enough to pretend. But I don't think there has to be very much more there than we're already seeing to drag this over the line. Lubal (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lubal: I mean generally we wait til sources are *found* first instead of assuming, that's kinda the problem. Also the Siliconera and Anime Herald sources aren't giving reception; the only one that is at all is the one Famitsu source Snow found, and that's not enough for an article...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I quite read our notability guidelines to imply that only sources giving explicit reception of the game would contribute to notability. But that aside, I have tried to bumble through the Japanese sources with the help of Google Translate. As a disclaimer, it's going to be exceptionally hard for me to judge the reliability of some of these sources due to the language barrier. This, from ASCII Games seems particularly promising. It's a bylined full-length article about the initial demo reveal of the game, including review elements and details like the arcade game per-play cost that are absent from our current coverage; the site has some sort of editorial review policy but I cannot speak to its overall source quality. This is the online footprint of what appears to be a print magazine with what looks like a two-page spread about the game, although the way this is presented, I can't actually translate the pages themselves. This is a full length interview with the game's creators; I'm aware that there's some contention about to what extent, if any, interviews contribute to crossing inclusion thresholds. I'm confident there are more, as my capacity to search for, read, and evaluate this material is very poor. Lubal (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per above and Lubal's sources. There's some sources to work with here. I'm not a huge fan of using previews for Reception, but I think it's better than nothing since the preview version of the game sounds pretty close to the released version. And per above, it really would not surprise me if there exists better sources buried in Japan-only magazines and the like that are difficult to find due to releasing long after the heyday of Japanese arcades and just a year before COVID would wreck the remnants of the arcade market. SnowFire (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow I'll be honest, I really don't like the approach of WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST simply because it's Japan. There's been plenty of times that's been disappointing. I'm not going to fight on it but it's just not a particular route I'm fond of given the track record is all.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even though no support for deletion has arrived, both !votes say weak keep and the other commenter is only leaning keep. More discussion could help. Even if the article survives AfD, though, it will clearly need improvement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Afrika[edit]

Out of Afrika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No extensive third-party coverage to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loïc Jean-Albert[edit]

Loïc Jean-Albert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. With only 2 google news hits, the first one not being in-depth, not enough coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep: [35], [36] and [37] give at least basic coverage of this person, he was an early adopter of the wing suit it seems. Oaktree b (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Craig_Considine_(academic)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Craig_Considine_(academic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unconvinced that the subject of this article meets the notability guidelines for academics. The article subject is a teaching professor with limited research output. Their research has not made a significant impact in their scholarly field (they seem to publish introductions for popular presses, published reviews of their other work is critical). They have not recieved a highly prestigious academic award or honor at national/internationl level. They are not an elected member of a highly selective/prestigious society. The subject does not hold a distinguished professor position or appointment at a major institution, nor have they been named chair or equivalent. The subject has not held a highest-level administrative appointment. The person appears not to have made a signifcant impact outside of academia in their academic capacity, where they are quoted in publications it is usually promotional material for one of their porjects. The subject has not been editor/EiC of a major/well-established academic journal. Other contextual clues indicate that this page exists purely as a promotional platform for the subject. There is very little activity on this page other than IP editors vandalizing the page to introduce promotional content, and then other editors removing or clarifying these edits. The creator of this page has since been banned for their promotional activities. I mean to disrespect to the subject of this article, but I struggle to see how they meet the criteria or need for inclusion on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with trying to boost your platform and visibility as a junior academic, but I would suggest that this is much better accomplished through a personal website and social media channels. Having a cursory glance at the department the article subject belongs to, there are many far more senior scholars among his colleagues who are not similarly represented on this site. After spending significant time trying to improve this page, I doubt that with the available material it will rise to the level of inclusion. I welcome other editors' feedback and perspectives if I have been too harsh in my judgement. Boredintheevening (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(correcting typo: line read "I mean no disrespect", not "I mean to disrespect") Boredintheevening (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Centralised decentralised finance[edit]

Centralised decentralised finance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous prod (tagged by Remsense, removed by Kvng) so I don't want to do anything unilateral, but while the sources may provide sufficient depth of coverage to write something, I don't think they're what we would normally consider RS. Specifically, they seem to be all sources within or closely related to the cryptocurrencies community. I would suggest maybe adding a few sentences to decentralised finance since it's quite closely related and redirecting there. (Also, does anyone else find it weird that centralized finance redirects to central bank?) Other suggestions welcome. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a potential WP:BLAR candidate. Remsense诉 20:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hye, i did add the problems of the DeFi (Decentralised Finance), the reason i didn't add more about DeFi is because there's already a page about it so i've added a redirect, as for the Centralized Finance, i could remove that redirect but Centralized Finance does mean finance with a central authority which would be a central bank in this case. As for the source, it's not a very popular topic so you wouldn't see many articles from the Reliable Sources, i still did some digging and managed to find some reliable sources that other pages also use. PikaBoo (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, if there aren't enough sources that meet the criteria, we would not be able to have a separate page for it but we could potentially have a short section mentioning it on a closely related concept, say, the decentralised finance page mentioning the differences. Also, "centralised finance" is pretty crypto-jargon-y, I don't really think it's used much outside of the context of crypto, and someone clicking on the link may be a little surprised (WP:RASTONISH) especially since the Central bank page does not explain what that term has to do with it (and probably shouldn't). Then again, this is AfD not RfD, I'll probably have to raise that one with them later. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next Assam Legislative Assembly election[edit]

Next Assam Legislative Assembly election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NCRYSTAL. Nothing about the election has been declared yet, no WP:RS are currently talking about it. Should be recreated closer to the election, once actual sources start discussing it.

For similar recent AfDs, see - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Next_Goa_Legislative_Assembly_election (July 2022), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Goa Legislative Assembly election (2nd nomination) (2 April), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2027 Goa Legislative Assembly election (19 May), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2027 Gujarat Legislative Assembly election (19 May) Soni (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Soni (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Assam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is the second AfD on this topic. I previously nominated this article, and the consensus was to keep it. I continue to support the previous decision. For reference: Previous discussion.Hitro talk 22:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Next elections pass WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not sure what makes this one different. SportingFlyer T·C 23:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I waited for the 2 other AFDs from this month to close, just to be sure this was not a one-off of me misevaluating Crystal. But mainly -
    If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2044 U.S. presidential election and 2048 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research.
    I searched and found no sources talking about the election. I didn't find any consensus about next elections in any notability guidelines I could see. I found 5 (+2) AFDs that suggested deletion is the correct approach, and just 1 that didn't.
    This topic also needs a talk page notification and/or a higher level consensus established somewhere (I don't know where), otherwise each AFD will end at a different inconsistent place. But until I see such higher level consensus, my read of both Crystal and prior consensus says it's pretty clear it should be a delete. Soni (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, there is already coverage of this election: [38] [39] along with articles about new delineation. SportingFlyer T·C 23:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah that Hindu article (published 5 days ago) is definitely talking directly about the elections.
    I disagree on the livemint article, it's not coverage of the elections as much as just "BJP leader stated something about Hindu-Muslim divide in Congress". It's not significant, and they only mention it as a "in a few years".
    I missed a couple other articles on my before check - [40] [41] so I do agree there is significant enough coverage for the election. Soni (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too many of these future prediction pages. WP:TOOSOON. Way down in the future and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. RangersRus (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - There are 5 connected AFDs in this - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Kerala Legislative Assembly election, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Manipur Legislative Assembly election, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next West Bengal Legislative Assembly election. This didn't seem to meet MULTIAFD as each of them are at a different level of RS reporting, but the general question (Is it CRYSTAL) would still apply. Soni (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a date has been set for each of these, then they should each be moved to reflect that. Mangoe (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I guess I support keeping this article now. See above comment. Coverage is now significant enough. Soni (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: !vote balance at this time is leaning keep, although I will note that most of the connected AfDs noted above this relist have since been closed as consensus for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep In established democracies, the next election is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAl. Sourcing and existing information is sufficient. --Enos733 (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's just not enough here for an election that is almost two years off; the only substance is the date itself. Failing that, it should be moved to 2026 Assam Legislative Assembly election since this has a set date. Mangoe (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion since the previous list has not cleared things up.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenian writer[edit]

Slovenian writer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is obvious writers from one specific country may write in any language other than their national one. This article has no purpose of existing nor potential for expansion. Super Ψ Dro 21:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cribl[edit]

Cribl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem like it actually meets NORG. Coverage is all your typical SERIESA stuff. History is also a little suspicious TBH but that's mostly secondary to the routineness of coverage. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Télé Lyon Métropole[edit]

Télé Lyon Métropole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

insufficient notability or coverage in reliable sources. Additionally, it may lack independent, third-party references to establish its significance in the context of television broadcasting. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One would expect a TV station reaching 1.3 million inhabitants fulfills WP:GNG and it does. The French Wikipedia article shows an abundance of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. I agree the article needs to be updated and better sourced (the TV station seemingly does not exist anymore), but WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Broc (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that BFM Lyon Métropole is the rebrand/successor of this station [42]. There is no sourced content in the (English) article; the article should not be kept in its current form. A redirect (to BFM TV) might be better than trying to fix this article. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948[edit]

Don Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Continuing the assault on the Anglo-Australian cricket fanfict. Full of cruft. Duplicated infoboxes. Similar articles have been deleted before, and a large amount are currently almost deleted here Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:
Sid Barnes with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bill Brown with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Neil Harvey with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lindsay Hassett with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ian Johnson with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bill Johnston with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ray Lindwall with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Colin McCool with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Arthur Morris with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ron Saggers with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Don Tallon with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ernie Toshack with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Keith Miller in the 1946–47 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1953 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1956 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ricky Ponting with the Australian cricket team in India in 2008–09 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mitchell Johnson with the Australian cricket team in the 2013–14 Ashes series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural comment Maybe should have taken a little more time--many of the above are redirects which should go to WP:RFD instead. --Finngall talk 21:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since its a lot of similar articles, I will wait till they are deleted (if consensus is reached) and then list them there Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Kuria[edit]

Douglas Kuria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Kenyan businessman. None of the coverage is WP:SIGCOV of him, it's all focused on the companies he works for or on his father, from whom notability cannot be WP:INHERITED. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Wanjau[edit]

Nana Wanjau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable businesswoman and "philanthropist." Sources do not support notability under WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Most references are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or they fail verification. The only examples of WP:SIGCOV are problematic and unreliable. here Mkazi (the website is inactive) was a lifestyle blog with no named editors or legitimate editorial process. The Parents Africa profile is really a WP:INTERVIEW, and it makes major errors (for example, stating that she left a highly-paid corporate job in a year when she would have been 20). Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Sauthoff[edit]

Patricia Sauthoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article contains no notability claim under WP:NACADEMIC. Fails WP:GNG. Melmann 20:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andh Bhakt[edit]

Andh Bhakt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of Notability . च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ Message 20:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Molloy[edit]

Jon Molloy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced rugby BLP. All I found were transactional announcements (1, 2, 3) and a routine injury update (1). There seem to be multiple redirect candidates (List of Wakefield Trinity players, List of Salford Red Devils players). JTtheOG (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barron Trump[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Barron Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Opening this discussion to coalesce discussions of redirecting this article back to its previous target. This is not an implicit support for redirection or deletion. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect. This is a private person who receives coverage only because various media cover his father extremely heavily. That doesn't make this person notable. Are any of these sources sigcov in RS, or are all RS mentions basically snippets in articles about his father or mother? Valereee (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Trump appears to meet WP:GNG's five points and WP:NBIO. The article cites two dozen references directly mentioning Trump's name in the headline, all from sources that are "generally reliable" at WP:RSP. WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, not a guideline. Trump's association with his father is not the only reason that this article exists. The question remains on whether or not Trump has a claim of significance. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He was mentioned as late as last month as a potential political candidate, that's more than enough sustained coverage from the time Trump was in office til now to suggest notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources 16, 19, 33, 34, 35 are directly about him. He's the president's son, so will get coverage. GNG is easily met. Oaktree b (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To answer Val's question, there are some sources specifically about him, but as far as I can tell they all fall into one of two categories: 1) very basic updates on his life, like that he entered the development program for an MLS team (note: not a GNG/NATHLETE pass on its own), or 2) discussion of how private his life has been kept and of pop-culture speculation about him. In a way, this is a weird case where something like Barron Trump in popular culture is conceivably notable (although it would present serious BLP issues), but the guy himself isn't. There's also the privacy angle to consider. As far as I can tell from the article, he's only voluntarily done press once in his life, an interview when he was 10. Since then, Melania has kept him away from the spotlight as much as possible. He is, despite his surname, much more a private citizen than a public one, and as a BLP matter, if there is any question about notability here, we err on the side of exclusion. So I agree, restore redirect. Any major details in the current article that isn't in Family of Donald Trump § Third marriage can be selectively merged. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 20:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect Just because they aged out of WP:MINOR does not award them an article when they age out, and for now they don't warrant anything regarding outside gossip blogs for an article. Nate • (chatter) 20:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SK#6, with absolutely no prejudice against renomination when this is off the main page.--Launchballer 20:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested at WP:ERRORS that either the hook be pulled or this be SK'd. If this is SK'd and re-AfD'd, I would suggest just copy-pasting the existing !votes into the next AfD. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 20:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now off the main page.--Launchballer 22:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect. An interesting case. We certainly have articles on people with much less press coverage, and he appears to tick many of the GNG boxes. However, he also ticks many of the WP:LOWPROFILE boxes, and it's pretty obvious that the press coverage he's received is derived from his father's notability. There is a privacy interest here. It looks like the article was rebuilt with this edit which gave as part of the rationale the announcement this morning that he will be an at-large delegate - but it looks like he declined that opportunity shortly after so not a lot has changed. What we have are a collection of gossipy bio-snippets - reliably sourced, but a poor foundation for notability, and really not that interesting as an encyclopedia article. I don't see any benefit to having this as a standalone article when all the relevant information can have a perfectly good home at Family_of_Donald_Trump#Third_marriage. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect Other than them no longer being a child, what makes this article notable as a standalone when this information better sits in the Family of DJT article? I certainly don't see it. Turini2 (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect This is an unusual case of inherited notability, but not a particularly strange one to me. Barron has received all the press he has received because of his father. No one would be commenting on him at all otherwise; we don't have many articles on random rich children of politicians, and we intrinsically seem to understand with the example of the Obamas that proximity to news coverage, and the fact that news orgs would talk about them, wasn't enough reason to create pages that, especially in this case, are a trainwreck and should never have gotten on the front page. There's no way to make a good article out of this, because there aren't good sources to start with. (Seriously, this article decided a story called "Barron Trump, 10, looked extremely sleepy during his father’s victory speech" was worth including?) It's essentially akin to a BLP1E subject. Also, speedy keeps because it makes Wikipedia look bad (due to our own stupidity) has and always will be a terrible reason to keep articles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect per WP:NOPAGE and BLP concerns; also essentially an application of WP:NOTINHERITED. Would recommend ignoring WP:SK#6 due to clear emerging consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are plenty of sources that analyze the subject independent of (and budding independence from) his father, and due to Trump being married so often, redirecting to family is not as easy an option as it seems to have been with Obama's kids. Note also the 230k+ pageviews in the last 30 days. Abductive (reasoning) 20:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect fails WP:ANYBIO; the 'independent' sources are majoritively on adjacent issues. ——Serial Number 54129 21:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Independent" means "not under the control" of the subject. Also, a bio can't fail WP:ANYBIO. Abductive (reasoning) 21:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A biography can't fail a guideline regarding biographies? Thats an... interesting interpretation of otherwise plain English. Please read before you shovel; it's a pretty basic requirement per BLP. ——Serial Number 54129 21:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANYBIO is inclusive, it says topics that pass it are guaranteed to be notable. You seem to be allowing your biases to do your thinking. Abductive (reasoning) 22:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:ANYBIO doesn't say that. The introduction to the criteria says People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Schazjmd (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When clicked on, WP:ANYBIO leads to the list of three points, which are clearly purely inclusive. The quote about applies to that list and "Academics" and "Creative professionals". So, debatable. But i doubt many editors use the fact that a person has not "received a well-known and significant award" to argue for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 22:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect and protect it. No independent notability. Also I note that the hiding of the AfD notice is an inappropriate restraint of discussion. If this discussion is urgent enough for BLP reasons—as I believe it is—to override the usual prohibition on AfDing an article currently on the Main Page, then the blurb should be pulled from DYK, as is usually done when it's discovered that the grounds for AfDing an article featured in one of the Main Page blocks are urgent enough not to wait. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • However did it get on the Main Page for 20 hours? And once on the Main Page, no banner should have been there. Abductive (reasoning) 22:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, looking at the first two noms, we have a contortionist closing argument that somehow makes a distinction between the "particularly high status ... Prince George or Princess Charlotte of Cambridge" and Barron Trump, and then a shameful example of vote counting(!) by the second closing "admin". Abductive (reasoning) 22:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect. An article that should never have been created. Barron Trump has no independent notability whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Spaven[edit]

Scott Spaven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced rugby BLP. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was this transactional announcement and a couple sentences here. A potential redirect is List of Hull Kingston Rovers players. JTtheOG (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pam Evans[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Pam Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no evidence of notability..

The AfD held in 2009 was about a different Pam Evans, the article was turned into a redirect and then simply edited into a new page for a different Pam Evans in 2012. This would seem to have bypassed our normal new page patrols, which would, I think have draftified this. She is an author, but I can't find any articles about her which are independent from her publisher.--Boynamedsue (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (or convert back into a redirect to Peace Mala?). Agree no evidence of notability; can't find any independent sources showing that she would meet WP:GNG, nor any suggestion that WP:NAUTHOR could be met. Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Abdul Malek[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Muhammad Abdul Malek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a single source used in this article is reliable which can establish notability of the person. - AlbeitPK (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sethu Tom[edit]

Sethu Tom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cutover[edit]

Cutover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SUSTAINED notability has not been established with WP:RS Amigao (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Dobson[edit]

Matthew Dobson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Ebarle[edit]

Dean Ebarle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Eastern Region departmental locomotives[edit]

British Rail Eastern Region departmental locomotives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wholly unsourced article since 2009 Danners430 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Danners430, were you aware that there isn't actually a requirement in any policy or guideline to cite sources? Our rule is that a subject can qualify for a separate article if sources exist in the real world, even if none are cited in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am aware. However, if you continue reading through that guideline, you’ll find more info - specifically regarding whether editors can find sources elsewhere. I’ve done a search through sources that I know of, and through search engines, and can’t find any sources whatsoever. As per that guideline, that seriously casts into question the notability of the article. Danners430 (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is contextless data with no indication of importance or discussion as a group in secondary sources; as such, it fails WP:NLIST. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail DHP1[edit]

British Rail DHP1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wholly unsourced article since 2009 Danners430 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: without sources. Nothing came up on Google. RolandSimon (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Danners430 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There just isn't anything written about this that I can find [43], a photo there, and [44], a magazine that won't open for me... I'd maybe merge this into the list of British locomotives, but it's unsourced regardless. I mean, the information came from somewhere, but we don't have a source identified... Oaktree b (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find any evidence of SIGCOV, and no suitable redirect target seems to exist. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emiliano Bucci[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Emiliano Bucci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject is apparently some sort of public school teacher/pianist. I could not find any indication of notability. BLP has had no non-circular references since 2006. The result of the previous AfD in 2007 was no consensus. I am unable to apply BLPPROD due to external links. XabqEfdg (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minerva in the emblems of educational establishments[edit]

Minerva in the emblems of educational establishments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Largely unsourced, no evidence of notability per WP:LISTN. PROD contested with I think the article text does a decent job of making an argument that as the goddess of wisdom Minerva would be relevant to symbolism of higher education, which is not how list notability works at all - the article itself requires sources to prove the list's merit, not people's analysis of unsourced text, and I'm not even sure what they're referring to * Pppery * it has begun... 15:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slowpoke Rodriguez[edit]

Slowpoke Rodriguez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG with the article's main source being primarily about Speedy Gonzales. List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters is partially incomplete and putting the info there would help to fill out that article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Mohiyuddin[edit]

Ahmed Mohiyuddin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best Southwest[edit]

Best Southwest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable advertising puffery term coined for public relations purposes; not used by reliable sources but in press releases and tourism websites Orange Mike | Talk 14:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Adams (fighter)[edit]

Anthony Adams (fighter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability for fighters (highest rating is #79 in the world) and all the sources are just reporting on his bouts. HeinzMaster (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign desk[edit]

Campaign desk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced after fifteen years Orange Mike | Talk 13:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aisha Muhammed-Oyebode[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Aisha Muhammed-Oyebode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The person does not meet the GNG/ANYBIO criteria. The sources are poor, and general notability is not demonstrated BoraVoro (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makersite[edit]

Makersite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hits the WP:SERIESA formula pretty exactly - of the 12 citations on this article, 6 are funding announcements, 1 is a short uncritical profile of the CEO, 1 is a venturebeat article with a comment from the CEO on something unrelated to the company, 1 is a marketing release for a company, and the other 3 just acknowledge that the company launched an Autodesk CAD plugin while talking about something else.

No coverage which goes deeper than stating that a particular business deal took place. BrigadierG (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Brown (businessperson)[edit]

Matthew Brown (businessperson) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E, WP:UPE, WP:RUMOR - of all the things to be notable for, I think the oddest thing about this fellow is that his main claim to notability is *not* investing in Virgin Orbit. The only coverage is rumor mill stuff churned out around the time of Virgin Orbit's fall, and the deal never closed - they liquidated around 2 months after these stories were put out. BrigadierG (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Radio Broadcasting[edit]

Urban Radio Broadcasting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP because of a lack of significant coverage about the company. Let'srun (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - agreeing with the nom. There simply isn't aren't supportive sources to show it is notable.
CapnPhantasm (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Newton[edit]

Jerry Newton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article seems to attempt to inherit notability from Wayne Newton, Jerry's younger brother. WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Checking the references is challenging. Jerry does appear, generally with reference to the sibling, and as a passing reference to Jerry. The article seems to be more a tribute (WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies) than anything else. Jerry was obviously notable to those who loved and respected him, but the references do not show a pass of any of WP:BIO, WP:NMUSICIAN, nor WP:NACTOR. Releasing records does not mean notability, nor does a bit part in an episode of Bonanza where he is listed as a cast member, but his part was not a named character. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banks Broadcasting[edit]

Banks Broadcasting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks the needed coverage to meet the WP:NCORP. One possible WP:ATD is redirecting to LIN TV. Let'srun (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mythology of The Librarian[edit]

Mythology of The Librarian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced WP:FANCRUFT; WP:OR. Characters aleady included in their own article. --woodensuperman 12:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - What exactly from this article would be appropriate to upmerge here? The characters are already covered both on the main article as a chart, and in more detail in the separate List of The Librarian characters. Likewise, the main article already has a small section on the "Mythology of the Librarian" that gives a brief overview of the topic. And on top of that, there are essentially no source, even primary ones, being cited here to support any of the information being presented. The rationale for prohibiting that as an ATD is simply because there is nothing that would be appropriate to merge. Rorshacma (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Ijebu[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Baba Ijebu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable betting company; no reliable sources to meet NCORP BoraVoro (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Sources look fairly dubious. 1 is a how-to guide with pros/cons of playing, 2 is highly promotional ("popularity spreading like wildfire"), 3 is a hagiographic (see "Not only is Sir Kensington a successful business mogul, he also continues to contribute his quota to humanity") profile of the owner, 4 is a brief statement that the company has signed an athlete to an endorsement deal. Passing mentions found on Google above do not contribute to notability. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources are allowed to be as promotional (or anti-promotional) as they want per WP:RSBIAS. What matters is whether there's information in those sources that we can use. What counts as "normal" tone for a news article depends on your culture, and we don't want to be tone policing the sources. When you read through a "highly promotional" source, you just have to ignore the fluff and focus on the facts. For example, in the first couple of paragraphs, this one says that the subject is named after the founder, says where the founder is from, and says it is computer-based. Those are all encyclopedic facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Domaine Ylang Ylang[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Domaine Ylang Ylang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to have enough coverage in references, so does not pass WP:NORG or WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, and Mauritius. UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Before you jump the gun and delete it which appears to be your specislisation, I suggest you give this plant the time to grow and for it to be properly documented. Thank you. Stockbroker369 (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a food, drink place LOL. This is a famous Domaine in Mauritius, close to Mahebourg. Stockbroker369 (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We'd maybe look at CORP notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The sources identified by Rosguill in the last AfD seem to be enough to keep the article (I'm not listing them here, they can be seen by clicking on the prior AfD in the box at the right). That editor's analysis is fine. Oaktree b (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would accept draftification as an WP:ATD since appropriate references have not been added since the previous AFD. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @UtherSRG, how about you add the sources yourself instead? Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a game of Mother, May I? Articles do not need to get sent back to the beginning just because someone didn't follow the directions perfectly. It would probably take you less time to copy and paste those sources over than has already been spent in this AFD.
    There isn't actually a requirement in any policy or guideline to cite sources. Our rule is that a subject can qualify for a separate article if sources exist in the real world, even if none are cited in the article. As a long-term project, if you want to be able to delete or hide articles because they don't contain at least one source, then I suggest that you propose that. There was some effort to extended WP:BLPPROD rules to all articles earlier this year. The consensus went the other way, but perhaps if you read that discussion, you'd be able to find a path forward towards your goal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the suggestion, but I see no reason to change my course. Good day. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of villages in Jasrasar Tehsil[edit]

List of villages in Jasrasar Tehsil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed draftification. Resubmitted with no improvement. I feel this is a list too far, or perhaps WP:TOOSOON insofar as almost none of this list have articles. If and when they do I will reach a different view 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cinnamon Gardens (novel)[edit]

Cinnamon Gardens (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBOOK, requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Online book stores are not independent or reliable. The authors website is a primary source. Dan arndt (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Per WP:BKCRIT. I've done a little clean up on the article, and it could use more. I've also added a section for reviews. This is a new editor's first effort at an article, but they got the basics correct. — Maile (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The New York Times Book Review is solid, as well as the Textual Practice article. Toughpigs (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Potter[edit]

Neal Potter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of a politician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is that he was a county executive, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- it's a role where he would have to pass the second clause of NPOL ("local political figures"), where the inclusion test hinges on the depth and volume of reliable source coverage about him that can be shown to support an article with. But except for one obituary upon his death, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with no other reliable or GNG-building sources shown.
As his career was several decades ago and thus might not Google well, I'd be perfectly happy to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived Arlington-area media coverage from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s than I've got can find enough to salvage it -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dingtone[edit]

Dingtone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Passing mentions only (including WP BEFORE), WP MILL. Fails GNG, NCORP. BoraVoro (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nike Campbell[edit]

Nike Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like not meeting GNG/ANYBIO. BoraVoro (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manav Bhinder[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Manav Bhinder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails general notability guideline. ltbdl (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Michael's School B zone unit[edit]

St. Michael's School B zone unit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced since its creation in 2013. No reliable sources found online, does not meet WP:NORG. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa Nachmanson[edit]

Rosa Nachmanson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not seeing anything that really satisfies WP:BIO. She lived, died, and left a lot of money to charity. Only one source, presumably in Swedish. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - she was a big donor to the construction of the iconic Stockholm Concert Hall. Added additional sources. That sources are in Swedish are not relevant to notability. Passes WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There probably are sources in books in Sweden, but I can't find any. She's listed in the Norsk FamilyBook from the 1920s to the 1940s (linked from Project Runeberg below), but I can't find anything more than the snippet given here. She's associated with the Jewish history of Stockholm and her husband Ernest comes up all the time. Likely not enough to build a biography here. Oaktree b (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Sweden. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rosa Nachmanson has entries in at least a couple of encyclopedias, just looking at material which has been digitized. There's the entry in Nordisk Familjebok, which is used as a source in the article already, but also in Svenska män och kvinnor : Biografisk uppslagsbok, which I think is enough to build a biography on. Additionally, there's some biographical detail in articles written about her death, for example in Svenska Dagbladet or Hvar 8 dag. /Julle (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hayler coat of arms[edit]

Hayler coat of arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article only cites unreliable sources, and there does not appear to be significant coverage of the coat of arms, if one even exists. toweli (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of the Covenant Monastery[edit]

Sons of the Covenant Monastery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The article is predominantly reliant upon primary sources. It is also not clear as to whether the monastery relates to the structure, which fails the requirements of WP:NBUILDING or the religious order, which fails WP:NORG. Dan arndt (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SolarX[edit]

SolarX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that this person is notable. Count Count (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Russia. CycloneYoris talk! 09:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Completely unsourced stub, and no indication of notability. Seems to me that it would even qualify for speedy deletion under criterion A7, but I'm not entirely sure, since the article has some history (and was created in 2005). CycloneYoris talk! 09:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The musical act called SolarX has no coverage beyond basic streaming and self-promotional sites, while Dr. Belavkin is an academic who is listed briefly in corresponding professional directories. Neither way does he meet WP requirements for notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Jonathan Lewis[edit]

Killing of Jonathan Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Coverage is not sustained and significant enough to justify this article about the manslaughter of a teen. Zanahary (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I'm counting 10 reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV covering this event. I think some concerns regarding WP:NCRIME, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and WP:NTEMP are warranted, but the young age and the alleged exceptional viciousness of the alleged perpetrators do make the event more than a run-of-the-mill killing. Ultimately, since there's WP:NODEADLINE, I think that at this juncture it makes sense to keep and circle back if it turns out that the notability was temporary.
Melmann 07:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Nevada. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No coverage past the event in November, no lasting notability. Sad event, appears to be only a news item at this point. NOTNEWS. Oaktree b (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Unusual amount of international coverage on this one - being picked up by the BBC. My answer comes down to WP:PERP's description of coverage of notable victims and the focus of coverage being on the event or the individual. I feel on balance, the event is covered as news much more than the victim's role is covered as a subject of personal interest. BrigadierG (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As the incident has received nationwide coverage, I've found at least 15 reliable sources for the article. I'm in agreement with @Melmann, considering the young age of the victim and brutality of this crime this is beyond ordinary even for a murder. There's not so much coverage after November, but this will probably change in the future as the suspects are brought to justice and when they find the remaining perpetrator.
Cheera L (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sadly. Murders and killing type articles go by WP:NEVENT, which this fails. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How so? This case in particular has received significant coverage in a wide variety of news outlets and the media. It's a story having been reported and impacted all over the world, not just in the U.S. Cheera L (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The non-routine coverage was for about a week. With events, WP:SUSTAINED coverage is a consideration, which this fails. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - User Melmanns rationale is the most convincing. The sourcing is within WP:SIGCOV at this time and several aspects of this this case already mentioned above makes this killing notable. I do believe WP:GNG applies as well. BabbaQ (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:48, 4 June 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 keep‎. Nominator withdrew their previous objections [57]. — CactusWriter (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terrell Hines[edit]

Terrell Hines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:SIGCOV. In the article, sources are greatly lacking, and the ones seems unreliable. Applicable to WP:INTERVIEW. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 20:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't understand Safari Scribe's thinking here. First, a redirect to List of American musicians isn't feasible because that's a redirect in itself. Then, an Allmusic staff bio is found and Safari Scribe replies that the artist may be notable in the future. But the source doesn't show up some time in the future, it exists now. Geschichte (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this interview has a lot of non-interview, editorial paragraphs, it's a weak keep from me as well. Geschichte (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's true that List of American musicians is a Redirect so it's not an appropriate target page. There are handy scripts you can install that show articles, redirects and pages nominated for deletion in different font colors but you should always check the target page before proposing it so that you can see if it is a suitable target. Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopening discussion per a request made by the nom at my talk page. I had previously closed this as "keep" (as you can see here).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:27, 4 June 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.

2011 QAFL reserves season[edit]

2011 QAFL reserves season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG: references are all database or WP:ROUTINE coverage by non-independent sources (e.g. the league, the clubs within it, and the online database where scores are entered. This also fails any reasonable 'pub test' of notability: it's a routine season article for a league which itself has no article and – as the reserves league for an already fairly minor competition – would also fail GNG. Aspirex (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What if it was merged into 2011 NEAFL season (with a lot of info taken out)? When the VFA/L reserves existed, for instance, those results were referenced on the main senior season page. These were reserves for 7/17 NEAFL clubs that season Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 09:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Hyatt Beijing[edit]

Grand Hyatt Beijing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has only 1 source in 18 years of existence. Google News comes up with PR type stories or routine coverage of a staff member doing something. Nothing in-depth and third party to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "旅館評：北京東方君悅大酒店" [Hotel Review: Grand Hyatt Beijing]. Next Magazine (in Chinese). 2002-08-29.

      The review notes: "北京東方君悅大酒店的英文全名頗長，叫GRAND HYATT BEIJING AT ORIENTAL PLAZA，在二○○一年十月開幕。 位置北京的心臟王府井。 七八棟高層大廈匯集在一起，蔚為奇觀。 飯店是中國最大的商務建築群東方廣場的一部分，旁邊有一棟一棟的高級公寓和辦公大樓。 從這裡走出去就是全北京最熱鬧的王府井大街，再遠一點可以步行到故宮和天安門去。 整間飯店，官方宣傳文字上說像傳統四合院的格局，其實是一個U字形的建築，分成東翼和西翼。 這次陪著金庸先生下榻，他住一六○一房，我住一○一六房，剛好是一頭一尾。"

      From Google Translate: "The full English name of Grand Hyatt Beijing is quite long, called GRAND HYATT BEIJING AT ORIENTAL PLAZA. It opened in October 2001. Location Wangfujing, the heart of Beijing. Seven or eight high-rise buildings come together to form a spectacle. The hotel is part of Oriental Plaza, the largest business building complex in China, and is adjacent to high-end apartments and office buildings. Walking out from here is Wangfujing Street, the busiest street in Beijing. A little further away, you can walk to the Forbidden City and Tiananmen Square. The entire hotel, according to the official promotional text, is shaped like a traditional courtyard house, but it is actually a U-shaped building, divided into an east wing and a west wing. This time I stayed with Mr. Jin Yong. He lived in room 1601 and I lived in room 1016, which happened to be one end of the room."

    2. Wu, Xueming 吳學銘 (2002-11-12). "老北京 新酒店 令君悅" [Old Beijing. New Hotel. Grand Hyatt Beijing]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese). p. B7.

      The article notes: "北京東方君悅酒店自去年底試行營業以來，至今已屆滿一年，住房率屢創新高，成為北京和中國飯店市場的新話題。位在北京王府井大街上，現是中國最大的商務建築群猁北京東方廣場內的東方君悅大酒店，是現代西方酒店和超級商場的綜合性產物。"

      From Google Translate: "It has been one year since the Grand Hyatt Beijing Oriental opened on a trial basis at the end of last year. The occupancy rate has reached record highs and has become a new topic in Beijing and the Chinese hotel market. Located on Wangfujing Street in Beijing, it is now the largest business building complex in China and the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Beijing Oriental Plaza. It is a comprehensive product of modern Western hotels and super shopping malls."

      The article notes: "走進東方君悅酒店，第一眼的感覺是它不太像凱悅集團酒店的格調，倒有點像香港的海逸酒店，最代表性的該是大廳內獨一無二的那顆水柱型風水球，配合精心的流水設計，創造東方式的流動平衡感。中國人那種講求「流水聚財」的觀念，在東方君悅表現很明顯。"

      From Google Translate: "When you walk into the Grand Hyatt Oriental, your first impression is that it doesn’t quite resemble the style of a Hyatt hotel, but rather resembles the Harbor Plaza Hotel in Hong Kong. The most representative one is the unique water column-shaped Feng Shui ball in the lobby. Combined with the careful flowing water design, it creates an oriental flow and balance. The Chinese concept of "gathering wealth by flowing water" is very obvious in Grand Hyatt Oriental."

    3. "北京東方君悅酒店住宿新體驗" [New accommodation experience at Grand Hyatt Beijing]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2002-01-30. p. D3.

      The review notes: "坐落於中國最大的商務建築群東方廣場之中，呈新月形、門外設有偌大噴泉的北京東方君悅大酒店給人非一般豪華感覺。... 由在亞洲居住了20 年的美國攝影師George Mitchell 所拍攝的黑白照片與陳設摩登的客房配合起來，不但沒有格格不入的感覺，好像筆者這種對老北京文化還未深切認識，但又充滿好奇的 遊人看起來，反而另有趣味。... 最喜歡吃的筆者在這數天裡，可謂大快朵頤。 設於飯店大廳中樓層，配備了一個開放式廚房的凱菲廳 (右下圖) 更是筆者的心頭愛。 "

      From Google Translate: "Located in the Oriental Plaza, the largest business building complex in China, the Grand Hyatt Beijing Oriental Hotel, which is crescent-shaped and has a huge fountain outside the door, gives people an extraordinary sense of luxury. ... The black-and-white photos taken by George Mitchell, an American photographer who has lived in Asia for 20 years, match the modernly furnished guest rooms. Not only do they not feel out of place, it seems like the author, who has not yet deeply understood the culture of old Beijing, but is full of curiosity. From the perspective of tourists, it is actually something else interesting. ... The author, who loves to eat the most, had a great time in these few days. Located on the middle floor of the hotel lobby and equipped with an open kitchen, the Kaffi Hall (pictured below right) is my favorite."

    4. "東方君悅 諧與酒店" [Grand Hyatt Oriental Harmony Hotel]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2001-12-29. p. D1.

      The article notes: "北京東方君悅大酒店位於東長安街一號，位處北京中心地區，集時尚商舖與辦公室於一隅，旁邊是著名鋪與辦公室於一隅，旁邊是著名鋪的公屋大王府。酒店建成後才交由君悅管理，"

      From Google Translate: "Grand Hyatt Beijing is located at No. 1 East Chang'an Street, in the central area of ​​Beijing. It has fashionable shops and offices in one corner. Next to it are famous shops and offices in the same corner. Next to it is the famous public housing estate Grand Palace. After the hotel was completed, it was handed over to Grand Hyatt for management."

    5. "北京東方君悅屢奪魁" [Grand Hyatt Beijing wins the championship again and again]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2006-02-27. p. C1.

      The article notes: "北京東方君悅大酒店自○一年開業以來，先後在多個國內外的酒店評選中奪魁，共獲頒三十項殊榮，踏入○六年僅兩個月，亦已獲頒五項殊榮 ，其中最新獲著名旅遊雜誌「亞洲目的地」(Destin Asian)評選為本年度北京最受歡迎飯店。 至於今年已獲得之獎項分別為：獲「胡潤百富———富豪之選」選為本年度富豪最喜愛的品牌酒店、「私家地理」選為五百家世界最佳酒店、「Conde Nast Traveler」(美國)選為亞洲五十家最佳飯店等。"

      From Google Translate: "Since its opening in 2001, Grand Hyatt Beijing has won the first place in many domestic and foreign hotel selections, and has been awarded a total of 30 awards. In just two months since 2006, it has also been awarded five awards. , which was recently selected as the most popular hotel in Beijing this year by the famous travel magazine "Destin Asian". As for the awards received this year, they are: selected as this year's favorite brand hotel by the rich by "Hurun Report - Rich People's Choice", selected as one of the 500 best hotels in the world by "Private Geography", "Conde Nast Traveler" "(U.S.A.) was selected as one of Asia's 50 Best Hotels, etc."

    6. Events held at the hotel:
      1. Li, Chun 李春 (2019-10-01). "中共建政七十周年 北京觀禮 林鄭傍晚趕返港" [The 70th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China. Watching the ceremony in Beijing, Carrie Lam rushes back to Hong Kong in the evening]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. A10.

        The article notes: "香港特首林鄭月娥率兩百四十人觀禮團抵北京，出席中共建政七十周年活動。以港府官員、建制派成員、商界為主體的香港代表團，獲安排住東長安街的東方君悅大酒店，酒店保安嚴密。"

        From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor led a viewing group of 240 people to Beijing to attend the 70th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China. The Hong Kong delegation, which is composed of Hong Kong government officials, members of the pro-establishment camp, and the business community, was arranged to stay at the Grand Hyatt Hotel on East Chang'an Street. The hotel has tight security."

      2. "NBA快訊 小布 李小龍粉絲" [NBA News: Xiaobu, Bruce Lee fan]. World Journal (in Chinese). 2010-07-27. p. Sports 2.

        The article notes: "在北京東方君悅大酒店舉辦簽書會上，小布為他親自撰寫的圖書「科比24」召開媒體見面會暨新書簽售活動。"

        From Google Translate: "Lakers star Kobe Bryant embarked on a business trip to China on the 26th. In the evening, he held a book signing event at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Beijing. Bryant held a media meeting for his personally written book "Kobe Bryant 24". and book signing event."

      3. "姚明 補請中國隊友 將與葉莉赴歐洲度蜜月" [Yao Ming invites Chinese teammates to replace him. He and Ye Li will go to Europe for their honeymoon]. World Journal (in Chinese). 2007-08-10. p. D1.

        4. The article notes: "今晚的北京東方君悅大酒店「高人林立」，中國男、女籃球隊教練員、隊員悉數現身出席姚明、葉莉的宴會。王治郅、易建聯、隋菲菲等人組成的「巨人陣」外加「中國高度」姚明，今晚的宴會有望成為中國歷史上平均海拔最高的「私人聚會」。"

        From Google Translate: "Tonight, Beijing's Grand Hyatt Oriental Hotel is "full of distinguished people". The coaches and players of the Chinese men's and women's basketball teams all showed up to attend Yao Ming and Ye Li's banquet. The "Giant Formation" composed of Wang Zhizhi, Yi Jianlian, Sui Feifei and others plus "Chinese Height" Yao Ming, tonight's banquet is expected to become the "private party" with the highest average altitude in Chinese history."

    7. Less significant coverage:
      1. "Fodor's Expert Review: Grand Hyatt Beijing". Fodor's. Archived from the original on 2024-05-28. Retrieved 2024-05-28.

        The review notes: "The wow factor at this top-notch hotel—close to Tiananmen Square and the Forbidden City—comes from its huge glass facade and extraordinary lagoon-like swimming area: above its lush vegetation, waterfalls, and statues, a "virtual sky" ceiling imitates different weather patterns. "

      2. "Grand Hyatt Hotel Beijing". AFAR. Archived from the original on 2024-05-28. Retrieved 2024-05-28.

        The review notes: "From the lobby, the Grand Hyatt Beijing is another grand hotel with soaring ceilings and windows, polished marble floors, and an attentive staff. Two levels below the lobby, however, is one of the most unique and spectacular wonders ever seen in a hotel: an enormous grotto!"

      3. "Hyatt Opens Its First Hotel in Beijing". Los Angeles Times. 2001-12-09. Archived from the original on 2024-05-28. Retrieved 2024-05-28.

        The article notes: "Hyatt International Corp., which runs six hotels in China, is opening its first one in Beijing, complete with parking for 12,000 bicycles. About 200 of the 591 rooms at the Grand Hyatt Beijing have been opened; the rest are to open by April."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Grand Hyatt Beijing (simplified Chinese: 北京东方君悦大酒店; traditional Chinese: 北京東方君悅大酒店; pinyin: Běijīng Dōngfāng Jūnyuè Dàjiǔdiàn) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: A very thorough search of sources by Cunard (again). Aside from the offline sources listed, I have also found a lot more Chinese sources on the internet, which includes but is not limited to a Wen Wei Po[64] article that mentioned the subject hotel winning multiple awards in 2006, articles from Elle China[65] and Phoenix Television[66] introducing the application of new technologies at the hotel during the pandemic and in 2014 respectively, articles from China Daily[67] and Sina[68] introducing the hotel (these two may seem a bit like advertorial but definitely provided SIGCOV), articles from China Daily[69] and China Hospitality News documenting the appointment of senior staff at the hotel, an article from Sina[70] reporting on the tenth anniversary of the hotel, etc. I believe these have demonstrated notability far beyond GNG and NCORP. @Piscili and Chiselinccc: Please take a look at the newly located sources from Cunard and myself, thanks! —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 18:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It was probably open to me to close this as no consensus or keep considering Cunard's sourcing (and subsequent pings to those who !voted delete). However, to produce a firmer consensus and allow for a re-evaluation of their position for the nominator and two delete !voters, as well as potential outside input also, relisting for another seven days. Without foreshadowing the future, this will be unlikely to need another 7 beyond this, and may even be able to be closed prior to this extra 7 if consensus becomes clearer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genre b.goode[edit]

Genre b.goode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject; the most I've found is just "[...] with the news that the group’s new physical releases will be released through former Shock Records head David Williams’ David Roy Williams Entertainment under TISM’s Genre B. Goode imprint." (1). A redirect to TISM would make sense as an alternative to deletion. toweli (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I started this page with nothing nearly twenty years ago and it appears to have grown not at all since. There aren't even any sources. The most interesting thing about it is the image, in my opinion. -Gohst (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, and Australia. toweli (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: to the TISM article as suggested seems fine, that's the only mentions of the label I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to TISM; clear preferable action, didn't need to come to AfD. Chubbles (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to TISM in case anyone searches for the name, but a separate article or even a merge have no merit because the company gained none of the coverage that is necessary per WP:NCOMPANY. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Symbols[edit]

The Lost Symbols (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:BAND. Also, There are not enough sources to determine notability.

The ref used in the article is irrelevant to the page's subject. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 05:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of preserved Boeing aircraft[edit]

List of preserved Boeing aircraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It duplicates the content on the main article pages. (e.g. Boeing 707) Dedicated aircraft on display articles are only created for single types when the list becomes too long for the main article. The list also includes pictures, which runs counter to the WikiProject:Aviation style guide.

Subsequent to the creation of this AfD, I discovered there is an additional article created by the same user at: List of preserved McDonnell Douglas aircraft. –Noha307 (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 4. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 05:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, Lists, and Virginia. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The linked "No images should be included in lists of aircraft, this is not what lists are for." is one of the strangest things I've seen here. All of my lists include pictures and this prohibition makes no sense, why would this be here? What lists does this refer to specifically? I can imagine for certain large lists you wouldn't want excessive pictures that look similar and add little, but I don't see a need to apply that here; that is not a justification for deletion. Where you're talking about individual aircraft that are preserved and on display for people to see, showing everyone here who can't go to all these museums what they look like is a great idea! While I agree that duplication with the bullet-point lists in the main article is not great, I think a list that can include additional details like useful pictures – or at least be a central navigation page – can be reasonable. Keep Reywas92Talk 17:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this list appears to be missing the 707 Air Force One as noted at Air Force One#Boeing 707s and entry to jet age. No opinion on whether this should be kept or not, but that seems a strange omission. Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minotaur VI[edit]

Minotaur VI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable rocket model; I can't find sourcing beyond the company's website used now in the article. The blog used as the second source isn't a RS either. Delete for lack of sourcing, not meeting notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oaktree,
I will admit that yes, this article had a lack of sources. There are reputable secondary sources I used during edits of other Minotaur rockets that can be applicable here; I have since added those to the article. The spaceflight101 source is a data sheet from Spaceflight101, which is a now-defunct but otherwise reliable spaceflight news website. I did a little bit of digging just now and found that they have a whole encyclopedia of different launch vehicles (https://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/). The PDF I linked as a source is actually originally posted on this page: https://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/minotaur-v/. I personally find that to be a valuable secondary source, and I would expect other pages on that site to be useful for future edits of other launch vehicles.
As for the article's notability, I personally feel it's notable since Minotaur VI is still listed as available on Northrop Grumman's website and has capabilities that other Minotaurs do not have (i.e. can get payload to Mars). However I will say I may have bias as I created this article, so I am absolutely open to opinions from others regarding its usefulness. IanThePineapple (talk) 18:25, 28 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! 04:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scene description language[edit]

Scene description language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can’t find any sources that discuss more than one scene description language in-depth, so this fails WP: NLIST. A PROD was removed on this article without any sourcing changes. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:45, 28 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! 04:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denice Zamboanga[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Denice Zamboanga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article on this mixed martial artist was deleted three years ago after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denice Zamboanga as failing to meet either mixed martial arts notability or general notability. At the time, there were also multiple drafts, probably because someone was trying to game the system. The originators were then blocked for sockpuppetry. This article does not differ materially from the deleted article. The subject still is not top-ten-ranked, and so does not meet mixed martial arts notability. The article does not speak for itself and explain how the subject meets general notability. The subject's association with the ONE Championship is now verified, but "so what?", participation in the ONE Championship is not grounds for notability. The article has been reference-bombed, but nothing in the article refers to significant coverage in an article that does not speak for itself. This article differs enough from the deleted article so that speedy deletion is not in order; but it does not differ enough from the deleted article to avoid deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Martial arts, and Philippines. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources 4, 8, 9, 20 and 24 are all RS that talks about her, the article seems to meet notability. Oaktree b (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments She has never met WP:NMMA. The first source mentioned above is an article about her brother, she is mentioned in passing because she was on the same fight card. The next three are pre-fight articles about her first match in the promotion's Grand Prix tournament (which would be typical coverage for any fighter). The final reference is a report on that fight, which she lost. Even if you believe that coverage is significant, it is all about one event. Didn't check other references, so I'm not voting yet. Papaursa (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western Canada Youth Parliament[edit]

Western Canada Youth Parliament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. Nothing in Google news or books. Nothing when searching in cbc.ca. Only primary sources in plain Google search. LibStar (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Mbotela[edit]

Leonard Mbotela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NJOURNALIST / WP:ANYBIO. BoraVoro (talk) 07:06, 21 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! 07:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Procedural keep per meeting at least some credible and keep...able input. There can be sources since the article somewhat meets inclusion by importance and source by few reliable source per WP:RS. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 09:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing lots of keep opinions from this editor on this day, and regrettably, most of them do not make sense. "Procedural keep per meeting at least some credible and keep...able input" is close to nonsense. "Somewhat meets inclusion by importance and source by few reliable source" is not a helpful or useful comment. Please state which sources are reliable and contribute towards notability. Geschichte (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after reading Geschichte's comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Smith (politician)[edit]

Donna Smith (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neither being a county supervisor in a largely rural county of less than 100,000 people nor running for the US House of Representatives give automatic notability, and as far as I can tell she received only WP:ROTM local coverage throughout her career. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monastery Among the Temple Trees[edit]

Monastery Among the Temple Trees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the requirements of WP:NBOOK, the work of a non-notable author. Has been tagged as such since Feb 2023 without any improvement. Was de-prodded without establishing how it was notable. Dan arndt (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find book reviews, or even very many sites to buy the book, further indications on non-notability. No coverage of any kind found. Nothing we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continenttimes.com[edit]

Continenttimes.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Also see WP:NPERIODICAL. Further noting that this was previously deleted under a different name, see Contínent Times (digital newspaper). B3251 (talk) 04:32, 28 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! 04:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Ferrada[edit]

Claudio Ferrada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Never held any office that makes them inherently pass NPOL and not enough sources to pass GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:35, 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! 22:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:25, 28 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! 04:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: the WP:BURDEN of demonstrating notability is on those asserting keep. What another language Wikipedia chooses to do is fine, but not applicable to en.wikipedia pillars, polices, and guidelines. In almost four weeks of waiting, nobody has stepped up to add sufficient sources to meet ANYBIO, GNG, BLP, NPOL or any other relevant SNG. Even the page creator has no special attachement to the page. BusterD (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward J. Crawford[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Edward J. Crawford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

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! 22:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article is highly promotional. I began checking the citations and only got through the first section, but a number fail validation or are not reliable sources (e.g. something he himself wrote). As it is, I cannot (yet?) find anything that would make him noteworthy. It will take work to cut the article down to the actual reliable sources, and then to ones that are significantly about him. My gut feeling is that there will not be significant sources, but it will take some time to figure that out. Lamona (talk) 05:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your assessment is incorrect. The 3 places you marked the page with [verification failed] were not accurate. 2 of the sources used this article, which you need to find his photo and click on it, and then a long bio will appear which verifies the info. Next you had an issue with source 11 freemannews.tulane.edu/, it partially verified the content, but the source 12, right after verifies everything. As far as being promotional, please feel free to revise it. Most of the article was written by me, but at least one other person has added to it. I am pretty certain that I didn't write anything promotional myself. Lionsonny (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of coverage exists. Here are the good sources:
Forthworth Inc - This article has significant coverage on him.
Travel Talk - Long article on him and his family
Hawkins Crawford - Article about his wedding and has a bio about him and his wife.
Forthworth Business - A good long paragraph of bio on him
tulane.edu - Article about his Tedx Talk. It is short, but the fact that he did a Ted talk should help with notability.
Book: In the Warlords' Shadow - This book contains a few paragraphs of info on him.
Voyage Dallas: This is an interview, but there is 3 paragraphs of intro about him that is not an interview, hence it should count towards notability.
texas.gov - A long paragraph of bio on him
Peace Corps Connect - Click on his image and you will see a long bio on him.

Based on all the above, significant coverage exists and he meets notability guidelines. Lionsonny (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lionsonny None of these sources is valid for establishing notability:
  • Fort Worth Inc is a WP:TRADES magazine, and only lengthy, in-depth features (not short news items like this one) from trade publications can be used to establish notability.
  • The "Travel Talk" article appears to be from a magazine called "University Park Life," which appears to be a real estate promotional product. (See example: https://issuu.com/daveperry-millerrealestate/docs/hea_carla_uplife_for_issuu). Furthermore, the PDF is hosted on the subject's own website! There is no way this can meet the standard of reliable and independent.
  • The wedding announcement can be used to verify facts but not to establish notability, since wedding announcements are generally supplied or based on data supplied by the couple and thus not independent.
  • Fort Worth Business - same trade publication issue noted above.
  • Tulane - source is not independent as it is his alma mater, plus it is a brief mention, not WP:SIGCOV
  • The book I cannot view, but if it's only a few paragraphs in a full book, that's unlikely to be considered significant coverage.
  • Voyage Dallas is an WP:INTERVIEW and thus a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and ineligible to count toward notability.
  • Texas.gov is a WP:PRESSRELEASE and thus a primary source.
  • The Peace Corps site is a short official bio, not a long one, but either way not an independent or secondary source.
As I said when nominating, this is a WP:REFBOMB trying to create an illusion of notability through sheer volume of sources, but as I show here, none of them passes the bar of notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going with Delete - due to lack of independent sources. The book has two nice paragraphs about him, but that is not enough to establish notability. The remainder are mainly local fluff pieces. The TedX talk does not establish notability - there have been hundreds/thousands of them and "TedX" is now a franchise. I find short bios that cannot be determined to be independent and a bunch of name checks. Although there are sources that state facts that are in the article, either they are not independent or are not sufficiently reliable. This person has done some interesting things so if a few reliable sources write significant and independent works about him, he could have a presence here. Lamona (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. based on presented citations above by Lionsonny, this person will meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. In particular, Forthworth Inc, Forthworth Business, Book: In the Warlords' Shadow, Peace Corps Connect and Voyage Dallas have good amount of coverage on him. Hkkingg (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The references presented by Lionsonny for GNG purposes have been disputed by two editors, and endorsed by another. Relisting for further analysis of these sources by other editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, same comment as Daniel.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Dclemens1971. Not enough WP:SIGCOV to establish notability, and most sources that don't fall under WP:TRIVIALMENTION are either less-reliable or primary sources. B3251(talk) 04:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the source analysis by Dclemens1971. This is an enormous amount of trivia accumulated to synthesize an apparently cited biography of a relatively unknown living person. Right out of one's own scrapbook, perhaps. I generally feel some sympathy for the subject; sometimes it's a bad idea to have article about oneself. But in the case of this subject, I have no particular sympathy, because five years apart, two separate new contributors decided to create largely the same page about the same subject, using many of the same sources. And both of the pages came up for deletion. What a shock it was to discover the last such page creator, TheCarFanatic was blocked for likely covert advertising! This might bear some further examination. BusterD (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: For those who think it's completely risk-free to try create a Wikipedia article about a living someone (perhaps as a business card), these two deletion procedures will be available for anyone to find later when someone inevitably DOES attempt to search for this namespace. Readers of the future may make their own judgements when they see it deleted twice, and no reputation-cleaning firm (including national security agencies) can get the AfDs deleted, so the stain is set, so to speak. BusterD (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ripple20[edit]

Ripple20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

is mostly copy and paste; not notable enough. most sources are notifications of the vulnerability under discussion Maccore Henni user talk Respond using tb, please. 16:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G12 104.7.152.180 (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't see how this is a copy/paste or copyvio. I created this page from multiple sources and the copyvio report shows that it is unlikely to be a copyright violation. Additionally, there is more information about this vulnerability now than when the page was first created, so I believe that it is still notable and the article can be expanded. —Ost (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Earwig only brought up 2 reverse-copies. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted via A7‎. With thanks to Bbb23. Procedural close. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laniatus[edit]

Laniatus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP, no coverage to speak of. There's some confusing connection between this company and probably-notable HeroEngine, but I can't discern what it might be, and RS haven't covered it in any case. ~ A412 talk! 04:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, United States of America, and Colorado. ~ A412 talk! 04:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't find anything relevant in RS myself, the article is effectively entirely unsourced since the only sources is a Seeking Alpha blog post about HeroEngine which does not even mention the article subject (which makes sense considering the article claims it to be founded 13 years after said blog post was made). I suppose if an RS could be found actually linking this to HeroEngine it could be redirected here, but as far as I can tell there's no evidence any third party RS even knows this company exists. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, you know what, I'm going to try and A7 this because I don't think a claim that HeroEngine makes this company significant would be credible. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:45, 4 June 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.

Hexaware Technologies[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hexaware Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

  • Keep The previous version was deleted in 2020. This is quite a different from previous. I can see here significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. And a listed company at National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange. MeltPees (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, if all you're going to do is past a few specific articles from draft to mainspace and then show up at several AFDs eventually you're going to attract scrutiny like an SPA. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for spamming. MER-C 09:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some sources are reliable but still do not help with notability, lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Wikipedia is not a business directory. RangersRus (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:26, 21 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! 02:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The last AFD discussion was in February 2020 and since then the company received several articles and stories such as this article in Bloomberg 1, the Hindu articles 2, 3 and 4 (which is considered a reliable source per WP:RSP), and this article from Reuters. More citations might haven't included in the 2020 previous page version such as The Hindu article 5 and the Reuters article 5. Rchardk (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rchardk, reliable is fine and all, and if that were the only criteria it could have been kept even back in 2020, but there are three others. Can you take a look at the rules for trivial, especially routine coverage or those for independence and tell me which of the sources you posted meet those? They seem like the usual announcements copied from press releases. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please assess new sources,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Splint (programming tool)[edit]

Splint (programming tool) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was PRODed in 2012 but wasn't deleted for some reason (I can't find a de-PROD in the edit history). Independently, this article doesn't meet WP: N -- I can't find any reliable secondary sources about the subject. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, a Google Books search brings up plenty of coverage, e.g. here and here. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, the second source didn't have much coverage, here is a better example source. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the second and third sources you provided give in-depth coverage. The first one might, but Google Books cuts off the passage. The onus is on the person providing sources to show that a source covers a subject with enough depth to establish notability. Are you sure this article should be kept? HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:51, 28 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! 02:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As Raccoon demonstrates, It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers. —WP:NSOFT Aaron Liu (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Narayandas Laddha High School[edit]

Narayandas Laddha High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cant find any mention of this school in reliable secondary sources, fails notability requirements for school (WP:NSCHOOL). Ratnahastin (talk) 02:08, 21 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! 02:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Narayandas Laddha High School article does not provide enough reliable sources to demonstrate the school's notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Furthermore, the article lacks detailed, verifiable information and appears insufficiently comprehensive to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia.--Welcome to Pandora (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ SL93 (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Reber[edit]

Deborah Reber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found nothing that shows notability per WP:AUTHOR. SL93 (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I think her work on Blues Clues, Chicken soup for the teenage soul, and others targeting the youth market, are significant. Her work seems to be a positive input for that target audience. Her listings on the Authority Control Database indicates that her works are also of interest to audiences in countries beyond the United States. — Maile (talk) 04:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how that makes her pass the author guideline, or where the significance is without even one bit of significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Various bios of her say she's a New York Times Best Selling author, and I have no reason to believe she isn't. This review [73], and these articles [74], [75] and book [76] suggest notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Logging into the Wikipedia Library above brings up at least 30 hits on the first page alone, most of which are book reviews in journals. There are 5 pages of hits in the Library... Oaktree b (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Kurakin[edit]

Dmitri Kurakin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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 do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed without explanation. Not to be confused with Dmitry Kurakin, sociology professor at Yale University. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of stamp clubs and philatelic societies in the United States[edit]

List of stamp clubs and philatelic societies in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most likely fails WP:NLIST, consists of 60% red links. WP:NOTDIRECTORY also applies, and I didn't find WP:RS describing this list besides third-party directories. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed list of notified projects for AFD readability
  • Comment The links I clicked on had no references at all, or none that would count as reliable sources. Didn't check all of them. Dream Focus 19:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the listed clubs are local organizations which would be unlikely to satisfy the notability criteria of WP:ORG. Hence, this looks mostly like a directory, which Wikipedia isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This list is self-defining, and does not require extensive documentation. So far around twenty entries are individually notable, and the reasons suggested for deletion are not persuasive: 1) the number of redlinks is irrelevant; there is potential for expansion, and the list would be perfectly valid if the items were not linked, as long as it's possible to verify the existence of items that don't have their own articles; for this, third-party directories are fine. That said, some effort to document them is necessary, but fixing that is part of the normal editing process, not a valid reason for deletion. There is no deadline for locating sources.
2) none of the criteria of the cited WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply; this seems to be one of those policies that people cite because it sounds like it would apply, apparently without bothering to read and understand it. Specifically: this is not a "simple listing without contextual information"; the context is clearly given. It is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics; the items on the list are all closely connected by subject matter. It is not a cross-categorization. It has nothing to do with genealogy. It is not a program guide. It is not a business resource. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is about collections of information that have no encyclopedic value for readers; this list clearly has value. "This list is full of redlinks and doesn't have enough sources" is not a valid rationale for deletion. It's a reason to improve the list. P Aculeius (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P Aculeius, those are all very good points, thanks for pointing them out. However, you have not addressed how this list meets WP:NLIST, do you think you could explain how it would to justify a speedy keep, as the fact that the entries themselves are notable does not guaranty the list itself being notable? Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if hypothetically NLIST was not met (which I believe it is), WP:LISTPURP suggests that there would still be other grounds to keep.
As prodder and nom, you have not shown any evidence of having demonstrated WP:BEFORE due diligence. The plethora of Google results for searches like "stamp clubs in America" suggests that this was not done. It isn’t really the most GF behavior to simply, since the burden of proof generally lies with the “keep” side once process has begun, make a prod or AfD nomination without actually determining if there’s a prima facie case for a notability or verifiability challenge.
Sorry for the sharpness, but sometimes it’s necessary.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete I'm just not seeing this. The NY society's building is historic, but when you look at sources about these places, even the few with articles really don't seem notable. And anyway, what are the sources for this list? I'm looking at the listing from Linn's Stamp News, and it's far more complete and is up-to-date; it's also clear that most of the listings would never garner an article. I don't see the point of duplicating a not-very-useful subset of thei info (just the names), and once we go past that, we're in WP:NOTDIRECTORY territory. Mangoe (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BEFORE - while stamp collecting is not the huge hobby it was a couple of decades ago, there is a huge literature on such clubs. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. "There is a huge literature on such clubs"....it would help, of course, if examples were provided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BoOzy' OS and the Cristal Gem[edit]

BoOzy' OS and the Cristal Gem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to fail WP:NFILM. This was a short film which was submitted to a 2013 Dailymotion contest connected with Annecy ("+ de courts"), but which did not win the judging ([77]). I can't find any mention of it in the archived Annecy web site, nor can I find any substantial coverage online, just a lot of entries in film databases and an unusual amount of media on Commons (for now, at least: c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by REDƎYE). Omphalographer (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Can't find any substantial coverage in secondary sources outside of a blog or two. Nowhere good to redirect to, it isn't mentioned in Annecy International Animation Film Festival and there's no article for the director. Odd that a French film has articles in 30 languages but not French. hinnk (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, it was in French Wikipedia but they deleted it years ago as non-notable. hinnk (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find many secondary sources on Google : a critic review in Romania, another in London (2023), an interview in Paris (2014), another in India (2023), etc. IMDB shows 1700 votes, 8 awards and 1 nomination. This seems to me to be very ample in terms of notoriety for a short film ^^ (note : I remember the AFD in FR in 2014 : at that time, there was not enough sources (only 1 interview I think) but with today awards and coverage, I think the article should be recreated in FR) --Supersonic888 (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not 8 but 10 wins, and not 1 but 4 nominations ^^ I just added "Critical response" and "accolades" sections with sources on the article. --Supersonic888 (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Interviews are primary sources that don't help meet the general notability guideline, those two reviews are both from sites that accept payment for reviews ([78][79][80]), and the World Film Carnival Singapore site you added to the article was running malware that immediately redirected me without even showing a review. Do you understand my concern when someone says a subject is very ample in terms of notoriety, with this as the evidence? hinnk (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm admittedly not an expert on the film industry, but most of those awards appear to be from monthly online competitions, not notable film festivals. For example, the "Rome International Movie Awards" is a blog which issues dozens of awards to amateur films every month. Omphalographer (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not an expert on the film industry either but it seems they paid for participating in festivals, not for reviews or awards. I didn't have any problem for visiting the World Film Carnival site (no malware for me) ^^
    The fact that it is an amateur film (if it is one? I don't know) does not seem to me to be a criterion for deletion: we are talking about notoriety and I believe that this point is respected, internationally (I add that on Commons there are photos showing the director with trophies at these festivals in Asia, which also shows international distribution).
    If we look at Category:2013 animated short films and IMDB (when available):
    • Aruvu Rezuru: Kikaijikake no Yōseitachi = 23 votes
    • Backward Run = 77 votes, 1 win & 3 nominations
    • The Blue Umbrella (2013 film) = 11000 votes, 1 nomination, 17 critics (Pixar)
    • A Boy and His Atom = 454 votes, 1 critic
    • The Chaperone 3D = 90 votes, 7 wins & 4 nominations, 1 critic
    • Death Billiards = 2100 votes, 2 critics
    • The End of Pinky = 51 votes, 2 nominations, 3 critics
    • Game Over (2013 film) = 0 vote
    • Get a Horse! = 5600 votes, 2 wins & 2 nominations, 20 critics (Mickey)
    • Gloria Victoria = 137 votes, 1 win & 7 nominations, 5 critics
    • Hollow Land = 58 votes, 8 wins & 3 nominations, 1 critic
    • Impromptu (2013 film) = 28 votes, 1 nomination, 1 critic
    • Kick-Heart = 1000 votes, 1 wins & 3 nominations, 9 critics
    • Mary & Myself = 16 votes, 1 nomination
    • The Missing Scarf = 468 votes, 15 wins & 5 nominations, 4 critics
    • Missing U (film) = 26 votes
    • Mr Hublot = 5200 votes, 6 wins & 2 nominations, 14 critics
    • Party Central = 3700 votes (Disney Pixar)
    • The River's Lazy Flow = 11 votes, 1 win & 1 nomination
    • The Scarecrow (2013 film) = 248 votes, 5 wins
    • The Smurfs: The Legend of Smurfy Hollow = 986 votes, 1 nomination, 13 critics (The Smurfs)
    • Subconscious Password = 198 votes, 3 wins & 5 nominations, 4 critics
    • Toy Story of Terror! = 18000 votes, 6 wins & 10 nominations, 31 critics (Disney Pixar)
    This is to show that with 1700 votes it has more votes than most other films, even more than The Smurfs. Only 6 blockbuster films have more votes (Disney Pixar, Mickey, etc).
    To me, all this is significant in terms of notoriety even though one could still argue that some votes could be rigged. Supersonic888 (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User votes on IMDb are not in any way, shape, or form a measure of notability (nor "notoriety"). Omphalographer (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, and that's not what I'm basing it on here (I just point this out, in addition to my remarks), but it's an interesting indicator ^^ Supersonic888 (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sources are fine with me and the notoriety seems sufficient to me, with good worldwide coverage. However, some festivals mentioned are a bit light (Morocco Fest and Oregon Film Festival: there is only one primary source). The article seems acceptable to me on Wikipedia in French as well --CineDany (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Convinced by the arguments, sources ok for me. The only point that would make me hesitate would be the film’s absence from major review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. --SuperKFuu (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not impressed by the quality of the sources; this seems to fail the notability guidelines. There's a concerted effort by the creators to prop up the work across Wikimedia projects but the coverage just isn't there. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have several less experienced editors participating here and I urge them to review Wikipedia:Notability (films) which is Wikipedia's guideline on how to judge notability regarding films and it doesn't include consideration by IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes. The nominator pointed out this page but I don't think some editors here are familiar with it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Based on the references that have been added, I put together a quick source assessment to evaluate where we are now. It seems to me like WP:GNG has still not been reached. hinnk (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table: prepared by User:hinnk
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
IMDb Yes No WP:IMDB ? ✘ No
C2S Network No Press kit No Yes ✘ No
Dailymotion contest Yes ? No Just the title listed as a contest winner, although "More infos" section lists a different winner ✘ No
AllMovie Yes ~ WP:ALLMUSIC, AllMovie ratings seem unreliable since they're included even on upcoming/lost films No Mostly facts imported from Wikidata, otherwise just the numerical rating ✘ No
World Film Carnival Singapore ? ? ? Dead link, failed verification, Internet Archive page is also empty ? Unknown
Monkey Bread Tree ~ No Offers coverage as a paid service Yes ✘ No
fiffest ~ No Offers coverage as a paid service Yes ✘ No
Paris à contre-jour No Interview ? ? Dead link, failed verification ✘ No
Oniros Film Awards Yes ? No Just the title listed ✘ No
Sea & Beach Film Festival Yes ? No Just the title listed ✘ No
Druk International Film Festival Yes ? No Just the title listed ✘ No
World Film Carnival Singapore Yes ? No Just the title listed ✘ No
Cult Critic Movie Awards Yes ? No Just the title listed ✘ No
Rome International Movie Awards Yes ? No Just the title listed ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Delete: The film is not notable per our standards. Little to no coverage in .fr sources, this is the best [81], it's basically a listing akin to the imdb. The awards won are not notable (none from notable film festivals), nor can I find confirmation of the Annecy win (the source used, Dailymotion, is not reliable). Annecy is a big deal in France, and the fact that zero media there have covered it is proof of non-notability. Here's the search [82] in Gnews, looking for sources from France: listings for kombucha drinks and other kinds of nonsense, completely unrelated ot this film. Oaktree b (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here's the French wiki deletion discussion from 2015: [83]... The sources found were the films sponsors, none of which were in French either. Oaktree b (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record: My French is limited but you're just reading the Afd nom's rationale apparently....and he (nor anyone on that page) does not say that no sources in French existed.... (not that it should have mattered the least, btw). Also, shall we delete every page the French Wikipedia has decided to delete? Good luck. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List_of_animated_short_films#2013: and add the sources there, if it's judged insufficient for a page; but not opposed to Keep myself, given the sources presented and the number of screenings/awards. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files[edit]

File:AmazingSpider-ManAnnual22.png[edit]

File:AmazingSpider-ManAnnual22.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DrBat (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is already non-free media representing this character in this costume in this article. No need for another. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Speedball and Hummingbird from New Warriros Vol 2 Issue 12.png[edit]

File:Speedball and Hummingbird from New Warriros Vol 2 Issue 12.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MarioHerald (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Plenty of non-free media on this page already. No need for more. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cake rarities.jpg[edit]

File:Cake rarities.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Taestell (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Virtually identical to standard cover. Not needd. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pit render.png[edit]

File:Pit render.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kazama16 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image fails WP:FUR since the original article was redirected. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "A redirect pointing to the page where the non-free content is intended to be used is acceptable as the article name in the non-free use rationale." It is written in WP:FUR. And it should be allowed to use non-free image for the better understanding of the subject. Boneless Pizza! Any other issue? I would like to know. Ping me when you have a comment on this. Kazama16 (talk) 08:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of use section along already fails WP:FUR 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 08:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NFCC#8 "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The non-free content is proved to be useful to readers who don't have a idea of the individual appearance. Kazama16 (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you didn't somehow read number 6? You could definitely improve the rationale of that image instead of being defensive here. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 09:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Kazama16 (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yurun Group (logo).png[edit]

File:Yurun Group (logo).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

It is recommended to reselect authorization because it is likely not protected by copyright in the United States, but since the copyright protection threshold of the PRC is very low, it is still not advisable to import into commons.

It is recommended to cancel fair use and replace it with {{PD-textlogo}}{{PD-USonly}}. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Sportspeople by populated place and sport[edit]

  • Propose renaming
Copy of speedy
  • @Omnis Scientia: this is now in the "moved to full discussion" section but a full discussion hasn't been started yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle, no idea who did moved it to "full disciussion" - I had moved it to "pending other discussions" while the parent categories were changed from "City or town" to "populated place". Then I was going to bring this to full. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: So we have two options here: A: rename to "Category:Baseball players from Foo by populated place"; or B: "Category:Fooian baseball players by populated place". Either way, the split should be at the end and should be "populated place" per recent Cfds. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging the following from speedy discussion: @Armbrust, @Marcocapelle, @Smasongarrison, @Liz. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alder carrs[edit]

Convert Category:Alder carrs to article Alder carr
Nominator's rationale: I don't really know what to do with this category. I think it's for a very specific kind of wetland that only applies to a specific kind of tree. This category feels like a non-defining intersection between kind of tree and kind of landform, but I'm not an expert. Mason (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This category appears regularly as a feature on early Ordnance Survey maps. Leutha (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Iran articles with deprecated tags[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No longer being populated by template or found in code. Gonnym (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Czech Republic articles with deprecated tags[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No longer being populated by template or found in code. Gonnym (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:South Sudan articles with deprecated tags[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No longer being populated by template or found in code. Gonnym (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Italy articles with deprecated tags[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No longer being populated by template or found in code. Gonnym (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:France articles with deprecated tags[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No longer being populated by template or found in code. Gonnym (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slovakia articles with deprecated tags[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No longer being populated by template or found in code. Gonnym (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Channel Islands articles with deprecated tags[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No longer being populated by template or found in code. Gonnym (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Central Asia articles with deprecated tags[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No longer being populated by template or found in code. Gonnym (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Serbia articles with deprecated tags[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No longer being populated by template or found in code. Gonnym (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Montenegro articles with deprecated tags[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No longer being populated by template or found in code. Gonnym (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Southeast Asia articles with deprecated tags[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No longer being populated by template or found in code. Gonnym (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Post-independence history of Bengal[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, both this category and its parent contain only a few subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Catholicism articles with deprecated tags[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No longer being populated by template. Gonnym (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:European Microstates articles with deprecated tags[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No longer being populated by a template or found in code. Gonnym (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Africa articles with deprecated tags[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No longer being populated by Template:WikiProject Africa. Gonnym (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fantasy articles with deprecated tags[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No longer being populated by Template:WikiProject Fantasy. Gonnym (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vatican City articles with deprecated tags[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No longer being populated by Template:WikiProject Vatican City or found in any template code. Gonnym (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States articles with deprecated tags[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No longer being populated by Template:WikiProject United States or found in any template code. Gonnym (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Lithuania (1569–1795)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, the two categories cover nearly the same period. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Early modern history of Bengal[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crime action films[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Hybrid genre term that is not in common usage (unlike lets say, action comedy or even action thriller). Searching for it on google, gives one imdb list, then several lists for one genre or the other. Per the action film article, "Action films often interface with other genres. Yvonne Tasker wrote that films are often labelled action thrillers, action-fantasy and action-adventure films with different nuances." Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I'd include the sub-categories within this general category again, but I suppose that is implied in this process. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prostitution in the State of Palestine[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I propose to upmerge, now there is only one article and I see no potensial for the growth. Aldij (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles involving the Qarmatians[edit]

Nominator's rationale: These battles concern a specific subgroup of Qarmatians, namely those of the Qarmatian 'republic' of Bahrayn under the al-Jannabi family. This was the main Qarmatian group, but by no means the only one, and at any rate it should be distinguished. Other "Qarmatian" battles, like the Battle of Hama (even though the Qarmatian label is debatable here), are not included. Constantine ✍ 07:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Firelei Báez[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Contains only two non-free files and not even the main article Firelei Báez. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the spirit of WP:C2F. Fwiw I have added the main article to the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indian music series[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coke Studio (franchise)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Probably unnecessary disambiguation. This is missing a parent article about the franchise as a whole, or the original Brazilian series. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:IK Sirius Fotboll seasons[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Single-article uncategorized category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Galician animated films[edit]

Nominator's rationale: In accordance with Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_3#Category:Galician_films. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Irish films" are not the same as "Irish (or Gaelic) language films" and that's why there are two different categories (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Irish_animated_films). For the same reason, "Galician films" (or "Galician animated films") are not the same as "Galician language films". Gasparoff (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Higher Walton F.C. players[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Uncategorized, single-article category for a defunct football club without a topic category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just needs some research for other footballers to be added to it - I simply have not got around to it yet (and where are the Lancastrian football experts who could be doing so???) In Vitrio (talk) 09:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, without objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per LaundryPizza03 and Marcocapelle. Gjs238 (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PAW Patrol (franchise)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Uncategorized duplicate category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The TV series (currently at Category:PAW Patrol), and the franchise are not the same thing. See also Talk:PAW_Patrol#Split_and_move_proposal. Gonnym (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Members of the League of Women Voters[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Simple membership in the League of Women Voters is non-defining. User:Namiba 15:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many siblings contain (just) activists, which is much more defining than membership. We might rename and purge this one as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on renaming and purging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

Raisi[edit]

A quick explainer on the history of this redirect: Initially, Raisi had been a redirect to Raisi, Razavi Khorasan (an article about a tiny village). Later on, I moved the article to its present title, intending to disambiguate the base title. However, I then noticed that Raisi (disambiguation) already existed, so I made a request at WP:RM/TR, which was promptly fulfilled. Thus, Raisi became a dab page, with Raisi (disambiguation) a redirect to it. In the last chapter of this saga, IP user 2601:646:8003:6B20:894E:7841:319C:88CA redirected the page to Ebrahim Raisi, so the page Raisi (disambiguation) was automatically retargeted as well. However, since it has (disambiguation) in the title, it's eligible for deletion under G14 if kept as is.

I see two (or maybe three) options out of this strange pickle:

  • Firstly (and what I advocate), we could restore the dab page at Raisi, and retarget Raisi (disambiguation) to Raisi. This restores the previous status quo.
  • Secondly, we could have Raisi as a redirect to Ebrahim Raisi, and Raisi (disambiguation) be the dab page. I have at least two issues with this: firstly, that Ebrahim Raisi might not pass ten year test, despite his newfound fame due to his death. Plus, here's also the technical history of attribution when dabbing Raisi (disambiguation). However, if there's enough support for it, I could see this work.
  • Thirdly, and the option I'd oppose the most, we keep Raisi, speedy delete Raisi (disambiguation), and handle disambiguation via some sort of massive hatnote(s) on the article Ebrahim Raisi. The reason I'd oppose this so much is because the hatnote(s) would have to be enormous - the previous dab page had ten entries, plus one see also.

Anyways, yeah, this is complicated.

Duckmather (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

INDIA[edit]

If someone types in INDIA in all caps, I doubt they're looking for the country. I think this should be retargeted to Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA, as shown in their logo) per WP:DIFFCAPS. Cremastra (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support It is possible that a reader typing "INDIA" in the searchbox just has their capslock on and that they in fact want to read about the country rather than the recently formed political alliance but that can be easily addressed by adding a {{For}} hatnote at the alliance page. Alternatively, the all-caps INDIA can be made into a disambiguation page, or can continue to redirect to the country article and a hat note can be added to that article, but IMO those approaches are less desirable for reasons I can spell out if needed. Abecedare (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep; contra the nom and Abecedare, I think it's pretty common for people to all-caps country names. For example, we have longstanding redirects that target the respective country articles, such as UNITED STATES, BRAZIL, CANADA, CHINA, RUSSIA, and I could go on and on. Duckmather (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but in those cases the term is not ambiguous, so the redirect is harmless and WP:CHEAP (if slightly weird). There is no C.A.N.A.D.A. or R.U.S.S.I.A., so WP:DIFFCAPS is not applicable. Cremastra (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surfjam Steve[edit]

bruh, 16 years with this redirect from a fake neme for Sufjan Stevens? Yilku1 (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Kakaka[edit]

Kakaka isn't necessarily an evil laugh, as much as kekeke or jajaja aren't. It is an onomatopoeia of kkk in Brazil, derived from quá-quá-quá, according to Wiktionary. Soares2000 (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I can't find good targets here at en.wiki. --Lenticel (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment LOL#Commonly_used_equivalents_in_other_languages, is a possibility, but I feel like it is a stretch. Ca talk to me! 07:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone can substantiate/source the kkk -> kakaka thing in Brazil, add it to LOL#Commonly_used_equivalents_in_other_languages and Retarget there. Otherwise, delete. Fieari (talk) 07:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    wiktionary has nothing on a direct link between "kkk" and "kakaka" besides an unsourced, unquoted example on "ka", experience in brazil tells me people do not want to type more letters. if you want to argue in favor of "ka" as a phonetic spelling of the letter k in portuguese, go ahead, i guess. either way, weak retarget to lol if it can be proven that anyone uses it, delete otherwise cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sweartgar[edit]

Delete: This is supposed to be a variant of Sverker, a name for two Swedish kings. However, no reliable sources seem to use this name. From the article Sverker I of Sweden, this was deleted already in 2013 due to lack of sources. There have been similar issues with other articles related to names of medieval Swedes, see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richardice of Sweden. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Several reliable sources are available to substantiate this as a legitimate English exonym for Swedish Sverker, which would be enough for a redirect, if not a mention in the articles. Among them: Nordische Personnamen in England; Erik Björkman; Halle, 1910, (new ed. ISBN 139783747703144); Continental Germanic Personal Names in Old and Middle English Times; Thorvald Forssner; Upsala, 1916, L390900; The Pre Conquest Personal Names of Doomesday Book; 0lof van Feilitzen; Upsala, 1937, L356736: Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire & Yorkshire; Gillian Fellows-Jensen; Copenhagen, 1968, L8111566 - Where shall we put them? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of these refs, I have access to the first, the second and the last one. In the first one, variants like Swartgar and Swertgar are listed on p.136, but there is no Sweartgar. The second and the last reference do not seem to contain anything resembling Sweartgar. The Domesday book names are also searchable at [84], but again, there does not seem to be any name resembling Sweartgar. Even if the name existed in such tomes, the criterion 8 of WP:R#DELETE would be applicable. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC) Comment refactored on 15:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I had missed other pages which include this name: All pages with titles beginning with Sweartgar. If there is a consensus to delete this page, I would request them to be deleted also, although I don't know how to amend the RfD. They were all created by User:Againme or SergeWoodzing, both of whom have been alerted. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've gone ahead and bundled the other identified redirects into this discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stressed out[edit]

This redirect has targeted Psychological stress, Stressed Out (disambiguation) and Stressed Out, the Twenty One Pilots song. Its was pointing to the DAB from 2019 until last month and I changed it back to the DAB today. In terms of the discussions it seems there is a consensus that the Twenty One Pilots song is primary for the title case version per WP:DIFFCAPS, see discussions at Talk:Stressed Out and an older one at Talk:Stressed Out (A Tribe Called Quest song)#Requested move 26 November 2015. In terms of Psychological stress I understand we aren't a dictionary but at the same time it could be argued that its safest to disambiguate the lower case. In terms of the options, option A, target Twenty One Pilots song, option B, target DAB, option C, target Psychological stress. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • B either the generic meaning or Twenty One Pilots song could be primary so its probably best to have no primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A, revert back to Stressed Out. This is the primary topic, and was the target of the Stressed out redirect until an undiscussed edit by User:Crouch, Swale in 2019.[85] Previous RMs discussing Stressed Out (Twenty One Pilots song) and Stressed Out (A Tribe Called Quest song) are not relevant to the lowercase Stressed out. I see no evidence for DIFFCAPS here; all the articles at the Stressed Out (disambiguation) dabpage are spelled with both capital letters. 162 etc. (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @162 etc.: The closer of the 1st RM Special:Diff/694445799 created a redirect to Stress (psychological) in 2015 and it was changed to the DAB page in 2016 and ended up targeting the Twenty One Pilots song as it was moved to the base name in September 2016 which seems to have been an error from the page move or just people not thinking DIFFCAPS was appropriate. It was changed back to the DAB by me in 2019 and stayed this way until last month when you changed it to the Twenty One Pilots song. I then changed it back to the DAB. So the undiscussed change to target the Twenty One Pilots song need discussion here as it could arguable be changed back to the original target. If all the uses were upper case and Psychological stress didn't exist I agree the default would be to follow the primary topic title case but there is a generic meaning though as noted I'm not sure how likely it is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A per 162. mwwv converse∫edits 13:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • C with a hatnote to the disambiguation page. At this capitalisation, and capitalisation matters, my judgement is that most readers are looking for the feeling of psychological stress and not a song. There's no merit in B because all the entries on the dab page are Title Case. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • With fewer than one hit per day on average, no incoming links and no article that would actually be titled "stressed out", it could really be deleted (option D, anyone?). Although capitalization certainly does matter, it's also true searchers often do skip using the shift key. If "stressed out" really were a likely alternative search term for "psychological stress", I'd say proper capitalization wins out, but I don't see many readers expecting that, and I'd hate to put a hatnote on psychological stress pointing to list of songs, so I'd avoid option C. And just as we shouldn't assume searchers skipping the shift key want a lower-case article, we also shouldn't assume they want the upper-case title, even though with a hatnote already on Stressed Out, that's less of an issue. So option A is reasonable, but because capitalization matters and because we can't say with certainty what most of the tiny number of readers landing on the redirect want, absent deletion I lean toward option B. Station1 (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should Stressed out be deleted, typing "stressed out" in search would result in a reader reaching the page at Stressed Out. This means that "option D" would result in the same thing as option A. 162 etc. (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point. And I suppose someone would just recreate a redirect eventually anyway. Station1 (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pussy in bio[edit]

Section with information about this subject was removed (Special:Diff/1227241681) by FMSky. J3133 (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Rusalkii (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore cited content to the article, or to a comparable article on tactics of malicious and fake social media accounts. The sudden ubiquity of these specific phrases was the subject of coverage in reliable sources. Removal on "notability" grounds is tantamount to whitewashing. The content that was deleted is as follows:

In March 2024, The Intelligencer reported on the proliferation of spam posts containing the phrase "░P░U░S░S░Y░I░N░B░I░O░", or similar references to pornographic content appearing in the poster's bio, apparently formatted so as to evade counter-spam measures.<ref name="Intelligencer PIB">{{Cite web|url=https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/who-is-behind-all-the-pussy-in-bio-porn-spam-on-x.html|title=Who's Behind All the 'Pussy in Bio' on X?|first=John|last=Herrman|date=March 26, 2024|website=Intelligencer}}</ref><ref>{{Cite magazine|url=https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/twitter-porn-bot-sex-meme-1234973030/|title=Why Porn Bots Have Taken Over Your Twitter Feed|first=Miles|last=Klee|magazine=[[Rolling Stone]] |date=February 22, 2024}}</ref> The commonality of "pussy in bio" or "PIB" spam made it fodder for jokes, including one posted by Elon Musk himself.<ref name="Intelligencer PIB"/> The Intelligencer further noted that most of the accounts that posted this spam were short-lived throwaway accounts, and that links provided by the accounts typically routed users through several layers of redirecting websites, ultimately landing on a provider of simulated sex chats.<ref name="Intelligencer PIB"/>

Additional sources can be found reporting on this, and it is even the topic of its own Know Your Meme page, here. BD2412 T 18:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore as per BD2412. Five seconds of sleuthing reveals that J3133 (yes, the very user that created this RfD) added the information removed by FMSky in the very edit prior to FMSky removing it (to the point where FMSky's edit was pretty much a WP:Revert. However, five MORE seconds of sleuthing reveals that J3133 was moving the information from Twitter to X (social network)-- here is the edit where J3133 removed the info from the Twitter article, in an effort to move the info to the X article.
    The information does belong in the X article, not the Twitter article-- the report the content cites was posted in March 2024, 8 months after Twitter was renamed to X. It should be restored to the X article, and the redirects kept. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Irrelevant garbage, not needed, WP:NOTEVERYTHING --FMSky (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're going to cite WP:NOT, it would really behoove you to specify what part of that policy the content violates, lest you appear to merely be trying to censor the Internet, or whitewash a company's page. This is neutrally presented and well-cited content. BD2412 T 22:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khogyani (article disambiguation)[edit]

Disambiguator is so unlikely and nonstandard that it's not helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valinor Hills Station[edit]

There's no indication that this is referred to as a "station", either officially or unofficially, by anyone. I'm not sure whether or not a plain "Valinor Hills" redirect would be more suitable. It doesn't seem very useful, but it would make more sense at least. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - As OA of the Valinor Hills Station WP:Redirect - this Redirect was made to support the listing of the final location of the Mars Ingenuity (helicopter) on the planet Mars as indicated at Ingenuity (helicopter)#End of mission, and on the "Mars Memorial Sites" template ({{Features and memorials on Mars}}) (and see below) - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note -- I removed the (unsigned) template transclusion as clutter; anyone can click on the link themselves to see it. I know MOS:OL is about article content and not talk pages, but holy crap, please take it to heart, because it's really hard to find the one important link among your sea of useless ones (why in the world did you feel the need to link "wp:redirect"? Please put some thought into what you write). More to the point, none of what you said addresses my concern that "Station" specifically is unwarranted. If someone added it inappropriately to a template, the proper course would be to remove it from the template, not to add an erroneous redirect. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rich young man[edit]

This phrase is rather generic, and is at least ambiguous with the concept of the Trust Fund Baby. BD2412 T 13:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm a little surprised at myself on this one, but a simple search (I know, not the best indicator, but still) gave me pages and pages of nothing but the bible thing, although often as "rich young ruler" instead of "man". I'm not convinced that anyone looking for Trust fund baby is likely to use this particular phrase, as that's a pretty stock term itself. Maybe Richie Rich instead, but that's reaching :). (Side note, it looks like even that doesn't exist, but that the all caps version was originally a redirect to a boy band that recorded a song of this name, and not probably especially useful otherwise.) 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with hatnote: Rich young man redirects here. See also Trust Fund Baby. or something like that. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 United Kingdom general election[edit]

Redirect was originally set up as a redirect to Next United Kingdom general election at a time when it could have been held in either 2024 or 2025. Now that it has been announced that the next election will be held in 2024 and with the United Kingdom having five year terms, it is very unlikely there will be a 2025 election. Propose deleting. Broanetar (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. 2025 is not 2024. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Wikishovel (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of United Kingdom general elections#21st century. There was much speculation in reliable sources that the election would be in 2025, so it's not an implausible search term. However there isn't any real discussion of this in the article so that isn't a good target. If we take people to the list of elections then they can find whichever one it is that they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. Cremastra (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gastrosexual[edit]

Not mentioned. Retarget to wikt:gastrosexual if there's no mention anywhere else. --MikutoH talk! 04:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history of Gastrosexuality?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both. If you want to send the latter to AFD, or even treat it as a soft delete/expired PROD, I don't think that's unreasonable either. I also don't think a soft redir to Wiktionary serves any useful purpose here, and just impedes normal searching. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Population 0[edit]

Does not appear at the target. Only mention I could find is on Wiktionary at wikt:frozen star. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment would this be a plausible synonym for Population Zero? --Lenticel (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm quite skeptical one that stuff since it does make some sense but barely anyone really does it. Okmrman (talk) 02:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "0" and "Zero" could be searched either way. Unless someone actually sees the logo of them they are unlikely to know which uses which term and even still they may assume we always use numbers or letters. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Appears to be a speculative term for a future star population, but couldn't find any published research on it. "Population 0" was mentioned once as a synonym for Population III stars, but this could stem from a misreading of this paper calling them "Zero-population stars". Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 19:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate there is also Aftermath: Population Zero so maybe Population Zero should be a DAB. I used to use "Population Zero" to get to Aftermath: Population Zero and suddenly found a different article there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak disambiguate per Crouch's findings (and also maybe this is gallows humor but the first thing I thought of was Extinction or especially Human extinction, so that should be added as well). Duckmather (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes Extinction and Human extinction should be included on the DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - There are enough potential targets that a DAB would be worthwhile. I don't find this an implausible search string either. Fieari (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Population Zero. The disambiguation arguments should really be at a RM for that article. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules[edit]

Template:Guyana Detailed Map[edit]

No transclusions. Broken template and module created in December 2023. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
This was created at a time of high tensions between venezuela and guyana Lukt64 (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Southland Tales[edit]

All but one are redirects to the same article. --woodensuperman 15:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Serbia national football team matches[edit]

Unnecessary and redundant navbox. Only one link, which is already inside the main navbox. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2019 Nottinghamshire parish elections[edit]

Unused navigation template with only red links. Gonnym (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2021 Canadian federal election/Oakville North—Burlington[edit]

Unused election template with incorrect data as it duplicates Template:2015 Canadian federal election/Oakville North—Burlington. Gonnym (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Raven Lord[edit]

Unused as Raven Lord was deleted. Gonnym (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Transilien/font colour[edit]

Unused rail color templates. Module:Adjacent stations/Transilien should be used instead. Gonnym (talk) 07:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Australian Roads/Sort[edit]

Unused after this edit. Gonnym (talk) 07:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Indian caste system/article todolist[edit]

Unused after this edit. Gonnym (talk) 07:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Indian roads/taskforce[edit]

Unused after this edit. Gonnym (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Scheduled Language of India[edit]

Unused infobox. Gonnym (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Civil Air Patrol Region[edit]

Unused infobox. Gonnym (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox London Tramlink route[edit]

Unused infobox. Was unused in 2015 and kept and 9 years later still unused. Gonnym (talk) 07:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox takraw tournament[edit]

Unused infobox. Gonnym (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox WEC race[edit]

Unused infobox. Gonnym (talk) 07:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WEC races articles haven't a infobox. We have to navigate through the article to find the key information that you would expect to find in a infobox. This template was created last year, but don't know why, was never implemented. So in one way we have a need, and on the other we have the solution, only hasn't been used. If the community agree, I'll start adding this template to WEC races articles already existing. However I need to make a few adjustments before in order to fit all the categories renominations through out the years. So I would purpose to suspend this deletion let's say for a month, and after that period if I or anyone else didn't used this template in a fair amount of articles, it could be nominated again for deletion.Rpo.castro (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Magnet[edit]

Unused text mangling template that should not be used on this Wiki in any form. Gonnym (talk) 06:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LaSalle Street Station[edit]

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:L Line (Los Angeles Metro)/detailed[edit]

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest preview software release/Wakanda (software)[edit]

Unused software release version template. Wakanda (software) was deleted. Gonnym (talk) 06:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest preview software release/qBittorrent[edit]

Unused software release version template. Gonnym (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest preview software release/foobar2000[edit]

Unused software release version template. Gonnym (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest preview software release/Windows Package Manager[edit]

Unused software release version template. Gonnym (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest preview software release/Windows Media Player[edit]

Unused software release version template. Gonnym (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest preview software release/MuseScore[edit]

Unused software release version template. Gonnym (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest preview software release/Android Studio[edit]

Unused software release version template. Gonnym (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/Piwigo[edit]

Unused software release version template. Gonnym (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/MediaGoblin[edit]

Unused software release version template. Gonnym (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/Gallery Project[edit]

Unused software release version template. Gonnym (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/qwebirc[edit]

Unused software release version template. Gonnym (talk) 06:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/Wakanda (software)[edit]

Unused software release version template. Wakanda (software) deleted. Gonnym (talk) 06:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/Second Life Viewer[edit]

Unused software release version template. Gonnym (talk) 06:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was used, it got removed for some reason? Lemme check the edit history. — Félix Wolf (talk | contribs) 14:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so it looks like the reason this became unused was because of this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Life&diff=prev&oldid=1219059535
Not entirely sure about the change? It's a technicality issue here because there are two infoboxes there, one is referring to the Viewer software (client) and the simulator software (server). Most people would probably just call the viewer "Second Life" anyway, so I'm fine with it either way, but that might be something that needs to be discussed on the talk page.
Either way, for now, the infobox name field was changed from "Second Life Viewer" to "Second Life". I'd like to move Template:Latest stable software release/Second Life Viewer to Template:Latest stable software release/Second Life instead of having it deleted if that is alright with you. — Félix Wolf (talk | contribs) 14:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure np. If you return it to use, I'll withdraw my nomination. Gonnym (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the edit that caused the orphaning of the sub-template from the infobox and opened a discussion on the wiki page that references it here Talk:Second Life#Second Life vs Second Life Viewer. — Félix Wolf (talk | contribs) 20:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/MuseScore[edit]

Unused software release version template. Gonnym (talk) 06:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/LimeChat[edit]

Unused software release version template. Gonnym (talk) 06:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/HydraIRC[edit]

Unused software release version template. HydraIRC deleted. Gonnym (talk) 06:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/EMCO MSI Package Builder[edit]

Unused software release version template. EMCO MSI Package Builder deleted. Gonnym (talk) 06:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany[edit]

Deletion review[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:XfD_today&oldid=1222059439"