Wikipedia:XfD today

Shortcuts

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

Speedy deletion candidates[edit]

Candidates for speedy deletion

Articles[edit]

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 13	May 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Discrimination against Bengalis in India[edit]

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

The whole article is WP:OR and is making connection of any unfavorable event that occurred in or around West Bengal as discrimination against its people. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Water Boatman[edit]

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

Short horror film recently tagged for notability. Only sources are brief announcements in Indiegogo/Dread Central (and IMDb) and https://filmfreeway.com/thewaterboatman. Could be redirected to Marcus Bentley if one really thinks an WP:ATD is better. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Descending solid coalitions[edit]

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

The term "descending solid coalitions" is apparently missing in both Google Books and Google scholar, which is highly irregular for a valid scientific term. The article refers to a single source that is also missing the term. PROD was reverted. The alternate name, "Descending Acquiescing Coalitions", apparently has no independent WP:SIGCOV, see discussion at Talk:Descending solid coalitions#Proposed deletion. Викидим (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristbergs IF[edit]

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

Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. Modest history peaking on the 5th tier. (They are now on the 8th.) Geschichte (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FK Bosna 92 Örebro[edit]

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

Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. Modest history peaking on the 5th tier. (They are now on the 6th.) Geschichte (talk) 07:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic cross skating[edit]

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

I couldn't find that it meets WP:N; I'm not sure any good merge/redirect targets exist, and as this is wholly unsourced, merging wouldn't necessarily be helpful. Boleyn (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 7 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!} 06:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are multiple sources, some very detailed. See, for example, [1]. --Викидим (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Around the world (card game)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 11:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Land mine (drinking game).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 7 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!} 06:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laith Saad Abdullah[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, no good independent sources about him, plus COI concerns. Fram (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Literature, and Iraq. Fram (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 30 April 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 11:52, 7 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!} 06:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given his novels and play I think he may possibly be notable under WP:AUTHOR but I can’t search for reviews in Arabic without the original names of his works. It’s unfortunate when editors rush to create an en.wiki article when there isn’t yet one in the mother language. Mccapra (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Thorpe Priestley[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years, never ref'd correctly. May pass WP:NAUTHOR. scope_creep^Talk 09:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 7 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!} 06:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Blevins[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. While there are a number of sources, I couldn't find anything that is both reliable and provides WP:SIGCOV. GMH Melbourne (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for flagging. Have improved the article with additional authoritative news sources. We are talking here about one of the very best saxophone players of his generation. In the Brit Awards 2024 (the leading awards in UK for music), RAYE won more awards than any other artist, so for Blevins to have a track named after him on her album is notable. He has been regularly in the bands of several household name stars and played in a Grammy award winning album. Wikiwikiwwwest (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still try to include more sources that contribute to the WP:GNG criteria. GMH Melbourne (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per adequate refs by now JarrahTree 01:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources? I wasn't able to locate any. GMH Melbourne (talk) 04:49, 10 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!} 06:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Harris (figure skater)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; not sure whether the rest qualifies as notable. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:NSKATE and I am also not seeing much coverage on this person.Hkkingg (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Pretty clear-cut case of a WP:GNG pass, and WP:SPORTCRIT at the very least. Yet another poor nomination. JTtheOG (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:13, 7 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!} 06:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Tshibaka[edit]

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

Per Talk:Kelly Tshibaka#Notability 2, I do not believe this unsuccessful political candidate is notable. Despite being well sourced at a casual glance, most of the 30+ references are related to the election, and in many cases focus on the eventual winner, with Tshibaka only mentioned as an opponent. Even if this was a particularly contentious or notable election, WP:ONEEVENT would dictate the content is better merged into the election article. Of the non-election references, only one is actually about the subject (appointment to Commissioner's office). The rest just have trivial mentions where the subject has been quoted as a government official in relation to the primary topic. We don't have articles for every local government commissioner just because they occasionally get quoted in Press (and indeed, neither her predecessors nor successors have articles). This article was created around the time of the election campaign and seems like it was probably created as part of the campaign. There is no suggestion of notability prior to subject's unsuccessful election campaign. Fails WP:Politician (not a politician), WP:Bio and WP:Sustained. Hemmers (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Law, and Alaska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. There’s plenty here, and I just added a new section about her career following campaign. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "there's plenty there" doesn't confer notability. I can write full length articles going into excruciating detail about local politics using local news. I can write articles about local sports clubs using 150years of local media reporting of results and prize-givings. Literally hundreds of references. There's plenty there... but that doesn't mean those people or organisations meet GNG. And that's the thing. There isn't that much there. It's overwhelmingly WP:ONEEVENT about her unsuccessful election campaign, or else trivial mentions. Hemmers (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's not really notable outside her campaign loss, can be redirected to the campaign page. The new section is just a sentence that would not grant her notability if she hadn't run. SportingFlyer T·C 04:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Misunderstanding of WP:NPOL: unelected candidates can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline (meaning: has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists). No part of the guideline counts only non-election references; that would be an unreasonable standard for a politician. I see significant coverage of her life in long features from the Anchorage Daily News, Juneau Empire, The New Yorker (contains lots of profile), etc. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Plus, she has held state/province–wide office, as commissioner of the Alaska Department of Administration. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting though that literally none of the other Commissioners who held that appointment (not elected office) have an article. This is not to say it can't contribute to notability, but we need rather more than "former public servant who controversially but unsuccessfully ran for office" to clear GNG. Hemmers (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree that an unsuccessful candidtae can meet GNG. I just don't believe Tshibaka does! In my view, the issue here is that her personal (non-)notability is being conflated with a contentious race and internal conflict in the Republican Party. It's totally reasonable that her name would be mentioned in relation to that issue, but it doesn't get her over the fence of notability herself IMO.

Those three features are explicitly in relation to the election race, not profiling her as a notable individual in her own right or on the merits of her career. This gives us an issue of WP:SUSTAINED. She doesn't pass WP:POL cleanly, so if we fall back to GNG, we need significant sustained coverage. But the coverage is all WP:ONEEVENT.
Specifically:
- Juneau Empire "This is the first in a three-part series of interviews with U.S. Senate candidates." We don't have an article for Pat Chesbro who was similarly profiled as a fellow candidate. Should we? Literally every candidate who stands for public office will get a local news profile. That doesn't not pass GNG on it's own.
- The making of a U.S. Senate candidate: Kelly Tshibaka "Second of three stories on candidates for U.S. Senate in Alaska in the Nov. 8 general election." Same issue. She ran, there was some local coverage. So what? This is well into WP:ONEEVENT territory.
- The New Yorker This is the best of the lot since it's not an Alaskan paper - national interest starts to hint at notability. Except the article isn't about her - the title is literally "Alaska’s G.O.P. Proxy War". Tshibaka isn't notable - the story is that the GOP were in a state of internal conflict and there's a split in the party between moderate conservatives and a growing alt-right movement.
If Tshibaka is truly notable in her own right then I would like to see at least one in-depth profile that is not from the election - some example of sustained coverage where an independent journalist has decided "This person is someone worth spending some time on in their own right", but I haven't managed to spot such an article. Given that the election race was contentious (Alaska & National Republicans falling out) and received unusual attention because of that, the relevant material would surely be better MERGED into 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska and this article DELETED or REDIRECTED. Hemmers (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead of this BLP plainly shows that she’s notable even without being the runner-up in a close U.S. Senate race: “Kelly Chaundel Tshibaka (/ʃɪˈbɑːkə/ shib-AH-kə; born September 5, 1979)[1][2][3] is an American attorney who served in the federal government from 2002 to 2019 in several inspector general offices. Upon moving back to her home state of Alaska in 2019, she served for two years as the commissioner of the Alaska Department of Administration until 2021. Tshibaka was a Republican candidate for the United States Senate in the 2022 election.[4] She lost to the incumbent, Republican Lisa Murkowski, by about seven percentage points.[5][6] Thereafter, she became a leading opponent of ranked-choice voting in Alaska, as well as head of the Trump 2024 campaign in that state.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear what your purpose is in quoting the entire lead. The other holders of those federal government posts do not have articles. Should they? If anything, that's an argument against her notability. Pretty much every political candidate has a pre-politics career. Working in govt is no more notable than working in the private sector. Is Tshibaka's work in government considered more notable that Pat Chesbro's career in teaching?

As I have stated, we need some evidence of significant, sustained coverage outside of the election to show this article goes beyond WP:ONEEVENT. A couple of trivial mentions in articles relating to strikes? That's not GNG.

As for this statement: The lead of this BLP plainly shows that she’s notable even without being the runner-up in a close U.S. Senate race. I'm afraid this is plainly false. The article was created when she ran for office - not when she was commissioner. None of the other commissioners have articles or are considered notable. Even if she is notable now (which is dubious), she was definitely not notable prior to her campaign. Her latest work against ranked voting may make her notable WP:LAGGING, but I'm still on the fence whether she's there yet. Anyone can start a political lobby group on paper and shove out some press releases. Still doesn't make them notable. Hemmers (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hemmers (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m glad you’re on the fence now. Notice that Pat Chesbro was a relatively minor candidate, she got about 10% of the vote compared to 43% for Tshibaka. Even if Tshibaka had not been runner-up in a statewide election, hadn’t campaigned against ranked choice voting, and hadn’t been put in charge of a statewide presidential campaign, still being commissioner of Alaska’s Department of Administration for two years could be enough. See the people listed at Ministry of Public Administration (Croatia). If anyone is still unsure about notability here, take a look at the list of references. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Croatia analogy doesn't make any sense as that is a ministry, and not all of those people even have articles. It's very simple: she would not have had an article created on her if she had not run for office, and candidates are rarely notable. SportingFlyer T·C 17:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A ministry is the same thing as a department. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really on the fence. She's not dead - consequently I'm open to the idea she will be deemed notable in future (WP:LAGGING). But I don't think she's there yet. This is not a high bar. I could also be notable in the future. So could you.

Her commisionership is absolutely not notable. AFAIK she wasn't involved in any notable reforms/revolutions or scandals during that time. So what would make her two years in office any more notable that any other Commissioner (she would be the first to have an article)?

All I'm asking is "What makes Tshibaka notable, given that unsuccessful candidates generally aren't considered notable?"

WP:NPOL allows that some unsuccessful candidates may be notable. But I keep being bombarded with "Here's coverage during the election, which incidentally, the other (non-notable) candidates got too", which doesn't really help! What is the "extra" that gets Tshibaka over the line?

Your list of Croatian officials is misplaced - those individuals are (as far as I can tell) elected politicians - not employees of the ministry or civil/public servants. As we all well know, Tshibaka is not - and has never been - an elected representative. That's why we're having this discussion. Hemmers (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Death would be a rather high bar for notability (although such a bar would probably improve Wikipedia). NPOL is unambiguous: “The following are presumed to be notable: [1] Politicians and judges who have held … state/province–wide office…. [2] Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage…. [3] people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.” Tshibaka qualifies under all three of these, though only one is needed. Her notability is also a lot more substantial than unelected officials like Richard K. Allen, Arsen Bauk, and Dubravka Jurlina Alibegović. This is my last comment here, let’s see if other Wikipedians would like to weigh in. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Regarding [3], WP:GNG says, “A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” The references in this BLP obviously satisfy this requirement. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's still a disconnect to me in asking to show that a political candidate is notable without using sources about her political candidacy—again, all NPOL asks for is multiple news feature articles, which is plainly not something every candidate gets; your emphasis on in her own right is misdirected. I hate to bring up WP:OSE, but We don't have an article for Pat Chesbro is textbook. Your point about WP:SUSTAINED/WP:BLP1E coverage rules out only people likely to remain ... a low-profile individual, which she is not. And as for the [New Yorker] article isn't about her, WP:SIGCOV means more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All I am asking is: "What makes Tshibaka notable, given that unsuccessful candidates generally aren't considered notable?"

All I have received in response is "Here's a bunch of coverage during the election, which incidentally, the other candidates got too".

Please let's leave individual sources & profiles out of this and let's focus on this one question which I have now asked twice and received no response to. Her candidacy is NOT on it's own notable. Otherwise we would be doing articles for EVERY candidate (yes Chesbro, but also EVERY candidate for EVERY Senate/House seat), and we patently don't do that. So this is not WP:OSE. This is asking why Tshibaka is the exception to the rule. The occasional unsuccessful candidate who tips the scales into notability. Yes - WP:NPOL allows that. Why does Tshibaka qualify for that? What else has she got going for her? Hemmers (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your position, and yes, the best sources I've found come from the election. But your standard doesn't seem to be in line with our guidelines; let's leave individual sources & profiles out of this is rarely the way to go about determining notability. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But your standard doesn't seem to be in line with our guidelines

It certainly is. Our guidelines (WP:NPOL) are that an unsuccessful candidate may be notable, but this is exceptional or predicated on independent notability (e.g. Donald Trump was notable before he ran for office. George W. Bush was previously Governor of Texas, etc). Tshibaka is not notable. She doesn't pass NPOL and she doesn't (as far as I can tell) pass WP:ANYBIO either. No Commissioner before or since has been deemed notable. This is not WP:OSE. It's possible that she is notable... but notability must be clearly shown. What makes her exceptional? I have asked repeatedly for someone to put forward some suggestion as to why she is notable over and above her unsuccessful election campaign. Nobody is able to do so.

So in what way am I out of step with the guidelines?

I'll be honest, I almost feel a bit gaslit at this point.

All I want is for someone voting 'Keep' to answer:

What has she done that is objectively and clearly notable?

She is not unique or special for being a government official who later ran for office. And her government career was undistinguished - no major scandals/reforms/projects.

Nobody can tell me what the 'extra' is that gets her over the line. That's all I want to know.

I'll be leaving this conversation and Afd here because people seem to be more interested in citing policy (WP:NOTBURO) than answering the very simple and reasonable question of "How does she meet GNG?", and I don't want to start accusing people of poor faith. I've made my points so continuing to go round in circles seems unproductive. Hemmers (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska. The article does not meet GNG, as her notability comes only from that election. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska. The sourcing is because of her campaign, she is not independently notable. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Probably not meeting political notability, but we have enough sourcing as a civil servant to !keep. The USA Today and AP articles are about her. Not really notable for one thing, but many different things together, if that makes sense. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> we have enough sourcing as a civil servant to !keep

Is that notable though? Does an unremarkable period as a Commissioner qualify as notable? It hasn't for other commissioners. Maybe she's notable but she would be the exception. Most civil servants are not notable unless they oversee some major scandal, reform or event. The sources on her government career are Wikipedia:Trivial mentions relating to strikes and such. They're one-liners of "the commissioner said", not articles about Tshibaka. Hemmers (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per previous arguments. Coverage of Tshibaka as a commissioner almost entirely consists of passing mentions. No evidence of notability, especially now that she's lost her campaign. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I suppose keeping the page would be suitable as well, but as has already been discussed, the insufficiently non-election related sourcing causes me to interpret the page as one relevant to the broader public more for election notability purposes than as the civil servant she also is. The page may also justifiably be kept as the length of the encyclopedically relevant body of text already embedded into the article meets Wikipedia's standards, not to mention how there is an overall mixed attitude by the users in this debate on the subject's broader political notability (ex. lack of consensus on the article's future potential); some are right when suggesting that the article provides just enough sufficient information on this candidate per the extent of the coverage not normally witnessed in other instances. There is a big downside to this, however: it's tough to say when enough becomes enough, and as such I believe redirecting this page - while keeping would suffice - serves as the better option in this instance. TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still see a division here between editors arguing to Keep and those advocating a Redirect. Based on past AFDs, I'm leaning Redirect but thought I'd relist this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Saleh Thattvi[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Only 1 source of any kind mentions Muhammad Salih Tatahwi (misspelled throughout wikipedia article). That would be Savage-Smith, Emilie; Belloli, Andrea P. A. (1985). "Islamicate Celestial Globes: Their History, Construction, and Use". Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology (46). Washington, D.C., where he gets barely a few sentences. The other sources cited do not mention him at all. Based on searches on google scholar, that one source is the only secondary source to mention him; all sources on google web search are derived from wikipedia. Also, as is, almost everything on the article is wrong, including the spelling of his name, his place of birth, and the time period he lived in, and what kind of globes he made, and it incorrectly places him in mathematician and astronomer categories. All other details are about other people and historical trends already covered elsewhere on wikipedia. Hi! (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Mathematics, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject here wrote his name in a different alphabet, for which there are multiple correct transliterations. (So, the correct spelling of his name is something like "محمد صالح التاتفي"; at least, that is what Google Translate gave to me.) If kept, we should use the most common transliteration. No strong opinion on notability; this could use the attention of a Persian, Arabic and/or Urdu speaker, as there may be be sources in those languages. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For a brief article I think there's just enough material in the reference you indicated, to quote the main part of it:

Besides the Lahore family workshop, there was in the seventheenth century another maker in northwestern India who was producing globes that appear to be cast seamless globes. The instrument maker is known by three astrolabes and two globes (Nos. 25 and 29). On the earlier globe, executed in 1070 H/AD 1659-1660 at the request of a certain Shaykh cAbd al-Khaliq, the maker signed himself as Muhammad Salih Tatah-wi, while on the second globe, made in 1074 H/AD 1663-1664 he signs as Muhammad Salih Tatawi. The spelling of Tatah-wi, which uses quite unusual orthography, is probably an attempt on his part to indicate the pronunciation of the name, for with the second spelling one might be inclined to pronounce it Tatwi. It seems unlikely that he was actually from Tatta in the delta of the Indus river as some have suggested, since the name of the town is written with different characters and should more accurately be transliterated Thattha.

Both globes by Tatawi seem to be quite precise with full sets of constellation figures, though the available photographs of his earlier globe show little detail. Of special interest is the fact that the second globe has the names of the constellations and the signature written in both Arabic and in Sanskrit (see Figure 18, which also clearly shows a plug from the casting process). One might speculate that this maker perhaps worked in the Kashmir area, where at the end of the sixteenth century cAli Kashmiri ibn Luqman may have produced his apparently seamless metal globe. Kashmir was a region where Sanskrit was the language until replaced for official purposes by Persian in the late fifteenth century, and consequently might have been an area where a globe in both Arabic and Sanskrit would have been requested.

... The use of the word c_amal is usual with Diya al-Din of the Lahore workshop as well as later makers such as Muhammad Salih Tatawi of the seventeenth century, ...

There are also some details given on two of his globes (one in the Red Fort Archaeological Museum), and references are indicated to be present in Robert T. Gunther The astrolabes of the world and W. H. Morley Description of a Planispheric Astrolabe Constructed for Shah Sultan Husain Safawi, King of Persia, and Now Preserved in the British Museum; Comprising an Account of the Astrolabe Generally, with Notes Illustrative and Explanatory: to Which Are Added, Concise Notices of Twelve Other Astrolabes, Eastern and European, Hitherto Undescribed. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:54, 10 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!} 06:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Gandgarh[edit]

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

The battle is not historically accurate and the sources are unreliable and relies heavily on WP:Raj sources. The page requires deletion.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Afghanistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor page with very unreliable sources from WP:RAJ written by British administrators and some others fail verification and WP:HISTRS. RangersRus (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Refs consists of a large corpus, with some historians. Article is decently written and has potential for improvement. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly written article most of the Sources fall under WP:RAJ and it even fails WP:HSTRS the article should be deleted.
Delete. Sources are without a doubt unreliable as stated by WP:RAJ UnbiasedSN (talk) 00:44, 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!} 06:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bannu[edit]

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

The battle is not historically accurate and the page is littered with various passages which are not correctly cited and the references cited are inaccurate, and the page itself requires deletion.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Afghanistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor and unreliable sources. Sources do not help with verification. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is not well written at the moment, but it has potential for improvement; I've discovered some other sources and am planning on fixing it up later. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A mess of a Wikipedia page. Sources only have one or two sentences mentioning it. Not worthy of staying up. UnbiasedSN (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Maria de Roumanie[edit]

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

Wife of an ex-king’s grandson, member of a royal house deposed in 1947, 70 years before she joined. Achievements: organizing events, getting married, having two children, attending a baptism, two funerals and a wine festival. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Royalty and nobility, and Romania. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: she does WP:NOTINHERIT her husband's notability, and does not meet WP:GNG in her own right. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Chambers[edit]

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

This article has a lot of citations, but it's not as impressive as it first seems. Of the 36 pages cited: 3 are routine campaign coverage from local outlets, 1 is a Decision Desk HQ election results page, 9 are press releases or other pages on the Indiana Economic Development Corporation's website, 2 don't even mention Chambers, 2 are paywalled, 6 are campaign website citations, 5 take the format of "Brad Chambers announces ____ plan" and seem to be based off the aforementioned campaign website pages, and 2 are duplicates of other sources. The remaining few are more in-depth articles about his gubernatorial campaign or his appointment as state commerce secretary from Indiana-based publications (not anything he did in office, just his appointment). Nothing exactly stands out about his candidacy that would warrant a standalone Wikipedia article; he was never a frontrunner and didn't really do anything noteworthy. And he certainly doesn't have any other argument for passing GNG, either via his (appointed) position as state commerce secretary or otherwise. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Indiana. Kpg jhp jm 07:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jokaru[edit]

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

All the sources doesn't meet our requirement for WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. For good, a redirect to the "List of 2023 films in Maldives" or related can help. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Asia, and Maldives. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage seems to show it’s notable..... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fireball (Dev song)[edit]

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

No sources to prove notability for this lonely single. Despite being converted into a redirect years ago, it was still reinstated soon after. Testeraccount101 (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America. Testeraccount101 (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chak 15 DNB[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable village. Article is completely unsourced, and there isn't any evidence of notability either. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prizren Front[edit]

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

Redundant copy of already existing articles: Battle of Vërrin, Battle of Paštrik, and Prizren incident (1999). The entire article is about these events and content was directly copy-pasted directly from each of those articles.

There's also some original research going on, as various events during the Kosovo war (presumably occurring in the district of Prizren) are lumped together and termed "Prizren Front", rather than reliable sources actually using that term and discussing the events as part of a specific theater. Griboski (talk) 03:21, 14 May 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 May 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Kosovo, Serbia, and Yugoslavia. Griboski (talk) 03:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perth Ram Temple[edit]

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

The sources cited don't seem very reliable. The article makes an extraordinary claim ("tallest temple dedicated to Rama ever built in the world"), which should result in more local coverage, but there is no coverage in local media such as The West Australian or ABC News. Steelkamp (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Australia. Steelkamp (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 07:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts (Pac-Man)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recently unredirected by another user, who reverted on the basis of wanting a proper discussion as opposed to the previous BLAR. Adhering to this user's request for discussion, I have opened an AfD to determine what should happen to this article. The article's current sourcing state is particularly weak, with many uncited statements and a weak Reception section. If additional sources can be found to justify a split, then it would help the article's case, but right now it's very weak and not quite getting there, in my view. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally pinging @Kung Fu Man, who previously BLAR'd the article, and @Grapesoda22, who reverted the BLAR, for their inputs in this discussion. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per my previous AfD. While as usual I feel like a BLAR was unwarranted as there is no way in heck this is "uncontroversial", especially since it passed a previous AfD, I still feel precisely the same way about the article I did before. There is not much here to warrant a standalone character article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 Tasmanian state election[edit]

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

Seems way TOO SOON for this article to exist, considering that there are still four years left for the election to occur. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All "next election" articles are implicitly notable, the article should be moved to its redirect (Next Tasmanian state election), but not deleted. AveryTheComrade (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uptown Scottsbluff[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The prior AfD closed in January, but I don't believe these changes, while not a G4, are sufficient to render a different outcome and the mall still fails WP:CORP. While TPH may be limited from filing a DRV, they raised their opinion that the discussion was invalid. Because it has been recreated, a DRV is no longer viable so bringing it here for further discussion as prior closer. Star Mississippi 02:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls, Organizations, Companies, and Nebraska. Star Mississippi 02:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think I can identify four articles from three sources in this piece that pass the test for independent, significant, non-trivial, secondary coverage under NCORP: Omaha World-Herald, Star-Herald, and two KNEB sources: [2], [3]. (The NCORP trivial mention test does not exclude coverage of rebranding or changes in ownership.) I recognize these were in the article when it was first nominated, so I would have leaned "keep" then as well. (P.S. If Uptown Scottsbluff can't clear AfD with these sources, then the rest of the malls in Nebraska should be nominated too.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Vivas Barandica[edit]

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

BLP for non-notable Colombian PR/marketer who does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALIST. Several sources are interviews conducted by or articles written by the subject, and thus not contributing toward notability. Three articles ostensibly about the subject are virtually identical ([4], [5], [6]) and thus likely marketing/bio copy; they do not demonstrate independence cannot be relied on. There are two articles about a social media controversy Vivas was involved in, but if this is all we have to go on, WP:BLP1E applies. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Colombia. Kpg jhp jm 07:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hoffmann[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. References in article are routine mentions and a brief death notice; a search does not provide any indication of meeting WP:GNG. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, Germany, and Canada. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MV Linga[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or any other notability guidelines. Only references are primary. No independent coverage online. Clear friend a ^💬 01:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. Kpg jhp jm 07:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abro (tribe)[edit]

(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) 00:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a major tribe of the Sindh region of Pakistan and they are a branch of a former ruling dynasty. 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. Sir Calculus (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and merge region wise all similar articles after RfC @ WT:PAK:

Though I would share main concern. I suppose it needs deeper collective thought. I do not see any WP:RFCBEFORE to have taken place at Talk:Abro (tribe) or rather better would have been at WT:PAK.

Likelihood of similar articles in 100s?
Category:Sindhi tribes likely to have more than 250 similar stubs. The way articles seem to have formed I can imagine similar would be the case for many in Category:Tribes of Pakistan. Though there is one central article Ethnic groups of Pakistan it's scope does not seem to be tribal specific.

Importance of topic and issue

I am surprised region wise central articles for tribes of Pakistan do not exist but such large number of stubs going no where seem to exist. Baradari (brotherhood) system is influential cultural part of Pakistan and that article too is a stub. Tribal and ethnicity antecedents form clan culture / Baradari (brotherhood) so anthropologically it's important core of Pakistan's demographic history. Though not paid enough attention to on WP.

Idk if any similar articles were listed and deleted up til now but my suggestion is Draftify and merge region wise all similar articles after RfC @ WT:PAK. If no one is ready to work on the drafts then put in my user name space I shall try to promote for expansion in due course. Bookku (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sameja (clan)[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a major tribe of the Sindh region of Pakistan and they are a branch of a former ruling dynasty. 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. The references provided are more than sufficient and reliable. Sir Calculus (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shoro (tribe)[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soho (tribe)[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a tribe of the Sindhis in the southeastern 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. It got international coverage for being the first tribe in Sindh to elect a woman as its head. I'd say for that alone it is notable. Sir Calculus (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Cape São Vicente (1676)[edit]

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

Real (unlike some of the author's other articles) but very minor battle. It's just three lines in the source (wrong page btw, it's actually 149) that were hallucinated by an LLM into becoming an article. – Hilst [talk] 00:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Africa, and Portugal. – Hilst [talk] 00:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files[edit]

Categories[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:United States politicians killed during the Civil War[edit]

Propose renaming Category:United States politicians killed during the Civil War to Category:Politicians killed in the American Civil War

Nominator's rationale: per article title American Civil War. This was opposed for speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copy of speedy discussion

Category:United States politicians killed during the Civil War to Category:Politicians killed in the American Civil War - this new name is shorter and less ambiguous, as the category lists both Union and Confederate politicians who died in the ACW. AHI-3000 (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas the argument is compelling, I do not think this is a speedy case. Ymblanter (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter: So why is this not suited for speedy renaming? AHI-3000 (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should satisfy to one of the above criteria, and I can not see which one. Ymblanter (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AHI-3000 and Ymblanter: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zzap!64 Gold Medal Award winners[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Zzap!64 Gold Medal Award winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: A category for winners of "Gold Medal", awarded by a video game magazine. No article on it. See also this discussion. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 04:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UCLA Department of Earth Planetary and Space Sciences alumni[edit]

Propose merging Category:UCLA Department of Earth Planetary and Space Sciences alumni to Category:University of California, Los Angeles alumni

Nominator's rationale: Degrees from a school within a university may be defining, a degree from a specific department isn't typically defining. See for a similar case Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_23#Category:Harvard_University_Department_of_Psychology_alumni Mason (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ship names with ukrainian origin[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Ship names with ukrainian origin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:TRIVIALCAT. Mellk (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (But if kept, it should be renamed to "Ukrainian")Mason (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paintings of Hebrew Bible themes[edit]

Propose merging Category:Paintings of Hebrew Bible themes to Category:Paintings based on the Old Testament

Nominator's rationale: merge, a split between Hebrew Bible and Old Testament does not make too much sense in biblical art which largely originates from Christianity. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge, Hebrew Bible is the main tree here. NLeeuw (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a "main" tree per se. Old Testament is different (order of bible books), broader (with deuterocanonical books) and more applicable to topics that are more exclusively associated with Christianity. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether deuterocanonical books are included depends entirely on denomination. "Hebrew Bible" is the name for the 39 books common to Judaism and Christianity, and I see no reason why Christianity should be regarded as more important.

On second thought, it might be better to upmerge Category:Paintings based on the Old Testament to its parents, as it is currently a mostly redundant layer. How does that sound? NLeeuw (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re "Whether deuterocanonical books are included depends entirely on denomination", as things stand the "deuterocanonical books" category is within the "Old Testament" one, so isn't this an argument against the status quo as well? But it's resolved if Category:Paintings based on the Old Testament is upmerged to its parents, leaving the subdivisions of the (Christian) Bible as "Hebrew Bible", "deuterocanonical books" and "New Testament" – with no "Old Testament"? I hope I've got that right. Ham II (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but Upmerge & redirect parent Category:Paintings based on the Old Testament (now tagged). There is a Paintings tree within the Art tree, and there is a Hebrew Bible tree within the Old Testament tree. However, I have just removed Choir of San Lorenzo from Category:Paintings based on the Old Testament (as it seemed mistaken or unjustified), leaving only the subcats Paintings of Hebrew Bible themes and Paintings of people in the deuterocanonical books, so there is little justification for keeping that layer at present. – Fayenatic London 12:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, having a gap for OT in that layer (paintings by theme) would be consistent with the hierarchy for paintings of people – we have Category:Paintings of Hebrew Bible people but not Category:Paintings of Old Testament people. – Fayenatic London 14:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure: I have just created Category:Hebrew Bible themes in art, which I judged to be a worthwhile and missing category. – Fayenatic London 12:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/him) 01:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tokyo Musashino United FC[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Tokyo Musashino United FC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Striking vote considering below comment. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 09:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have expanded, so there's sufficient content to justify keeping. However, needs a move per WP:C2D to Category:Yokogawa Musashino FC to match the parent article name. @Pppery and Marcocapelle:. Giant Snowman 09:08, May 2024 (IOS)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/him) 01:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Architects[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Arthur Edmunds
Propose deleting Category:Bill Lapworth
Propose deleting Category:Halsey Chase Herreshoff
Propose deleting Category:John Hawks (architect)
Propose deleting Category:Lyle Hess
Propose deleting Category:Philip Rhodes
Propose deleting Category:Samuel Sloan (architect)
Propose deleting Category:Emile Weil
Propose renaming and reparenting Category:Michael Middleton Dwyer to Category:Works by Michael Middleton Dwyer

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OCEPON. These categories only contain an eponymous article and a subcategory, so having the subcategory suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Mason (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As this is a larger nomination, giving an extra week for objections.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/him) 01:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ossetian male writers[edit]

Propose merging Category:Ossetian male writers to Category:Ossetian writers

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Non-defining intersection between ethnicity, occupation, and gender. Mason (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; we already have similar categories of ethnciity/occuptation/gender, such as Category:African-American male writers, Category:Yoruba women writers, and Category:Basque women writers. Categorizing writers by gender and nationality is quite common as well; see Category:Male writers by nationality. ForsythiaJo (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:OCEGRS, Ossetian male writers is not a notable topic in its own right. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/him) 23:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/him) 00:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

Harley Quinn (pornographic actor)[edit]

Harley Quinn (pornographic actor) → Bailey Jay (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I can't determine why this redirects here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it seems like her screen name used to be/occasionally was, based on the IMDb [7] page and (all following links may contain pornography) [8] and just general Google search results showing video titles that mention both names "Bailey Jay" "quinn". Now, redirects don't need quite the same level of reliable sourcing to exist so I'm still on the fence if this is useful enough to exist and if a mention of the name could be added in the article. Skynxnex (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 06:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, better if mention added at target. If people are looking for information on this pornographic pseudonym, this person's biography is where they will find it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No mention at the target yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Games[edit]

2020 Games → 2020 Summer Olympics (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The Summer Olympics are not known simply as "Games". See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 3#2022 Games. Mia Mahey (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll note, they are in many occasions, such as [9] [10] [11], none of which use the "summer" qualifier but do refer to the 2024 as Games. These aren't the Winter Olympics. There's the colloquial Olympics, and the Winter Olympics. The word "summer" is often dropped on most occasions when discussing the Olympics that take place in the summer, so I wouldn't consider the winter games to be on the same level. 2008 Games and 1992 Games are current redirects to their respective Olympics and have existed since 2007 and 2006, respectively. This is in conjunction with similar titles such as 2006 Winter Games and/or 2014 Winter Games as expected. These were created through AfC so I don't have a strong attachment, but if you have any alternate titles that have a higher significant usage of "2020 Games" that could be useful to note. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguate, or retarget to 2020 in video games, since it ignores the winter olympics and those other things people refer to almost exclusively as "games"

would suggest "2020 summer games", but that also seems to refer mostly to games released in the summer of 2020 cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong disagree on the summer games part, 2020 Summer Olympics has 50x more views than 2020 in games. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But there were no Winter Olympics in 2020? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think this is a useful redirect, and I don't think it would be a useful dab page either. If you search for "2020 games", ignoring this redirect, you'll get results that take you to the likely spots mentioned in this discussion. -- asilvering (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as "delete", but reopened upon request for additional consideration of the arguments above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Utopes, the Summer Olympics are commonly the Games, and are referred to as, say, "Games of the XXXII Olympiads". The capitalization makes it clear that this is not about, say, video games, but one specific event. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Female Rage: The Musical[edit]

Female Rage: The Musical → The Eras Tour (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"Female Rage: The Musical" does not exist, this page was simply created in response to a trademark filing by Taylor Swift's team. Theknine2 (talk) 07:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Ross (ER)[edit]

Doug Ross (ER) → ER (TV series) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unlikely search term. Also Doug Ross actually covers this Doug Ross from ER. LibStar (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doug Ross.-MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Littlehampton Book Services[edit]

Littlehampton Book Services → Hachette Livre (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention in article Is la🏳️‍⚧ 00:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules[edit]

Template:Cinéma pur[edit]

Template:Cinéma pur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used in 3 articles despite the long list, and fails most of WP:NAVBOX's criteria for a good navbox. There's no article on the subject of the template (it's a subtopic of Non-narrative film). Most of the articles refer to their respective movements (e.g. Dadaism, Surrealism, New American Cinema) rather than cinéma pur. Without the navigation template, most of these articles wouldn't link to each other since they come from very different periods and movements within non-narrative or experimental film. hinnk (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, from what you say, it sounds like it should be deleted.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I can speed it along - CSD author, etc. let me know.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany[edit]

Draft:British North America Revolution of 1844[edit]

Draft with a very strong whiff of the WP:HOAX. It covers off the obvious quibble that nobody's ever heard of this with a claim that it was suppressed until recently, but even the sourcing isn't bearing that out.
To begin with, had the Canadian government so recently declassified any documents revealing such events, that would have been reported as news, but I've done extensive WP:BEFORE searches and absolutely no such reportage can be found.
But even the idea that such a thing could have been covered up for so long in the first place is also deeply suspect: Canada already had newspapers like The Globe and The Banner and The Examiner in 1844, and they would absolutely have found out about and reported on events like the ones described here. A "Battle of North York", with seven stolen cannons being fired only a few miles north of Toronto, and you think neither George Brown nor Francis Hincks ever even caught wind of stolen cannons being transported up Yonge Street? A "Battle of Scugog", basically smack dab in Port Perry, yet somehow nobody ever knew about it? I don't think so. (Also, Port Perry already existed, and Yonge Street already went all the way to Barrie, by 1844, so absolutely none of this is "too far out in the wilderness for anybody to have noticed".)
Even more importantly, however, one of the two "sources" cited here is definitely falsified: it's a book that really exists, but was published 113 years earlier than the footnote claims -- and it's a book that's in the public domain and thus fully readable on the Internet Archive and HathiTrust, so I and another editor at WikiProject Canada have both already grepped through it looking for any evidence of this, and both came up dry.
Admittedly I haven't been able to access the other book cited here at all, but given the complete lack of any evidence of this anywhere else, it's profoundly unlikely that it actually claims any of this either — and if it does claim any of this, given the complete lack of evidence of this anywhere else it's lying. Bearcat (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review[edit]

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creation Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Version 1.0 Editorial Team Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and votings	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Voting is not evil Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates