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

Department store buildings in the United States

Draft:Deb Kanta Ghosh

Draft:GJamesT

User:Joseph Mulka

Draft:Society for Applied Microwave Electronics Engineering & Research

Takaki Ose

Draft:Wave Company

Draft:World war 5 is the hypothetical war that follows World war 4.

Articles[edit]

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 30	July 02 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Michael Q Trucks[edit]

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

Not yet notable WP:MUSICBIO or WP:NACTOR. None of the sources cited mention him, apart from MusicBrainz and IMDb. The IMDB link says he's a "distant cousin" of Derek and Butch Trucks, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. Couldn't find any coverage of him in independent reliable sources. Film roles so far are all minor. Draft:Michael Q. Trucks by article creator was speedy deleted as spam. Photo in infobox was uploaded by the (so far) single-purpose account Realtrueentertainment, unclear what the connection is. Borderline db-bio and db-spam: see also creator's user talk. Wikishovel (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Michigan. Wikishovel (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Live Art Development Agency[edit]

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

Sources not passing WP:ORGIND and I believe it fails WP:NCORP Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Entertainment, Organizations, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Hifo[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage of this rugby league footballer to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSPERSON. JTtheOG (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, United Kingdom, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage, doesn't appear to be a notable player regardless. Mn1548 (talk) 07:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 24 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!} 06:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monarch Mountain (ski area)[edit]

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

Written like an advertisement, no references cited, no indication of notability. These are long-standing issues (5+ years) with no attempts made by other editors to fix. Ultimately, this could probably be deleted and merged into Monarch Pass. GSK (talk • edits) 04:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Sports, and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Cartwright (poker player)[edit]

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

No real indication of notability, only sources are routine 'match reports' on poker news sites and a stats database. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. Only notable for a single event, so WP:BIO1E applies. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Games, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 13:05, 17 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!} 06:34, 24 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!} 04:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Kahuta[edit]

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

Pure fancruft created for POV pushing. All of the sources are nothing but invented claims of Pakistani officials not supported by any third party sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian, Israeli, American, British and Irish sources are included Waleed (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cite them here. I don't see any which can establish WP:GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3,4,5,8,9,10,16,17 are non-Pakistani sources which include the aforementioned sources including Israeli and Indian but also third party sources including the American air university Waleed (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : article lacks significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. The existing sources are primarily from partisan perspectives, failing to establish the article notability. Nxcrypto Message 05:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non beligrent sources are also given as mentioned above Waleed (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the subject but there does appear to be reliable sources covering it e.g. [1] even if it's a fabricated plot it's still arguably notable. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Pakistan, Israel, and India. Owen× ☎ 10:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've concerns about articles created by M Waleed, as they often include WP:OR and rely on questionable sources. Despite my advice to use drafts instead of creating articles directly in the main namespace, it appears that my suggestions were not followed- hence this AFD nom. Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable one-sided claim does not need a separate article. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zakaria1978, the existing sources include indian and Israeli sources so how's this one sided Waleed (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Israel–Pakistan relations. Article on a non-event that is already mentioned at Israel–Pakistan relations. A redirect per CHEAP and ATD is the only correct solution. gidonb (talk) 22:48, 21 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!} 04:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks coverage from third party sources. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A thorough source analysis would be helpful here given the competing claims of one-sidedness.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Leska[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage is here or elsewhere to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hirofumi Torii[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD featured only a bevy of personal insults and zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Japan. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletiion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Anne Sacks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, Israel, and New York. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For the same reasons as the last AfD. This subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV from reliable, independent sources to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Israeli Figure Skating Championships, where Sack's achievements, two national silver medals, are recorded. Per CHEAP and ATD. gidonb (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable enough based on the competitions she won, or did not win, having placed only silver in the Nationals, then 17th in the World Championships, then nothing more after that. Prof.PMarini (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She won twice silver medals in Israel. I wouldn't discount the huge efforts that go into that with "only" and "nothing more". A redirect is well deserved and as ATD and CHEAP usually takes precedence over delete. gidonb (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Faingold[edit]

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

I've cleaned this article up a bit but after looking for additional information to add more substance, I don't think this meets WP:GNG. He's certainly had his name attached to many published papers, but they are pretty niche in content and many co-authors don't have their own pages. Looking at the page history, it appears that this may have been initially authored by a student or someone associated with him. Most recently, an IP user copy/pasted a numbered list of his papers but started at "112" which makes me think it came from somewhere else, but I can't find where. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPROF#1. On GS I see at least 12 publications in GS with 100+ citations which is generally beyond the bar required to clear #1. Scopus lists him at an h-index of 44 with 10 publications with 100+ citations and Scopus is generally more conservative than GS. So based on this it seems like a pretty clear cut case for NPROF#1. --hroest 10:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty gross misreading of WP: NPROF. It says "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Nowhere does it say that h-index, citation count, or publication count is a factor for establishing notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it also doesn't say that they are not factors. "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account." Qflib (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I also look at the bio side of it as well. It's great if someone is a highly cited writer, but if we don't have any reliable sources to form even a very basic biography (age, education, work history) then is it worth what would ostensibly be a list of journals they've contributed to? (and even in that case, we can't necessarily be sure to what extent they contributed). Lindsey40186 (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This metric is arbitrary and self-serving. If this person has 12 publications with 100+ citations and is notable, what if they only had 11? Are they still notable? What if they had 12 publications that had exactly 99 citations? Are they suddenly no longer notable? What if there are lots of self-citations? This is why reliable sourcing matters. Citation counts alone are deeply unpersuasive. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if the subject's citation counts are sky high, then finding reliable sourcing shouldn't be a issue. Someone would have written a reliable piece about their discoveries. The fact that several people haven't found reliable sources is evidence that the subject hasn't achieved the impact that WP:NPROF demands. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Author of quite a few books and peer-reviewed studies, but I don't find critical review of his books, nor any indication of the academic notability needed here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP: N. I can't find any sources to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPROF#1, as explained by hroast; meeting one element of WP:NPROF is enough to establish notability. Qflib (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to hroest for the spelling error. Qflib (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus. I've closed hundreds of AFD discussions and for academics, citation counts are routinely considered in discussing notability. They are not the only factor but they are a factor that shouldn't be casually dismissed as being arbitrary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delight Mobile[edit]

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

This is a bundled nomination of five articles on UK MVNOs failing the notability guidelines for companies/products. They are part of a larger set of seven created by the same author in October 2011: two have since been deleted, one through PROD and the other through AfD.

The other four are:

Dalya Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dialog Vizz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Now PAYG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stan Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rather than continue the slow trickle of individual deletions, I figure it makes more sense to discuss them all at once. – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United Kingdom, and England. – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TFhost[edit]

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

I'm not seeing much third party coverage, likely to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Unclear how much weight should be given to those awards. KH-1 (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zenith Data Systems Challenge Trophy[edit]

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

Non-notable individual pre-season friendly club match. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, England, Argentina, and Florida. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – with 1989–90 Arsenal F.C. season#Results as WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Smith (baseball, born 1931)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ernie Smith (Negro leagues)

Articles for deletion/Ernie Smith (baseball, born 1931) (2nd nomination)

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

Repeating my reasoning from 2021, but WP:NBASE now no longer exists:

Not notable. I cannot locate stats or a roster spot for this person on seamheads.com or cnlbr.org or baseball-reference.com. (B-R "Bullpen" [an open wiki] has an article created at the same time and same person that created this article.) The given source is an obit [2] that vaguely refers to playing on a Negro league team at some time. The given team ceased play in 1951 when the subject was 20, but as I stated, I cannot find any other source backing this up. (This palyer should not be confused with Ernie Smith (baseball, born 1908), also a Negro leaguer.) -- BX (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. BX (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Virginia and West Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 17 June 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 01:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article's one source (an obituary of the kind likely provided by the family to a local paper) claims he played for the Baltimore Elite Giants. A separate article in the Bristol Herald-Courier on his receipt of an award puts dates on it: "After he graduated from high school in 1949, he played baseball with the Bishop Stateliners, the Amonata Slugger and the West Virginia All-Stars from 1949 to 1951. Then he played for the Baltimore Elite Giants of the Negro National League until he joined the U.S. Marine Corps in 1953, where he also played shortstop for the 2nd Marine Division baseball team." However, this is not a possible sequence, since the Baltimore Elite Giants disbanded in 1950. So that casts doubt on the reliability of the source (and thus on the obituary) right there. I'm not finding any other sources that confer notability under WP:NSPORTS (either as a player or a coach), WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Loup Bouquet[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable figure skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and France. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:55, 24 June 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 02:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Novales[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable figure skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, Philippines, and California. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The first two sources already in the article each contain multiple paragraphs of in depth, secondary coverage to meet the WP:GNG. WP:NSKATE does not need to be met when there is WP:SIGCOV present, as there is here. I'd encourage the nom to heed other guidelines besides NSKATE in their nomination statements as it pertains to figure skaters. Let'srun (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Keys: Rehearsal Room[edit]

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

Redirect to Alicia Keys discography: all of the sources are self-published, unreliable platforms or stores. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nomination. Found no additional coverage. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boi's[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. The author seems to be in a conflict of interest as well. HueMan1 (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Philippines. HueMan1 (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Love, Lies & Therapy[edit]

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

Found reviews from AllMusic and Classic Rock Italia which give me enough reason to not immediately BLAR, but not enough to be confident in notability. There are a few other publications that covered the release, but it didn't look like they were writing anything unique. I would redirect to Saliva (band). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ if more sources can be added, and additional information can be added, such as a "Critical reception" section, prove the album is WP:N worthy. —Mjks28 (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST argument. You have to find and provide the sources first, before voting to keep. Richard3120 (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not entirely clear what you're saying here Mjks28 but it does read that way. If you're saying that the article is keepable based on the sources I included in my nomination then please specify that, but otherwise I'm not sure of what use this comment is. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to say that the article could be improved rather than deleted by adding more information and finding new sources. However, I have tried to find sources of notability, and other than a news article promoting the album's release, I couldn't find any evidence that the album is notable, so I now agree with redirect. Mjks28 (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjks28 next time, please do your searching before you vote. Voting to keep based on the unconfirmed possibility of sources existing should be discouraged. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (music). Not finding significant and independent coverage in reliable sources. The album was released on June 10, 2016, and the article created June 14th. Because the article list the names of living people the criteria is far above "one source". -- Otr500 (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Otr500 are you opposed to redirecting to Saliva (band) as I put in my nomination? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to QuietHere: I would not be opposed, as a ATD, to a redirect. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good to know. Just figured I should ask since you specifically voted for deletion. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:05, 26 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!} 00:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars[edit]

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

The article is nothing but a complete product of original research. There is not a single WP:RS that treats the conflicts between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate as involving all the Sultanates (Mamluk dynasty, Khalji dynasty, Tughlaq dynasty, and the Lodi dynasty) allied together against Mewar. Ironically, the timeline of the war/conflicts presented in the article is completely fabricated, and no sources support this notion. There was no single war between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate, as these were not unified entities. Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties. The author synthesized multiple conflicts and combined them into a single article, even claiming a "Mewar victory" without any evidence. The article is completely a product of WP:SYNTH and OR. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Pakistan, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment:Note for the closer: Please analyze the background and contributions of the voters, as meatpuppetry is common among Indian military-history articles. Do not consider the votes of newly created users or common PoV pushers as valid, whether for Delete or Keep. Ironically, I noticed that the author of this article supported the deletion of a similar article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maratha–Nizam wars, yet surprisingly promotes this article by linking to other articles. --Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have named the article "List of Battles between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate" but a user named Flemmish changed it to the current name. I suggest the name of the article to be changed to the previous one, "List of Battles between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate", and this is a list where as your article Maratha-Nizam was a conflict which is entirely different from this one. Both articles can't be compared, use common sense at least Imperial. Also, I did not remove the dynasties (Guhila, Sisodiya, Khalji, etc.) another user named Padfoot2008 removed it so you better have this discussion with him. Also when did I add Mewar victory in the article, if some editor adds it (which nobody did you could see page history), you could simply undo that edit, nominating the article for deletion isn't appropriate. And there are several similar articles in Wikipedia like List of wars involving the Delhi Sultanate so why can't this be? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the title to Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars because all parts of the actual text were portraying it as a series of conflicts and a set topic rather than just a list of conflicts between the states — changing the title back wouldn't fix anything, the problems are, as was said, about the text and treating it as a single conflict rather than whether it is called a "list" or not. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which line of the article portrays this as a single conflict? It seems you have a problem in understanding English. Better work on it. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one with an English problem here — I did say portraying it as a series of conflicts and a set topic — obviously this was not one 300 year war and by the latter saying of "treating it as a single conflict" I mean, as I and Imperial said, that you are treating these wars between non-unified entities as a series of conflicts, and thus one topic rather than just different conflicts between polities which happened to be located in the same region. You can't take multiple wars between any two states and treat it as one topic if sources do not treat it as one. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that you simply don't want to understand what is meant by a list. I m saying that this is a list of wars between Mewar and Delhi Sultanate. When am I saying (when is the article saying) this is a single conflict? And what do you mean by non-unified entities? Clearly you are the one who is having difficulty in understanding English or even your own comments. See what you wrote, the problems are, as was said, about the text and treating it as a single conflict Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read Imperial's initial reasoning? Non-unified means, in addition to a lack of centralization, that the "Delhi Sultanate" was not one single country and was ruled by four different dynasties. Quoting Imperial's reasoning, which it seems you can't comprehend, Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties. The author synthesized multiple conflicts and combined them into a single article, even claiming a "Mewar victory" without any evidence. As I said, you're taking the fact that there were multiple wars between the "Delhi Sultanate" and the "Kingdom of Mewar", both ruled by different dynasties throughout their history, and, as a quote from your writing on the article, claiming that the "Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars" were a series of conflicts that happened from the mid 13th to early 16th century with a set victor. I changed the title from a list because by your writing, it wasn't a list; you claimed in the lead, before the page was moved, that there is something called the "Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars" which is clearly just a made up name of conflicts between different entities; I was simply adjusting the title to more accurately reflect the outlandish claim your POVish article is trying to make. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, You want me to change just first line of the article that is "The Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars were a series of conflicts that happened from the mid 13th to early 16th century"? And even if multiple dynasties are involved that does not support the deletion as it is a list. And what is my POV push in the article, all wars are supported by multiple reliable sources (WP:RS). Also, list of wars articles are perfectly suitable for inclusion in Wikipidea. And different dynasties ruling Mewar and Delhi doesn't make any sense for deletion of the article, for example you could see Afghan-Sikh War. If you changed the title for first line of the article you should have consulted me first as I was the author of this article rather than having this discussion now. Besides where did I mention a set victor in the article since the day it was accepted?Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: These battles did happen between Mewar and Delhi Sultanate over a long period of time as both vied for control in northern India. What did u mean by this:

There was no single war between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate, as these were not unified entities. Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties.

How Mewar wasn't a unified entity? Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty are not distinct, Sisodia are a sub-clan of Guhila. Krayon95 (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single WP:RS that treated the conflicts between Sisodia+Guhila vs Mamluk+Khalji+Tughlaq+Lodi as a single war. So, a clear synthesis is presented here. And your user talk page history is full of clearing warnings and AFD notices on caste-related issues? Imperial ^[AFCND] 05:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado Well, indeed, battles took place between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate as they were both powerful entities, particularly Mewar as it was going towards its peak, but as explained by you, there is no source mentioning the war overwall, or, in a better way, an organised millitary standoff. Hence, I would request to rename the article to its older name, which is "List of battles between the Kingdom of Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate," or another name, which is Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Conflicts. Let's have a consensus.

Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Majority of the users pushing for “keep” seem to be POV pushers from newly created accounts. They didn’t even give any good reasons for its inclusion. As imperial mentioned, the Delhi sultanate was not a single entity. There’s no proof that all the dynasties(khalji, tughlaq, Mamluk, ETC) participated. Nor is there evidence of a supposed “Mewar victory”. Someguywhosbored (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even read the previous discussion? And for your information I am active on Wikipedia for over 6 months which falsify your claim that Keeps are from newly created users. This is list of wars between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate. I don't understand why are you even mentioning the dynasties. Kingdom of Mewar existed from 6th century till 1947 (now are titular monarchs under Constitution of India) and Delhi Sultanate from 1206-1526. This article deals with the List of wars (is not a single 300 year war) between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate. And please point out where the article shows Mewar victory? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the Closer : I have addressed all concerns which users Flemmish and Imperial had regarding page name, some sentences of the intro para and the dynasties of the involved belligerents in my recent edits of this page. Please see these links [3], [4], [5], [6]. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep It's a perfect page that passes WP:GNG. These battles did happen and I don't think this page should be deleted. User:Hashid Khan Blocked user

Delete: Yes, some of my concerns were addressed by MuA, but if this article is really just going to be a list of conflicts between the two states (who again were ruled by many different dynasties throughout these "conflicts"), there doesn't need to be an infobox, this much prose, (see list of wars between Russia and Sweden for an example) or any aftermath section, in which again it is treated as one conflict "The conflict ultimately ended after the defeat and death...". As it is this article is still too POV-pushy, and even if all of this is addressed, a good reason was never given why this article should actually exist instead of why it should not be deleted — we obviously don't have a list of conflicts between every two states that have fought more than one war between each other, so why do we need this article just for it to say "Mewar victory" 12 times in bold text? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, If there is a series of battles between two states for over Two centuries then a article can be made for that. Both Mewar and Delhi Sultanate were dominat states of medival era and these battles were one of many reasons of the decline of Delhi Sultanate and rise of Mewar as the most powerful state in the Northern India, for result section you can see List of battles between Mughals and Sikhs. Aside of that the "Khalji Victory" is also written in bold texts. It's just a style of writing because beneath the bold text, there is is a description of event as a whole. Hope your all points are addressed.

Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. Seems definitely somewhat biased and all, should be reworded to fit WP:MOS... In general, does this information exist elsewhere on Wikipedia? If not, we shouldn't delete. If it does, we could maybe condense and merge. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful.

Please do not move articles while an AfD is open.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:15, 24 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!} 00:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Dubuque[edit]

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

It seems unlikely that a company that owns radio stations in only one market — Dubuque, Iowa, of course — could possibly attain the significant coverage needed to meet the GNG, much less NCORP. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, inevitably, to Dubuque, Iowa § Radio. (If WP:Library points us to better coverage, I'll change my decision.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources (violates WP:OR) to prove subject is notable. —Mjks28 (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It might make more sense to merge and redirect KDTH to Radio Dubuque, since it is one of the 4 Radio Dubuque-owned stations. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem undue to me — not only is KDTH not even the only Radio Dubuque station, but it is much older than the Radio Dubuque company (which has only owned the station since 2000). Any notability here rests with the individual stations (the company does not inherit any from that). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to know. Worth spending some time on the KDTH article as well then, to support with more/better citations. (Have come across newspaper articles in Newspapers.com referring to KDTH's longer history so think it should be straightforward.) Cielquiparle (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any discussion on the proposed merger?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Added more coverage to the article. Leaning keep at the moment; still searching for more. At minimum, if we are to redirect, it would require a merge with the Dubuque, Iowa § Radio. Haven't added to either article yet, but there is coverage outside of the local newspaper that points out that Radio Dubuque is one of the few independents in an Iowa radio market dominated by Clear Channel Communications. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files[edit]

Categories[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Sports venues by former country[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Sports venues by former country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Association football venues by former country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Athletics (track and field) venues by former country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Athletics (track and field) venues in Czechoslovakia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Athletics (track and field) venues in East Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Athletics (track and field) venues in Serbia and Montenegro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Athletics (track and field) venues in the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Athletics (track and field) venues in Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Football venues in Czechoslovakia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Football venues in East Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Football venues in Serbia and Montenegro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Football venues in the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Football venues in Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Indoor arenas built in the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Sports venues built in the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Sports venues in Czechoslovakia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Sports venues in East Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Sports venues in Serbia and Montenegro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Sports venues in Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: We don't categorize other buildings and structures by former country, even if they no longer existed when that country was dissolved. No merger is likely necessary, as all contents are likely in present-day countries. Two of the Serbia and Montenegro categories were deleted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_7#Category:Football_venues_in_Serbia_and_Montenegro. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:DVD interactive technology[edit]

Propose renaming Category:DVD interactive technology to Category:DVD games

Nominator's rationale: More common name, I don't hear "DVD interactive technology" as often. Also, the original name omits the usage of "games". QuantumFoam66 (talk) 05:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If renamed, Nuon (DVD technology) should be purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Many games come on DVD, so this proposed title is too vague to ever work. Honestly I'd just say Delete unless the nominator can articulate what makes these games special. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, please do not remove this category. DVD interactive technology is a thing, as stated in this section of Interactive film. I would need to do a manual purge by creating a new category called "DVD games" if really wanted to do that by the way. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 04:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with deletion, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

Porch monkey[edit]

Porch monkey → List of ethnic slurs#P (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Porch Monkey → List of ethnic slurs#P (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No longer mentioned at target. The second redirect is fully protected, so I cannot tag it. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned at List of ethnic slurs and epithets by ethnicity, although that article does seem like a WP:CFORK to me. 162 etc. (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that List of ethnic slurs and epithets by ethnicity and List of ethnic slurs have a CFORK problem; the only difference scope-wise is sorting order, with the original target being alphabetically sorted by the slurs and the other list being sorted by target ethnicity. This issue should probably be resolved (and the two pages possibly re-merged) before we figure out where this should target. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've added the RfD tag to the second redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lockdowns[edit]

The lockdowns → COVID-19 lockdowns (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

While the COVID-19 measures are probably the freshest in people's memories, I think that "the lockdowns" is too broad to use as a redirect to that topic and therefore propose retargeting to the general topic of lockdown. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regerget as {{R from plural}}. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rererget per above. If the readers were looking for the covid lockdown in particular, they can scroll down to the section covering it easily. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The pandemic and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 9#The pandemic; while there may be some WP:RECENTISM, most who will use the term "the lockdowns" (emphasis on the), will likely be referring to the COVID lockdowns, especially with the established precedent of "the pandemic." — Knightoftheswords 23:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Reherget~~ I mean keep - agreeing with Knight, the lockdowns is likely intended to be the covid lockdowns BugGhost 🪲👻 08:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep literally 100% of the results on the first five pages (when I stopped looking) of a Google search for "The lockdowns" -Wikipedia refer to the Covid-19 lockdowns - you can't get a clearer example of a primary topic. Usually for something like this I'd expect to find mentions of one or more non-notable bands, esports teams, instagram users or something like that, but I'm just not. Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Retargeg~~ per LaundryPizza, Ca, and Nom. I find the idea that "The lockdowns" is specifically primary to COVID-19 lockdowns to be a severe case of WP:RECENTISM; the Covid-19 pandemic was a massive global event, yes, but so was, say, World War 1. Four years after WW1, it was probably extremely easy to say "The War" and people knew you were talking about WW1; ten or twenty years after WW1, not so much. If people really are looking for the Covid-19 lockdowns, the proposed retarget-- Lockdown-- has a hatnote to it right at the top of the page. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What matters for the purposes of redirects is what people are looking for now. What people might be looking for in 10 or 20 years (or even 2 years) is irrelevant WP:CRYSTALBALL-gazing. If the primary topic changes then we can and should change the target of the redirect, but we do readers a disservice by not taking them to what they want to read directly now because they might (or might not) be looking for something different later. Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...I suppose that's fair. Withdrawing vote. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lockdown doesn't really list specific lockdowns, if List of lockdowns existed this would be a better target but otherwise I'd probably suggest to keep as is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List of lockdowns should be linked in a hatnote from the present target if it is created, but it should not be the target itself due to the present target being the overwhelming primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus appears to be leaning towards keep. Relisting for further input...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget too general of a term to apply to a specific event. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

City of Auckland[edit]

City of Auckland → Auckland City (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The City of Auckland is a distinct entity from Auckland City. It is not discussed in proper detail in the Auckland article nor the Auckland City article. I do believe it has the merits to meet notability on it's own: e.g. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46925/46925-h/46925-h.htm Deletion would be the best option as it doesn't mislead readers into a different entity and might encourage someone to create an article on it. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All that's needed is to tag it with Template:R with possibilities. I've done so. Schwede 66 08:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't believe it's a good redirect. Auckland City is completely different to the City of Auckland. It'd be like having New York County redirect to New York City. It is only a partial continuation in area and most of Auckland City's area is from the County of Eden. The term being redirected serves to confuse the reader into thinking City of Auckland (note the important capitalisation as a proper noun) is just another name for Auckland or Auckland City. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Write content seems to be the obvious answer here. It needn't be more than a short paragraph detailing the status, extent, etc. on whichever of Auckland or Auckland City is the broader. This redirect can then be targetted there. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there should be an article on the district that has existed since 2010 just like City of York deals with the district that was created in 1996 even though there was one that existed from 1835 to 1996. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:43, 25 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! 04:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there should be content but in the absence of it I do not believe the current redirect is appropriate as it is misleading. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tone (color)[edit]

Tone (color) → Lightness (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Tone (color theory) → Tint, shade and tone (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These two redirects should point to the same article. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tone is an ambiguous term? There are separate articles about color and color theory – and color science! – and colorimetry and color appearance model! In English, "tone" has many meanings; the applicable meaning here is " The shade or quality of a colour." (disambiguation of an ambiguous term by a definition which uses more ambiguous terms). Is there really such a thing as color quality (quality (color)?? – wbm1058 (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lepidosauria Varanus[edit]

Lepidosauria Varanus → Bengal monitor (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

just two of the higher taxa that happen to include the Bengal monitor; not entirely dissimilar to this other since-deleted redirect Spizaetus (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this combination of taxa even a thing? If this is just an original term then Delete. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules[edit]

Template:Romania film list[edit]

Template:Romania film list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Romanian film list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Romania film list with Template:Romanian film list.
Two sidebar templates with the same scope. DB1729^talk 03:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use Template:Romania film list that has all the valid blue links. No need to make this side bar that large for no actual benefit. Gonnym (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bus companies in West Midlands[edit]

Template:Bus companies in West Midlands (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bus companies in the West Midlands (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Bus companies in West Midlands with Template:Bus companies in the West Midlands.
One navbox transcluded to another with slightly adjusted title. DB1729^talk 00:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Template:Bus companies in the West Midlands there is nothing to merge there. That was an improper template creation. Gonnym (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany[edit]

Draft:Dzelo[edit]

Clearly not of encyclopedic value. Article for Cyrillic letter dzelo already exists, draft filled with gibberish and random references. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 05:03, 1 July 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