Wikipedia:XfD today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This page transcludes (or when this is not feasible, links to) 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.

Contents


Speedy deletion candidates[edit]

The category is at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.

Articles[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 17

Files[edit]

Files for discussion[edit]

August 17[edit]

File:Awesome page of awesome.JPG[edit]

File:Awesome page of awesome.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fish and karate (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned personal file, no foreseeable use. WP:NOTWEBHOST Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep as creator, it is used to work out the layout and formatting of my user page (User:Fish and karate), so serves a purpose. As a Wikipedia user, contributor, and administrator, it is helpful to dispay a friendly, clear, and welcoming user page. It is beneficial to me to have this file to ensure my user page formatting is consistent and achieves those aims. fish&karate 11:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. @Fish and karate: you can keep this file offline in your PC or in some web cloud service, Wikipedia is not a webhost. XXN, 13:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Game-of-Thrones-S06-E08-No-One.jpg[edit]

File:Game-of-Thrones-S06-E08-No-One.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AffeL (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free image was added for use in the article No One (Game of Thrones), but when the same user nominated the page for GA status User:Miyagawa told them that the image needed to go because of its poor fair use rationale. AffeL complied initially, then a few minutes after the page was promoted logged into the sock account User:PeterD12 and readded the image. There was already "consensus" on the GAN to remove the image, even if one of the parties was lying (read:with the image in the article, the GAN was effectively null and void), so I have now reremoved the image. It is not currently used anywhere on the project, and this situation is unlikely to change. Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Jabberjaws.jpg[edit]

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

The comic book cover is used in the Other appearances section of Jabberjaw accompanying the sentence "He also appeared in Hanna-Barbera Presents: Superstar Olympics (issue #6) published by Archie Comics in 1996 and Cartoon Network Presents (issue #23) published by DC Comics in 1999." The image has two fair use rationales. One states that the comic book cover is used "For identification purposes in conjunction with discussion of the topic of the article.", but this is incorrect since the topic of the article is the television show and not the comic book and there is already the title card in the infobox identifying the television show. The second states the comic book cover is used "Illustration of a specific point within the article." which is half of a sentence. Readers do not need a comic book cover in an article to know that it exists since the text already states that.

The comic book cover fails WP:NFCC#1 since the text "He also appeared in Hanna-Barbera Presents: Superstar Olympics (issue #6) published by Archie Comics in 1996 and Cartoon Network Presents (issue #23) published by DC Comics in 1999." is sufficient to describe that the comic book exists without the cover being present, WP:NFCC#3a in that there is a screenshot in the infobox for means of identification and fails WP:NFCC#8 because there is no critical commentary about the cover thereby doing nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film. Aspects (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep. The comic book cover is to illustrate a point in the article covering the character's appearances outside the medium of television (in this case comicbooks) which is why its located in the "Other appearances" section. This upload not only illustrates this but will give readers a visual to see the character appearing in another form of media outside of its original medium hence the Illustration of a specific point within the article. That was the whole point of the upload. It was to give a visual on how the character has evolved past its original TV incarnation. So when it states For identification purposes in conjunction with discussion of the topic of the article it does so by illustrating a point (or sub-topic) in the main article itself.Giantdevilfish (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - the comic book cover does not have any real discussion about in the article that would be sufficient to meet WP:NFCC#8. Furthermore, the appearance of the character is substantially similar to show character and as such the claim to provide a visual, which itself is not sufficient, becomes even weaker. -- Whpq (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Grapeape.jpg[edit]

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

The comic book cover is used in the Other appearances section of The Great Grape Ape Show accompanying the sentence "Grape Ape had his own short-lived comic book series called The Great Grape Ape that ran 2 issues in September and November 1976 published by Charlton Comics." The image has two fair use rationales. One states that the comic book cover is used "For identification purposes in conjunction with discussion of the topic of the article.", but this is incorrect since the topic of the article is the television show and not the comic book and there is already the title card in the infobox identifying the television show. The second states the comic book cover is used "Illustration of a specific point within the article." which is one sentence. Readers do not need a comic book cover in an article to know that it exists since the text already states that.

The comic book cover fails WP:NFCC#1 since the text "Grape Ape had his own short-lived comic book series called The Great Grape Ape that ran 2 issues in September and November 1976 published by Charlton Comics." is sufficient to describe that the comic book exists without the cover being present, WP:NFCC#3a in that there is a screenshot in the infobox for means of identification and fails WP:NFCC#8 because there is no critical commentary about the cover thereby doing nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film. Aspects (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep. The comic book cover is to illustrate a point in the article covering the character's appearances outside the medium of television (in this case comicbooks) which is why its located in the "Other appearances" section. This upload not only illustrates this but will give readers a visual to see the character appearing in another form of media outside of its original medium hence the Illustration of a specific point within the article. That was the whole point of the upload. It was to give a visual on how the character has evolved past its original TV incarnation. So when it states For identification purposes in conjunction with discussion of the topic of the article it does so by illustrating a point (or sub-topic) in the main article itself.Giantdevilfish (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - the comic book cover does not have any real discussion about in the article that would be sufficient to meet WP:NFCC#8. Furthermore, the appearance of the character is substantially similar to show character and as such the claim to provide a visual, which itself is not sufficient, becomes even weaker. -- Whpq (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

File:ManilaPeninsula PressConference.jpg[edit]

File:ManilaPeninsula PressConference.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rizalninoynapoleon (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Nature of img suggests it is likely a screenshot from a newscast, but file description (falsely) claims it is a free img (to the extent of my knowledge screenshots and/or visual content of Philippines newscasts are always copyright and not freely licenced nor in public domain). JWilz12345 (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

File:CheneyClowDescendantscelebrating67anniversary.jpg[edit]

File:CheneyClowDescendantscelebrating67anniversary.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ddjgarrett (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free photo of a newspaper article used in Cheney Clow article fails WP:NFCC#1. The fact that one of the descendants was married 67 years is adequately described with text and does not require a non-free image of a newspaper article to understand that. Whpq (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Elsa Cladera de Bravo.jpg[edit]

File:Elsa Cladera de Bravo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nadezhda Bravo Cladera (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is no evidence that this photography really is free. The rationale from the file page (Quote: "SINCE THE NEWSPAPER'S PUBLICATION OF THIS PHOTOGRAPHY WAS FOR OFFICIAL USE IT'S IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN") is wrong (not anything which was published for official use is in the public domain). XXN, 13:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Kimwani 200px.png[edit]

File:Kimwani 200px.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Linda Martens (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Obviously wrong license tag – Train2104 (t • c) 13:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Zirid map.png[edit]

File:Zirid map.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bye for now (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Screenshot of a template map. Can we use the template itself instead? – Train2104 (t • c) 13:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Nessaea obrina Jari.JPG[edit]

File:Nessaea obrina Jari.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wloveral (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unfortunately the permission for use is unverifiable :( XXN, 14:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Ellwood Family Cemetery.jpg[edit]

File:Ellwood Family Cemetery.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jweaver28 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Poor quality, unclear image. XXN, 14:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Steven Reineke.jpg[edit]

File:Steven Reineke.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AL2TB (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

In source page was stated "Members of the media may download these high-resolution images for use in publication." But the license wasn't specified and we are not sure under which conditions is ok to publish and use this photo. XXN, 15:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

August 17[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Fictional American people of French descent in video games[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessarily specific category, it also sets a precedent for making a huge amount of similarly over-specific categories about fictional American video game characters from every European country. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Child saints[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename as follow-up on this earlier discussion, clarification of actual content. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia categories named after aircraft[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Pointless category. We have a category "Aircraft", we do not need to duplicate it with a tautological name. Nor is this a "maintenance category", it is merely a duplicate of a simple content category. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:The Smurfs (TV series)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Single-entry eponymous category for a television series without the volume of spinoff content to warrant one. Every television series that exists does not automatically get one of these just to contain itself -- but all the spinoff content here is about the general cross-platform Smurfs franchise, and is thus already filed in Category:The Smurfs with no need for this as a subcategory. Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


Redirects[edit]

August 17[edit]

Draft:Template:Stub-shark[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

Hockey at the 2016 Olympics[edit]

Makes more sense to redirect to Field hockey at the 2016 Summer Olympics as that is a more well-known competition by far and "hockey" can mean either ice hockey or field hockey depending on the part of the world. Page was previously targeted there but was retargeted by Sportsfan 1234 recently. Starting this discussion here rather than edit war. Smartyllama (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually I am the one who originally created the page, and directed it to the hockey at the Winter Youth Olympics page. However, that doesn't matter and in fact I thought I had created a disambig. page which seems to have not worked. I was aiming for the same thing as in 2012. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
No objection to a disambiguation page. I see now you did create the page originally, then it was retargeted last year, and you retargeted it back this week. Thanks for clarifying. Smartyllama (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Liberal bias[edit]

The redirect should target Liberalism#Criticism and support or be deleted due that "Liberal bias" is refering to bias in general not only in the media, example is in Liberal bias in academia that is used as in general and doesn't have nothing to do with the media. Rupert Loup (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Magnolia changhungtana[edit]

Draft redirect should not exist Builder8360 (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep: WP:RDRAFT says it all. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 15:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment After see that I wonder how another article don't have marks of draft redirect by moving Builder8360 (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. The author of the draft is requesting deletion, surely that'd fall under the spirit of G7. -- Tavix (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

List of Recurring Characters on 6teen[edit]

The word "recurring" is unclear and ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete no such list of recurring characters. The page only lists the six main characters. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Minor characters of 6teen[edit]

The section is unclear on what is meant by "minor character". Steel1943 (talk) 04:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, as there is no such list of minor characters on that article, and minor ones shouldn't be listed anyway. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Redirects from non-main characters of 6teen[edit]

None of these characters are mentioned or identified at 6teen#Characters or even 6teen. (Note: Starr (6teen) is a {{R with history}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete I haven't seen any recent efforts to reconstruct a notable recurring characters list on the main article, so there's no value in keeping these redirects. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

6teen All Characters[edit]

The target does not contain all characters in 6teen, but rather just the main characters. Steel1943 (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as a search format of "(show) All Characters" is not used on Wikipedia, and should not be encouraged as a feasible format. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Characters of 12 oz. Mouse[edit]

The target is not a list of characters. (Oddly enough, both of these redirects are {{R with history}} with Characters of 12 oz. Mouse being WP:BOLDly redirected in 2010, and List of 12 oz. Mouse characters being WP:BOLDly redirected in 2015.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Blair–Brown government[edit]

A bizarre redirect, Blair was irrefutably the dominant figure of his ministry for ten years. --Nevéselbert 10:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. I know nothing about British politics, but the fact that there's several incoming links (Blair-Brown government has 17 mainspace links!) shows that it's being used. -- Tavix (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
    I have fixed those links as this redirect should not be used. It is strictly informal and refers more widely to the four Labour ministries between 1997 and 2010.--Nevéselbert 21:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks, that makes sense. How about a retarget to New Labour then? -- Tavix (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
    I guess that would make sense. As long as it is tagged {{R unprintworthy}}.--Nevéselbert 22:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should this be retargeted to New Labour?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 12:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Deprecate then delete. This title is ambiguous: it could either refer to the 10 years when Blair was Prime Minister and Brown was Chancellor, or the entire 13 years when Blair and then Brown were Prime Ministers. I don't think there's enough reliable source use of this word to push us either way. New Labour is a faction of Labour that started before 1997 and continued beyond 2010 so I wouldn't say that's the obvious target either. I think we should fix this by changing the targets of incoming links to these titles. Deryck C. 11:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. I fully concur with Deryck. Ambiguous and blocks the search function.--Nevéselbert 09:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Methamphetamine and sex[edit]

Delete or stub, the target has no relevant info on methamphetamine and sex. Klaun (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak refine to Methamphetamine#Sexually transmitted infection which seems to address most of the major issues concerning the two otherwise WP:XY topics. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Potential retarget to Date rape, as it's rather easy to find references online (and I didn't even check print medical resources) to methamphetamine being used as a date-rape drug. Lacking that, retarget per Angus. Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 10:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as a classic WP:XY redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Ruslik0. Yup, this seems obvious now. -- Tavix (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak refine per Angus. This section is what has remained from the more extensive previous content on metamphetamine and sex. This is the only article that discusses the topic at all. – Uanfala 16:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Retarget as suggested by Ruslik below – how haven't we spotted this article... – Uanfala 21:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It's a reasonable search term and Methamphetamine#Sexually transmitted infection, as suggested above, most likely contains the type of information the searcher is looking for. Deli nk (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is an ambiguous redirect title pointing to a partial topic match. I've been reliably informed by the developers of mw:Search at Wikimania last week that page views will soon be turned on as a metric for ranking search results, which strengthens the case for deleting these partial topic match redirects and letting search do its job. Deryck C. 11:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Re-target to Party_and_play (Chemsex already redirects there.) Ruslik_Zero 18:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Desert Archaic Culture[edit]

Not all North American archaic cultures are in the desert. However, this does seem to be a legitimate topic for an article. I suggest deleting, to create a red link and encourage article creation. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per X1 criteria. Another implausible redirect created by Neelix. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oiyarbepsy, can't Desert Archaic Culture be regarded as a subtopic of Archaic period (North America)? – Uanfala 12:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Uanfala It certainly can be. However, that article doesn't specifically address desert cultures at all, only discussing cultures from much wetter parts of the continent. If the article was expanded to actually discuss the desert cultures, I'd have no problem keeping the redirect as is. However, as the article stands now, it's not a suitable target. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
      • In that case, the redirect is marginally useful: readers following it will find out that the Desert Archaic Culture is a kind of North American archaic culture. I think this utility is of the same magnitude as the benefit of redlink encouragement of article creation if this gets deleted. – Uanfala 10:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • retarget to Archaic Southwest which seems to cover the topic. Mangoe (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Lists Bosnians and Herzegovinians[edit]

  • Delete Unlikely that a user would combine the plural with the omission of the "of". UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep It's standard search term shorthand, and yes, many people omit "of" in searches. The Transhumanist 08:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

1-900-MIXALOT[edit]

Delete We don't normally redirect from lyrical phrases to the songs in which they are found. Especially when the phrase is not found in the target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. This connection is quite notable, even if the phrase is not mentioned in the article. The connection is rather unambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and add "R from quotation" or "R from phrase" (whichever one that would be the equivalent of R from lyrics) [1] [2] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Alasdair Seton-Marsden[edit]

Target article not on this topic Whizz40 (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

That;s where the link came from. It may be the only use. Whizz40 (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC) Propose to Delete. Whizz40 (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense but the article barley mentions him and, unless you understand the context of who he is, it's unlikely to serve that purpose for most readers. Whizz40 (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean by "the context of who he is"? I don't know anything about him except that he stood as a UKIP candidate and was involved in the Charlie Gard case. Roberttherambler (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, redirecting to Chelsea and Fulham (UK Parliament constituency) is confusing for a reader from around the world, that's all I'm saying. It would take them some time to work this out from the article, if at all. Whizz40 (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Fair point. I did think of creating an article for Alasdair Seton-Marsden but I have so little information that I thought it would immediately be deleted as non-notable. Roberttherambler (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hinduism in Ascension Island[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

You wouldn't learn anything about Hinduism at the target, but you would learn that there's no permanent residents on the Island. Any lasting impact of Hinduism is nil. -- Tavix (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Pone (honorific)[edit]

Redirect was created by Neelix also may qualify for WP:X1 for redirect created by Neelix. 38.96.9.224 (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

National Archives of Morocco[edit]

This redirect should be deleted because Morocco does not have a national archives per se; there are some archival materials in the Bibliothèque Nationale du Royaume du Maroc, the Archives du Maroc, the Direction des Archives Royales, etc. -- M2545 (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Templates[edit]

August 17[edit]

Template:User fr-11[edit]

We have Template:User fr-1. Userfy? XXN, 19:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:Soviet merchant ships during 1979 arab israeli war[edit]

This navbox has just three working links out of 4kb of text, and the connection between the articles ("merchant ships which carried military cargoes to Syria and Egypt in October and November 1973") is barely relevant. eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:Soviet merchant ships and Operation Anadyr[edit]

This massive navbox is used to store article text and has no realistic navigational purposes. eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:Davis Cup tie[edit]

unused Frietjes (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:Construction and civil engineering companies established in year cat[edit]

unused Frietjes (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:ConsolIndependentCities[edit]

unused, better to navigate by the category (Category:Consolidated city-counties in the United States) Frietjes (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:Collapse compact[edit]

unused Frietjes (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:Centurybox US[edit]

unused, it looks like the century categories are using Template:DecadesAndYears US instead. Frietjes (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:Batman/adversaries[edit]

Currently has only one transclusion, and the transclusion is in the "User:" namespace. This template is not linked to Template:Batman, and any functionality this subpage had seems to have been hardcoded into its parent page/template. So, delete as unnecessary. Steel1943 (talk) 06:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:1957 RLWC Venues[edit]

templates should be linking for a large number of related articles, not just 2. LibStar (talk) 04:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Miscellany[edit]

Deletion review[edit]

17 August 2017[edit]

Twoallbeefpattiesspecialsaucelettucecheesepicklesonionsonasesameseedbun[edit]

Twoallbeefpattiesspecialsaucelettucecheesepicklesonionsonasesameseedbun (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This redirect was recreated after an RfD which was closed as delete, I initially requested it to be speedily deleted per WP:G4 but admin RHaworth recreated the redirect and fully protected it after deleting it, as well as salting the talk page. I have discussed the matter with RHaworth who has expressed that he no longer wishes to be involved in the affair. PS can an admin please add <noinclude>{{Delrev}}</noinclude> to the page? - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Done. Hut 8.5 18:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Hold the drama, hold the review. Special pages don't upset us. All we ask is that you let the RfD stand. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I understand CHEAP and all, but Really?? That is a ludicrous search term, for someone to type that in to a Wikipedia search with no spaces and no spelling errors would be miracolous(sic). L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • relist this is a really weird case. A) the RfD resulted in delete. B) the redirection and protection appear to be out of process. C) This rather long "word" really has seen use as the restoring admin notes and the RfD seemed unaware of. In fact the topic probably meets WP:N as the trademark status and use in advertising of that "word" has seen a lot of coverage in books ([3]). So I'm leaning toward relist. I'd not be shocked if it again gets deleted (unlikely search term that it is) but there is a reasonable claim that the discussion was defective (new information available), so a relist seems like the best way forward. Eh. Hobit (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Personally I'd say delete as it was deleted at RfD, the restoring admin doesn't seem to have given any sort of reason and I don't think the outcome is likely to change, but I won't object to a relist. (Even if the word is discussed in books that doesn't mean anybody is going to type it into the search bar.) Hut 8.5 18:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Woodward Camp[edit]

Woodward Camp (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think this subject passes GNG. I don't believe these sources were discussed in the AfD. Sources: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC) ~~

  • Comment, I haven't had time to look at these sources in detail, but from what I've seen at a glance they're either articles of dubious independence in local papers, or not substantially about the camp itself. If someone has a look and thinks that the sources are better than that, I've no objection to a speedy restore to draft space in order to keep working on the article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC).
  • To help us assess this request more quickly, please can you pick out the four best sources out of what you've provided? Quality is more important than quantity. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I listed them in general order of best to least. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)