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

CW 24 News

User talk:216.186.51.108

User:2024 Ghana Music Awards

2024 Merdeka Tournament

ATG (autophagy acronym)

Draft:CW 24 News

Draft:Miss Planet International 2024

Mr. Indian Hacker

Nashaba Victor

NomadBSD

User:Red currant pie/ Der kleine Wassermann

Articles[edit]

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 09	June 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Mohammad-Hadi Imanieh[edit]

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

I first saw this article when I was searching about the article containing a list of current Iran governors-general. I prefer the information of this article be transferred on the article that contains the list of governors in Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy356248 (talk • contribs) 16:40, June 10, 2024 (UTC)

Comment Fixing malformed nomination. I am neutral at this time. --Finngall ^talk 17:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamed Ameli[edit]

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

I first saw this article when I was searching about the article containing a list of current Iran governors-general. I prefer the information of this article be transferred on the article that contains the list of governors in Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) 14:09, June 10, 2024 (UTC)

Comment Fixing malformed nomination. I am neutral at this time. --Finngall ^talk 16:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alireza Ghasemi Farzad[edit]

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

I first saw this article when I was searching about the article containing a list of current Iran governors-general. I prefer the information of this article be transferred on the article that contains the list of governors in Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) 14:12, June 10, 2024 (UTC)

Comment Fixing malformed nomination. I am neutral at this time. --Finngall ^talk 16:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndon Hartnick[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ossanda Liber[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I know it has only been two months since the last nomination but that ended as no consensus, which was not an endorsement of notability. There has been another nationwide election since then and this candidate is still getting under 0.5%. There are sources about her, yes, but they're mainly discussing her candidacies and are part of a WP:ROUTINE coverage expected in a democracy. Some other parties are mainly based around the founder, such as Vox and Chega, but those parties have hundreds of other office holders and the founders have their own individual notability as office holders and nationally recognisable figures. Apart from being an unsuccessful candidate, what can be said about Liber that isn't about her party? The page used to have information about education and children, which I removed as unsourced per BLP. I also removed the blow-by-blow of setting up a political party, as that's obviously more about the organisation than about her. But the thing is, would we ever need to know personal information about someone this notable? I saw the comment before that Liber is notable as a founder and leader of a political party, but in a democracy it's reasonably easy to set up a party, and extremely easy to be the leader of your own party. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Liber's electoral history: 2021 Lisbon local election (0.36%), 2022 national election (voters in other European countries constituency) (0.08%), 2024 national election (Lisbon constituency) (0.18%), 2024 European election (0.18%). Not sure at which point someone becomes notable the hard way, like Bill Boaks. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging all previous commenters: AusLondonder Moondragon21 PamD SportingFlyer BlakeIsHereStudios Prima.Vera.Paula Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I translated this article into English from Portuguese as part of Women in Red. This page could potentially be merged into Nova Direita as it is considerably larger. 18:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

UAB School of Dentistry[edit]

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

Fails WP: N. PROD removed without sufficient sourcing improvements. The sources are lists which can't be used to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UAB School of Engineering[edit]

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

Fails WP: N. PROD removed without sufficient sourcing improvements -- the sourcing on the article is either primary or database entries. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Film festivals in Pristina[edit]

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

Omnibus article that's merging a bunch of unrelated events into a single "topic" in an attempt to bypass around the fact that most of them likely wouldn't meet notability standards on their own. Essentially, this is a compilation of mini-articles about six different film festivals, one of which does also have its own separate article but the other five do not, and none of which have any obvious connection with each other beyond happening to be held in the same city -- and most of the article's content is referenced to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as tourist information guides and content self-published by the festivals themselves, rather than WP:GNG-building coverage about them in reliable sources.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation of articles about some or all of the individual film festivals in Pristina as their own standalone things if they can be properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria, but collating a bunch of unrelated film festivals together into a single omnibus article isn't a way around having to use properly reliable sources to establish each festival's own standalone notability. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Kosovo. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inspector Chingum[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 4000[edit]

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

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3786[edit]

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

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT C messier (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erigo[edit]

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

The company lacks sufficient reliable sources; not notable organization Jibbrr tybr (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete: not notable, delete per WP:SIGCOV (nothing official pops up on google for the first few pages) Noelle!!! (summon a demon or read smth) 16:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inphonex[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Apologies in advance for editors reviewing this AfD. In any other situation I would PROD this as obviously failing the notability guidelines for companies, but because this quickly-withdrawn AfD exists the article is now permanently ineligible for PROD. – Teratix ₵ 14:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Florida. – Teratix ₵ 14:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not pas CORP; I find no hits about this business in Gnews. Regular Gsearch brings up their website and various PR items. None of which help notability. Article is currently sourced to their website and a press-release. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HB Arcade Cards[edit]

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

I could not find any significant coverage besides the Nintendo Life and IGN reviews in the article. QuietCicada chirp 13:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada chirp 13:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mojtaba Abdollahi[edit]

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

I first saw this article when I was searching about the article containing a list of current Iran governors-general. I prefer the information of this article be transferred on the article that contains the list of governors in Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) 13:27, June 10, 2024 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iran. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reformatted to add the missing article name by Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Each governor is automatically notable, so there is no reason to delete the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion Central[edit]

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

This is clearly PROMO, created by a now blocked sock puppet. It hasn't received sig/ in-depth coverage in RS, aside from some churnalism or paid coverage. Furthermore, it is not even a magazine as the article claims, but rather a boutique or maybe some e-commerce store. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. It is not a magazine, but a shopping mall type of thing. 2A04:4A43:8AAF:F70C:B589:6E17:29C1:C9A7 (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information Systems Associates FZE[edit]

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

Fairly sure this fails the notability guidelines for companies but I'd appreciate a once-over from editors more familiar with aviation software, Sri Lanka or the UAE to make sure this nomination isn't a howler. Its presence on Wikipedia (including list entries and other links, hence I don't favour a redirect) is entirely down to a single-purpose account, almost certainly with a conflict of interest. – Teratix ₵ 13:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, Software, Sri Lanka, and United Arab Emirates. – Teratix ₵ 13:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Krejcarek[edit]

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

Autobiography of an apparently non-notable retired photography teacher. No in-depth secondary sources, and his awards for photography and teaching do not seem to be significant ones. Belbury (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Belbury (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very trivial coverage in Gnews, with his name in a list of art exhibits. Sources now used in the article are primary or non-RS. Nothing I can find for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Amal[edit]

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

Redirect to Habonim Dror, merging what's encyclopedic. Fails WP:NORG with no WP:SIGCOV for an otherwise non-notable summer camp. Both sources provided are WP:SPS and do not support WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, United States of America, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. Longhornsg (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect - Agree here also MaskedSinger (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

111 Rocket Regiment[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and created as part of COI campaign (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/832LT/Archive.). Ineligible for G5 due to others contributing. Mdann52 (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mdann52 (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Battalion-sized units are usually notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preethi (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Per Talk:Preethi#Requested move 2 June 2024 the film is the only topic with this title. The other two entries are WP:TITLEPTMs. As names they should follow MOS:DABNAME, but with only two entries disambiguation can be handled by hatnotes. Polyamorph (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is at least one film and one person with "Preethi" in their name. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The film is the primary topic and the name is the WP:ONEOTHER topic. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riverfront Broadcasting[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP because of a lack of significant, independent coverage of the company. The current sources are either press releases or are covering routine business transactions, and a BEFORE check didn't come up with much better. Let'srun (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, Minnesota, Nebraska, and South Dakota. Let'srun (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal Television Network[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP because of a lack of coverage about the network's activities. Let'srun (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Let'srun (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest of Mandaran[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG as there are no reliable sources which provide significant coverage of this event or mentions the event as Conquest of Mandaran. it relies heavily on Non-WP:RS sources. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 09:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military and India.
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reviewed all the sources before they were removed and all are poor and fail WP:HISTRS like a source where N.K. Sahu is an editor of a book that was contributed by William Wilson Hunter, WP:RAJ and sources by Nitish K. Sengupta who was an IAS officer in 1957 and served as the Revenue Secretary of the Government of India. No source has a paragraph enough to give depth on the Conquest of Mandaran Page fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S.A.L.E.M.: The Secret Archive of Legends, Enchantments, and Monsters[edit]

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

Work itself does not appear to meet WP:GNG and WP:N. Sourcing, aside from primary sources such as tweets and youtube discussions, are mainly interviews and discuss the author far more than the work itself. Artist is possibly notable, however this doesn't seem to quite meet the notability bar. Mdann52 (talk) 09:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Mdann52 (talk) 09:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Swampy Marsh: for now? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing for this page is strong enough to keep, so for now I'm going to say weak keep. But, if it comes down to it, I'd be fine turning it into a redirect to Swampy Marsh, but... deleting this page outright would be a disservice to those who worked on the page, so a redirect would be my second choice. Historyday01 (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a redirect or draftify (in case anything further comes of this) is also a good outcome here, unfortunately I was struggling to find another article to redirect this to. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, and further sourcing will emerge later on if work/release dates re-emerge. Mdann52 (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree, that's why I stand by saying weak keep and redirect at the present time. I personally do NOT trust the draft process entirely (its too easy for a good article to be held up there, and the draft process is really for Wikipedia beginners to be perfectly honest) and would much rather it become a redirect rather than a draft, if that is the choice. Historyday01 (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historyday01 you appear to be the primary author and maintainer of this article. In fact, perusing the history I don't see that anyone BUT you has contributed substantially to the article--everyone else appears to be cleaning/polishing your work. You don't mention this, nor that one of your added sources was previously removed as promotional. Rather, you refer to yourself obliquely in the third person those who worked on the page which also smacks of attempts to conceal your relationship to this article. To put it bluntly, your work on this article may well be that of an overenthusiastic hobbyist, but it also looks distinctly like COI or UPE. Can you confirm that you have no specific relationship, financial or otherwise, with the project or its contributors? Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, you are correct that I am "the primary author and maintainer of this article", and surely I'm the main contributor, I won't deny. If one of my added sources was removed for being promotional, that's my error for not knowing it was promotional. I'm not referring to myself in the third person here, but I was trying to be inclusive of ALL the people who have contributed to this, including myself.

I'm no "overenthusiastic hobbyist" or anything like that, I just felt this subject should have an article. In response to your question ("Can you confirm that you have no specific relationship, financial or otherwise, with the project or its contributors?"), no, I do NOT have any special relationship with the project, not at all. In fact, I have tried to keep up with what is going on with the project but there haven't been many updates. This is why I personally support a weak keep or redirect (second option).

I have attempted to improve the page over the years... It happens sometimes that a single person works on the page. I would LOVE if more people worked on the page, but sadly that has not happened. I made the page years ago when I had more time, but nowadays I don't have as much time to do Wikipedia edits. I could have surely done better with the page, but I suppose this AfD was inevitable to some degree, I just would like the text to be preserved in the event that this series DOES premiere, it can be brought back at that point. Historyday01 (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historyday01 My point about draftifying was to save the article to an extent - I would expect it to be redirected and draftified (or at the very least, I would add a redirect in should it be deleted given we have a valid target identified). This isn't me trying to downplay the effort or work that has gone into it - unfortunately often AfD is the best way to gain a consensus for such things. I agree that the draft/AfC process is broken to an extent, but you don't have to use that process. Mdann52 (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I have to agree. I've seen some AfDs go off the rails before and be totally worthless, including some calling for an article to be deleted and then doing nothing to help improve the article after the AfD ended, which is a bit depressing. The opinions of SOME people in this discussion (not you) is damaging my confidence to create future articles, as their comments are a bit harsh and pointed. Honestly, this article definitely needed to be examined again, so in that sense, this AfD is worthwhile, although I can't, in good conscience, support deletion of an article which I've been a been a big contributor in, because that would make me too sad.Historyday01 (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional and NN. This Wikipedia article is serving as promotion for a "project" that started "development" in 2018. It's not there, it's not going to be there, and the refbombing with press releases, interviews in NN niche publications, and tweets reeks of G11. I note nothing since 2022 in the article. Jclemens (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a promotion for the project and the fact you would say that (and wrongly accuse me of having some sort of connection to those who created this series) is deeply unfortunate, especially coming from someone who boasts about saving articles on your user page. I guess this article doesn't matter to you. Simply put, if you really wanted to improve it, then why haven't you done any edits on it? I mean, you could have done something to improve it since it was created. I detest nothing more than editors who don't put in the work to improve articles (it seems you have in other articles, but unless I missed something, I don't see any edits from you on this article). As I've said in many AfD discussions, deletion is not a solution for cleanup of articles. I'm guessing NN means "non-notable" which I have to dispute. As I said above, I support a "weak keep" or "redirect" at this present time, and I will NOT be changing that view. If it really comes down to it, I would support this becoming either a redirect and/or a sentence or two about it at Jeff "Swampy" Marsh#Career after Phineas and Ferb and reviving the show (there's two good sources which show his involvement). If so, the mention of the series on Swampy Marsh's page could be:

"In 2019, Marsh was described as the executive producer and voice director of S.A.L.E.M.: The Secret Archive of Legends, Enchantments, and Monsters, with his company, Surfer Jack Productions, producing the series.^[1]^[2] The series is created by a queer woman named Samantha "Sam" Sawyer, based on her unpublished comic of the same name.^[3]^[4]

It could be of interest to those who follow Marsh to mention this. If this text was added, then the article could be changed to a redirect, and then that redirect link could be changed to Jeff "Swampy" Marsh#Career after Phineas and Ferb and reviving the show. I've seen some other articles which have done this, so it wouldn't be completely out of the question. I had been roughly planning to add the series to the List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2020–present for a while, but ended up removing it, and mentioning it here. Anyway, your comment could be worded in a much less harsh way. If I was a new editor and I had gotten a comment like that, I would be discouraged from creating ANY new articles. Luckily, I'm not one of those people, but the tone of your comment needs to be MUCH better and more constructive, than trying to (as it looks to me) tear people down.Historyday01 (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does appear PROMO. Article is solely sourced to tweets, podcasts and non-RS. I don't find anything about this "upcoming" webseries that's been coming since 2018. If nothing has been written about it by now, I'm sure what notability we have left to find. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said elsewhere in this discussion, this article is not promotional and it is incorrect to say it is so. The fact it is not as well sourced as it could have been is my fault. I wish someone (literally anyone) had brought these issues to my attention a year or so ago, as I would have done something about it, as the article's main contributor, rather than getting these comments in an AfD, which is the worst nightmare for an article creator. The fact that this AfD is happening at all is a failure of the Wikipedia system, as it could have been avoided with a discussion on the article's talk page. I would have been happy to discuss it there, but having an article in an AfD is very nerve-wracking and stressful. The article shouldn't be deleted outright, but should be changed, at minimum, to a redirect, or possibly, a weak keep. It is unfortunate that you support a deletion rather than a redirect, and I would hope that you change your view on that. Some series have BAD promotion, so that should be kept in mind. Otherwise, your comment is very harsh and should be much better worded, as the tone is VERY negative. If I was a new editor and I got this, I would not want to make any new articles ever again. --Historyday01 (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomic Network Architecture[edit]

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:N. It's also in such a promotional, unsourced state that it would need TNTing if kept. Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extrajudicial killings in Lebanon[edit]

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

Considering that the first bullet point refers to a page about legal punishment, not extrajudicial, and the second bullet point refers to a page which doesn't even mention Lebanon, I don't think this disambiguation serves any real purpose. Fram (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Lebanon. Fram (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an article, it's a disambiguation / redirect. I'm OK with it being deleted if it's not a page others think is useful? But I think this is the wrong deletion template to use. MWQs (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second page should mention Lebanon, possibly it needs updating or expanding. The more detailed page List of Israeli assassinations includes at least 3 examples in Lebanon. MWQs (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a topic that probably should be covered somewhere, but there's currently not much here to actually link to. MWQs (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Disambiguation page that doesn't disambiguate. gidonb (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your feedback I changed it to be a redirect to the most relevant of the 5 pages on the revised list i made earlier today. I checked that the new target page includes several Extrajudicial killings in Lebanon. MWQs (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like a poor redirect to me, equating the title to things done by Israel, while it seems that there may well have been such killing by e.g. Syria or internally during the civil war. I think it is better not to have a page (disambig or redirect) for this at all. Fram (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fram. Plus please do not singlehandedly decide for the WP community what the outcome of a debate should be. gidonb (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meantime, I undid the improper redirect. The disambig is POV, possibly an ATTACK page, and the redirect worked the same way. For good and bad, after an AfD was started, we need to debate this until a resolution is reached. gidonb (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb, I'm not sure what you are referring to? The notice I followed to get here said: "Feel free to improve the article, but do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed." So if you mean we are not supposed to edit it during the discussion, maybe it's got the wrong notice showing? MWQs (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits are certainly OK, even encouraged, change into a redirect or rename not. These are AfD resolutions that we should leave for a community decision once an AfD has started. Hence I restored the version after your additional edits and before the redirect. gidonb (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I misinterpreted. MWQs (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't think any other options were on the table? It seems to be an inappropriate use of a disambiguate? And nobody seemed keen to turn it into an article? So a redirect was all that's left?

did my smaller edits help? are there other edits that could be made to turn it onto an acceptable disambiguate?

I don't feel particularly strongly about keeping it. Just it seemed I'd misused the disambiguate concept and I felt obliged to try and fix my error.

If nobody has any good ideas for something to turn it into we should probably just delete it?

MWQs (talk) 06:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note; the same editor has now made Extrajudicial killings in the West Bank. Fram (talk) 09:11, 6 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!} 09:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Venery of Samantha Bird[edit]

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

I would argue that this fails the notability criteria: since the article is based on routine press coverage, and there's not much more mentions in reliable sources after the show did not move forward in September 2023. Maybe the specific guideline is WP:NOTNEWS, but I've seen most unaired television/film articles that do not have extensive coverage beyond cancellation be draftified, so maybe draftifying is the best option? I'm open to other options, though. Spinixster (trout me!) 09:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Spinixster (trout me!) 09:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing in the footnotes — multiple instances of published, significant coverage about the subject in sources of presumed reliability. Carrite (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but it's all routine press coverage, no sources show that the cancelled series is notable after its cancellation. Not all cancelled series/films with routine press coverage are notable, and if it is, might as well make pages for the 200+ series and films that have been cancelled. Spinixster (trout me!) 00:43, 8 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!} 09:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Darling[edit]

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

Couldn't find a reliable source verifying notability of or significantly covering the whole song by the Supremes. Sure, it charted in (West) Germany, but that's all I can find. If it fails GNG, then the song may also fail WP:NSONG. Even if notable, the article won't likely expand in the near or far future. George Ho (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. George Ho (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot: should be redirected to The Supremes discography#1960s as alternative to deletion. --George Ho (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious Team Bangladesh[edit]

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

TOO Soon; lacks reliable sources; BoraVoro (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Internet, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although The Business Standard and The Register are generally reliable as news organizations, both their articles are based entirely on the third source, Group-IB. The notes about sources in WP:GNG say, "Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information." The article effectively has a single source. And it isn't clear that Group-IB has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacquin Jansen[edit]

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

South African rugby BLP. I found a handful of sentences of coverage here, which I don't see as enough to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Polo & Equestrian Club[edit]

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

Non notable article about an organization/club that doesn't meet WP:GNG. I can't talk of WP:NCORP when there is no notability and WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, and Asia. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nom. Doesn't satisfying {WP:GNG]]. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:05, 10 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!} 09:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yap football team[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

OK, the relevant Afd was in 2011. Let's ask some questions.

Question 1: Notability policies and guidelines have changed since then, haven't they?
Question 2: has this particular Association Football team may have gathered some WP:SIGCOV since 2011?

My answers are to these questions

Answer 1: Yes, they have changed, and are adverse to the retention of this article. this would appear to me strongly supportive of a "delete" outcome here
Answer 2: Nope, not as far as I can see

Despite or possibly because Wikipedia:AFDISNOTCLEANUP I'm fine with any alternate outcome Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close‎ as the wrong venue — AfD is for articles only; files go to files for discussion. (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Always remember us single.jpg[edit]

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

Fan-made album cover, serves no purpose Sricsi (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sricsi (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue - This needs to be listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion and not here. Suggest speedy close here. --MuZemike 10:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rugby League Varsity Match[edit]

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

It exists, but isn't notable. I couldn't find a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Rugby league, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huawei Mate 8[edit]

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

It exists, but doesn't appear to be notable enough for a standalone article. A possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect to Huawei Mate series but I was unsure about that, especially as this is wholly unsourced. Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WesBank Raceway[edit]

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

I couldn't find sources to show this meets WP:N, or a suitable WP:ATD. It has been in CAT:NN for 12 years now, so hopefully we can decide now one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Talk Network[edit]

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

I couldn't find sources to show this meets WP:N. Due to the way it is written (and wholly unsourced), even if notable it would need TNTing. I couldn't see a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 07:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just an umbrella branding for Townsquare Media's centralcasted talk programming distributed to its stations in Michigan. Outside occasional interviews that get national attention, this is an utterly run of the mill programming service for one broadcaster in one state, and it's based in a swing state in the state capital so of course major candidates will be interviewed, which seems to barely provide its N, but definitely not for its own hosts who just pitch the questions for the candidates to swing at. Nate • (chatter) 16:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 dissolution of the National Assembly[edit]

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

It could be merged into the article of 2024 French legislative election. Cmsth11126a02 (talk) 07:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and France. Cmsth11126a02 (talk) 07:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The title "2024 dissolution of the National Assembly" does not even work. Maybe "2024 dissolution of the French national assembly" or if this is the first, then "Dissolution of the French national assembly". Redirecting this title to the target does not seem right, even though this is not a RM. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This definitely has enough coverage right now. I can also expect sustained coverage, as this is the first time this has happened in France since 1997. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete/redirect The dissolution is just the call for the snap election, absolutely no reason whatsoever to have a separate article when it can be covered in the election's background. Sustained coverage will obviously be about the election, not the dissolution as an independent, unrelated topic. Do not make one-sentence pages like this either. Reywas92^Talk 13:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2024 French legislative election. The topic is notable (and may well be discussed for years as either a successful gamble or an unsuccessful one), but it is probably best discussed in the article on the election itself. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon T. Bailey[edit]

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

Non-notable speaker. Zero in-depth secondary source about him. A few mentions in promotional guest posts or invitations of his events. Tagged since 2015 but has been continously attracting COI/UPE editors. Fails WP:GNG. Teltle (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Florida, New York, and Oklahoma. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only thing here that qualifies as a claim of notability is the CPAE Speakers Hall of Fame, and doing a newspapers.com search for that Hall, the 34 times I find of it being mentioned are basically all clearly quoting press release materials about a given speaker, or flat out ads. Web search is not finding the sort of results that suggest it should be given more consideration. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Zander[edit]

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

ROTM self-help coach who has authored some guest posts or has been mentioned in guest post - nothing in secondary references. Fails WP:GNG. Teltle (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some coverage here [1] and here [2] Oaktree b (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find book reviews, only various talking points when she interviews in magazines. Not enough for notability here in wiki. Sourcing used now in the article is primary or un-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL Championship Game broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent NFL fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced; besides being minimal, none of the two are extant, not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would have to have been from a while ago, so sources could exist on newspapers.com. However, this article stands as WP:LISTCRUFT and mainly consists of WP:OR. Conyo14 (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have agreed with the previous AfDs directed at lists of broadcasters of various college bowl games and conference championship games, but there is room in the encyclopedia for a list when it is about the biggest game of the year. In recent history, that's the Super Bowl, and nobody has questioned the notability of List of Super Bowl broadcasters. The Super Bowl is not only the pinnacle of careers on the field but also in the broadcast booth. The best of the best are tabbed to broadcast the Super Bowl, and a list of its broadcasters serves a valid purpose as a navigational list. In the pre-Super Bowl era, the NFC Championship Game was the pinnacle, and the same rationale applies. Cbl62 (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

My take: There is room for these lists in a legitimate encyclopedia if limited to top-level events. E.g., List of Super Bowl broadcasters, List of World Series broadcasters, List of NBA Finals broadcasters, List of Wimbledon broadcasters, List of Indianapolis 500 broadcasters, List of Stanley Cup Finals broadcasters. Being the broadcaster at such an event is the pinnacle for sports broadcasters, and the lists serve a useful navigational function in tracking sports broacasting history at the highest level. It is when we allow these things to creep to the middle and lower levels that we risk dippig into fancruft. Cbl62 (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the Super Bowl though. I'd be willing to change my !vote if sources are found regarding these specific game(s)' broadcasting crews. Conyo14 (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The NFL Championship Game was the top championship game in pro football during its time. The Super Bowl is that today. Cbl62 (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody can doubt that. The can't be said for the one about the FA Cup final, Moto GP, Ligue 1, Serie A, Bundesliga and the French Open (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French Open broadcasters (2nd nomination)) SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Cbl62, being what was at the time the biggest American football game of the year. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can all agree with that. This is not intended to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT but I wish people stop using "the biggest sporting event of the year" as an excuse to keep. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacedFarmer: You wish people would stop referencing the fact that a list is based on a notable event, and the notability of said event, as a reason/relevant point when voting to keep something? That's a silly concept and definitely not an "excuse". Hey man im josh (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reliable sources discussing the broadcasters for this game as a group seemingly do not exist, and as such, this article fails to meet WP:LISTN. Notability is WP:NOTINHERETED. Let'srun (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A list can serve valid navigational purpose and not have sources discussing all entries as a group. In any event, here (link) is a piece by the Pro Football Researchers Association that does exactly what you ask. Cbl62 (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good start, but I'd need to see at least one more source like that before I'd be inclined to switch my vote. Let'srun (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this functions as a navigational list such that we don't need sources dealing with all entries as a group (even though such a source has been found). This was the top pro football game in the world in the years prior to the Super Bowl (where nobody questions the validity of the List of Super Bowl broadcasters) and has equal historical value. Cbl62 (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Cbl62. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cbl62. Rlendog (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the problem with this article is that it only gives a list format of who did play-by-play, color commentating, and also on-field reporting. The notes section is actually much more reliable as a History of the NFL championship broadcasts article startup than maintaining it as a list. However, with only one good source from Cbl62, it doesn't seem like this article maintains WP:LISTN. Saying, "it was the biggest event of the time, surely sources exist...", please provide more and I will change my !vote. Conyo14 (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to History of the NFL championship broadcasts, per Conyo14, with the footnote material about the various quirks of the broadcasts being moved to the body of the article ahead of the list, and the list being made a lesser section of the article. BD2412 T 14:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep and move? Or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blood purity[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

"Blood purity" does not occur as a term in any of the linked articles except Fictional universe of Harry Potter (the original intention of the page as first written), and Limpieza de sangre: other entries fail MOS:DABMENTION. If rewritten as an article it would require sources, which it currently doesn't have and so fails WP:V. An alternative to deletion may be to redirect to Fictional universe of Harry Potter with a hatnote to other use(s). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Social science, and Disambiguations. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Applying the term "blood purity" to refer to blood quantum laws, half-caste status, etc., is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, and it doesn't seem necessary to redirect this as a concept to the Fictional universe of Harry Potter page (where it appears the concept in the HP universe is called "purity of blood"?). Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wow, this is not a topic space I want to be much involved in. As I understand disambiguation policy, there are two burdens that need to be met. Fist, there need to be at least three valid dab topics (WP:TWODABS), and second, those target articles need to make use of the disambiguated term (WP:DABMENTION). That complicates AFD somewhat, because an article that should deal with a disambiguated topic but doesn't is an editorial issue for the target article rather than strictly a deletion issue for the disambiguation page... at least in my mind. Anyway. I don't think there's any real debate that Limpieza de sangre and Fictional universe of Harry Potter are both relevant target articles for this topic. Looking exclusively at peer reviewed journal content here, because hoo boy I do not want to do general searches on this, I think it's overwhelmingly clear that racial hygiene should also be a valid dab target,[3][4][5][6] although the article at current does not make use of this term. There's also quite a bit in the literature about parallel concepts in Japanese and Korean culture, although I don't honestly even know what the applicable extant article would be for that, if any. There is at least some scholarly use of the term in the context of the blood quantum laws [7][8] although I'll admit that's somewhat less common that its use in the German, Japanese, or Korean context. I didn't look into the Australian stuff. I've searched just about enough of this for one day. Lubal (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. The concept of "blood purity" (or being a "pureblood") is a big deal in the post-COVID-19 antivax community, and it is surprising that this is mentioned nowhere in the encyclopedia. It should be noted somewhere relevant, and added to this disambiguation page. BD2412 T 23:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)*[reply]
Note: see, e.g., France 24, "Vaccine misinformation spawns 'pure blood' movement", stating "In closed social media groups, vaccine skeptics -- who brand themselves as "pure bloods" -- promote violence against doctors administering coronavirus jabs alongside false claims of mass deaths of vaccinated people"; Vice, "Unvaccinated TikTokers Are Calling Themselves 'Purebloods'"; The Edge, "Purebloods: The Anti-Semitism and White Supremacy of the Anti-Vax Movement", stating, "In September 2021, an assemblage of TikTok users anointed themselves 'Purebloods' for their repudiation of the COVID vaccine". BD2412 T 23:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this content to an appropriate article and this disambiguation page. BD2412 T 01:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This strikes me as a situation where WP:MEDRS would apply. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are social conventions, not actual biomedical information. WP:MEDRS applies to the latter. BD2412 T 13:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as DICTDEF. An article on "Purebloods" in the anti-vax context would be not only a GNG pass, but strikes me as a deficiency of WP by not having it. That is not what this is. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – So many possible DAB targets have emerged in this discussion that deletion now makes no sense. The suggestions from Lubal and BD2412 for what to include seem well-reasoned. Toadspike [Talk] 09:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Belgium, Moscow[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Russian version of this article also only has 1 source. LibStar (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Belgium, and Russia. LibStar (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Belgium–Russia relations, where the embassy is mentioned, as an ATD. gidonb (talk) 03:11, 5 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!} 05:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Hansford[edit]

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

Most of the sources are not in-depth or are primary. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable bio which only has two sentences about his ministry. The rest is about his education and family background. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable as an important faith figure in New South Wales’ third biggest Christian denomination. All Moderators of the Uniting Church should be profiled rather than deleting them so we have record of church leadership. hSproulesLane (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No inherent notability in his position. Where are the sources to meet WP:BIO? LibStar (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a well known deletionist LibStar has made his point so I hope he will allow other editors to have their say without harassing them to accept his view of a minimalist version of an online encyclopaedia … please let others contribute without your bullying. SproulesLane (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not bullying, merely pointing out that all biographies need sources to meet WP:BIO, which you have failed to do. LibStar (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve added references from The Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian, The Northern Daily Leader and the NSW Government indicating his activities in resent years. SproulesLane (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding sources. The SMH one is a 1 line mention and not WP:SIGCOV. The NSW government one is him merely making a statement on behalf of the church and also not SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian article does not establish notability, it is an opinion piece by Hansford and a WP:PRIMARY source. LibStar (talk) 18:03, 7 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!} 05:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Microlecture[edit]

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

A hat-rack article with no clear topic. Primarily a list of citations, rather than actual content. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is written pretty badly but the large number of sources are in fact good. There are a whole lot of studies but it seems like there would almost definitely be at least 3 in there specifically mentioning microlectures which are also reliable and secondary.

e.g.

1. https://statenews.com/article/2009/03/microlectures_turn_lessons_into_interactive_snippets

2. https://campustechnology.com/articles/2010/11/10/teaching-in-one-minute-snippets.aspx

3. (off google not the thing, accepts submissions from non-journalists) https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/online-course-delivery-and-instruction/microlectures-101-what-why-how/

4. (from the thing) short mention in fox news

So the article has a clear topic, at least 2 reliable secondary sources, and a number of journal articles (plus many, many unreliable blogs). I think there's not really a good case to delete here, the article is just bad and basically needs to be started from scratch without all the blogs. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said it might be a fad and not be the sustained coverage policy, but I'd say keep it. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a different word for "lectures on TikTok"? I would not be too surprised if there is more coverage of the general concept under a different name.
I'm not entirely convinced yet, but the links at [9] (which links to your link 3) suggest this might be "keep but re-write". Walsh90210 (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Westview Secondary School[edit]

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

Nominated for deletion as this article entirely lacks WP:Sources and doesn't meet WP:Notability neither WP:GNG

I wondered why it is retained on Wikipedia from 2006 till this moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by War Term (talk • contribs) 02:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fixed malformed Queen of Hearts (🏳️‍⚧️ • 🏳️‍🌈) 03:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've not given a valid reason for deletion. Deletion is based on the subject of the article, not the condition of the article. See WP:BEFORE. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It fails Wikipedia:Verifiability wɔːr (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of notability and no sources since 2006 — Iadmc ♫^talk 00:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree the article in its current state lacks sources. However, under WP:ARTN, Article content does not determine notability. Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvement to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. I added a couple sources to the article, and also posted multiple potential sources from ProQuest at Talk:Westview Secondary School. Based on these sources, this subject meets WP:GNG, per criteria at WP:NSCHOOL. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of the sources might add notability to the school: "Nash Taylor placed second in a global competition". Just because a school exists and is mentioned in multiple sources doing normal things for a school, this doesn't establish notability. — Iadmc ♫^talk 08:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you misunderstand WP's concept of notability. See WP:N, which says Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity. Notability rests on significant coverage in reliable sources. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. Of the cited sources, only one does this (ApplyBoard) and I'm not convinced of its independence. I need to join ProQuest to verify the sources on the talk page so bear with me on that — Iadmc ♫^talk 11:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not able to join ProQuest as a non-academic as I'm not at a university etc :( — Iadmc ♫^talk 11:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Another user pointed me to The Wikipedia Library. Bingo I'm in. I'll check out the subject soon — Iadmc ♫^talk 11:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 8 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!} 05:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is about all I can find [10] that's not related to regular school items (a concert, a student getting an award/scholarship)... I don't think we have enough for notability here. A school from the 1970s likely won't have notability as an historic building either. Oaktree b (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Pontremoli[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BASIC C F A 💬 02:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politics, Judaism, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could you elaborate on why none of the sources meet BASIC in your opinion? FortunateSons (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the biography in Educational Institutions Pamphlets (which is actually a 1950 L'Ecole National D'Administration book) plus short mentions in La Rabia De La Expresion, Le conseil d'état et le régime de Vichy", and the State Council plaque should be sufficient for WP:NBASIC. There are other short mentions, perhaps some longer ones, on GScholar. Oblivy (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahonri Ngakuru[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a New Zealand rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was this transactional announcement. Unless WP:SIGCOV is found, I suggest draftification. JTtheOG (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Lots of coverage here, although it's very close as to whether it passes WP:GNG or not. Given his career is just starting and he will likely generate further coverage in the future I'd suggest weak keep. Personally wouldn't dratify as I imagine it will just get forgotten about here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support draft not seeing any independent sigcov. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft / Delete as this individual does not yet seem notable as there is no sigcov. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 07:36, 8 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!} 05:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bee Broadcasting[edit]

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

Subject lacks the needed sources to meet the WP:NCORP. Let'srun (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and Montana. Let'srun (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that subject lacks needed secondary sources. Also appears to fall firmly under Wikipedia:ROTM. Manyyassin (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Werner[edit]

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

I nominated this for AfD because an IP prodded it and I felt like it might be controversial. Not sure if he meets the WP:GNG but there are a decent amount of sources. (Don’t seem reliable though, citehighlighter is highlighting a lot of them orange and red) 48JCL TALK 02:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be a well-written résumé, but doesn't impress me as anything else. It has a heavy self-aggrandizement tone throughout. The large section "Early life and education" is irrelevant to notability. In a nutshell, this individual has been a successful career business man. But that usually means getting a good education and making the right connections to rise to the top. However, I don't find where he meets WP:ANYBIO, and he would not match any other criteria. — Maile (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that it does not meet WP:ANYBIO. Also, I am suspicious that this may be a case of WP:AUTO (e.g. the headshot picture is uploaded by johnkellogwerner). A significant number of the sources are problematic, with some being press releases, personal blogs, local pieces, and the subject's alumni magazine (the info from which likely comes from the subject himself). Manyyassin (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archi & Meidy[edit]

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

Did not find any sources behind this series to establish notability. GamerPro64 02:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Indonesia. GamerPro64 02:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Yohanes Surya. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PW van Vuuren[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stairs Mhlongo[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coert Cronjé[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files[edit]

File:Amaravati Government complex.jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCCP#1 pretty easy to have a free version. — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 08:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The rationale's explanations on WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 are both incorrect. Even if it were irreplaceable, the article is about the city and not this complex. hinnk (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Always remember us single.jpg[edit]

Originally nominated by Sricsi (talk · contribs) in an AfD nomination, despite this being a file and not an article. Their rationale follows:

Fan-made album cover, serves no purpose

This is largely procedural on my part; I offer no opinion or further comment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I had uploaded the cover for the Always Remember Us This Way article, but it was removed by @GagaNutella: stating that "it was not the official cover" for the single (see edit summary).

I'm not able to discuss about that point so I can't state whether this is true or not. Probably other users give us more info about this topic. Nothing more from my part, thank you. Fma12 (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The upload was sourced from a Lady Gaga fan Twitter account, and I can find no evidence of it existing in official sources. No single release on Spotify, Apple Music, or Tidal. A Star Is Born (2018 soundtrack) says it was a radio-only single in Europe, and I doubt it would have unique cover art in that case. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:BTS - Idol (from Love Yourself - Answer).ogg[edit]

This non-free audio file samples ~13% of a copyrighted musical recording, in violation of both WP:NFCC#3b (minimal extent of use) and WP:SAMPLE. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag as {{non-free reduce}}. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:MegalovaniaShort.ogg[edit]

This non-free audio file samples ~16% of a copyrighted musical recording, in violation of both WP:NFCC#3b (minimal extent of use) and WP:SAMPLE. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I uploaded this audio file before I knew about WP:SAMPLE. I'll upload a reduced version (which should be about 0:15 seconds, since the Undertale version is half a minute longer than the original recording) when I get home. P.S. this file clearly has a purpose, and should not have been listed for deletion. λ NegativeMP1 15:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I may, the above assertion regarding the length per WP:SAMPLE is based on the time in the infobox, which is the duration of the original version. The version illustrated from Undertale is [[11]] is 2 minutes 36 seconds in length (additionally verified by the wikia here short of ripping it from the OST itself). Would it be viable to use a 23 second clip with this in consideration, so it can go past the opening section?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag as {{non-free reduce}}. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Lists of film festivals in Oceania[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Lists of film festivals in Oceania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category which exists solely to hold one list at the same level of differentiation. This would be fine if one or more Oceanian countries had their own separate standalone lists independently of the continent-wide list, but none do, so the list does not need an "eponymous" category just to recursively contain itself if there are no supplementary sublists for specific Oceanian countries to file along with it.
The list, further, was left double-filed in all of the parent categories alongside this, so no upmerging is needed. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Film festivals in Oceania per WP:C2F and per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian police chiefs[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Australian police chiefs to Category:Australian police commissioners

Nominator's rationale: Inline with article names. GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not all of them held the title of commissioner. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of awards received by Ugandan writer[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Lists of awards received by Ugandan writer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Newly created 1-article category. Gjs238 (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No need to merge, the article is already in Category:Lists of awards received by writer. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of awards received by Ugandan film director[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Lists of awards received by Ugandan film director (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Newly created 1-article category. Gjs238 (talk) 12:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No need to merge, the article is already in Category:Lists of awards received by film director. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Society of Kurdistan[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Society of Kurdistan to Category:Kurdish society

Nominator's rationale: Similar categories in Category:Society by ethnicity are named in this manner. Kurdistan is a very roughly defined region. Please note that the category was previously moved speedy from 'Kurdish society'. Aldij (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battles in Spain 2[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Battles in Andalusia to Category:Military history of Andalusia
Propose renaming Category:Battles in Aragon to Category:Military history of Aragon
Propose renaming Category:Battles in Castile and León‎ to Category:Military history of Castile and León‎
Propose renaming Category:Battles in Castilla–La Mancha to Category:Military history of Castilla–La Mancha
Propose renaming Category:Battles in Extremadura to Category:Military history of Extremadura
Propose renaming Category:Battles in Galicia (Spain)‎ to Category:Military history of Galicia (Spain)‎
Propose renaming Category:Battles in Navarre to Category:Military history of Navarre
Propose renaming Category:Battles in the Balearic Islands‎ to Category:Military history of the Balearic Islands
Propose renaming Category:Battles in the Basque Country (autonomous community) to Category:Military history of the Basque Country (autonomous community)
Propose renaming Category:Battles in the Valencian Community‎ to Category:Military history of the Valencian Community

Propose upmerging Category:Battles in Catalonia‎ to Category:Military history of Catalonia
Propose upmerging Category:Battles in the Community of Madrid to Category:Military history of Madrid

Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. See Germany, Italy etc. NLeeuw (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aunty Disco Project[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Aunty Disco Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: With the albums appropriately categorized by Category:Albums by artist and the only other article a discography page, this is an unnecessary eponymous category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, per WP:OCEPON. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unreal Engine 5 games[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Unreal Engine 5 games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Duplicative with Category:Unreal Engine games. No merge required, as all members of the nominated category are in the original already. Each version of Unreal Engine is not independently notable or distinct. -- ferret (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree because Category:Unreal Engine games is very large and spans more than two decades of video games. There isn't much use in knowing that a game was made with "just" Unreal Engine from the point of view of someone reading about the game compared to knowing that it was made in Unreal 5 which tells you a lot more about what you can expect from the game both in terms of graphics and gameplay (that is, within a given specific genre). Similarly, there isn't much use in knowing a game was made in "just" Unreal from the point of view of someone reading about Unreal itslef as nobody develops games in "Unreal Engine." Consider also that the Video Game infobox Engine field usually has the Unreal Engine version listed, not just "Unreal Engine", because just listing "Unreal Engine" is not so useful. Each version of Unreal is a separate piece of software. Also, not all members of the nominated category are in the original already (at least at the time that I added some of them).

As a separate but related point, I feel that all versions of Unreal Engine should be separate articles on Wikipedia. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be merged to Category:Unreal Engine games rather than deleted? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle The articles are already in both. -- ferret (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose instead of deleting the category, it should be a sub-category under Category:Unreal Engine games. In fact, I think the all the pages under this category also should be sorted by Unreal Engine type, i.e. UE1, UE2, UE3 and UE4. This rationale is made since the list of games for each Unreal Engine version is deleted, and there should be categories that list by version to clean up Category:Unreal Engine games. Otherwise the alternative is to simply delete Category:Unreal Engine games. ~ Limyx826 (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for categories are stricter than for lists so if lists per version were deleted, categories per version should certainly be deleted as well. Then Category:Unreal Engine games suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, can you please point me at the criteria that this category violates? Would Category:Source 2 games violate it as well?
In Russian Wikipedia, we created a separate category for each version of Unreal Engine and I'm pretty satisfied with the result. A particle for world to form (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:DEFINING requires that reliable sources consistently describe the games as having this property. WP:TRIVIALCAT may also be applicable. Can you please point me to the discussion about the — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcocapelle (talk • contribs)
  - Thanks. I can see how WP:DEFINING is applicable here (even though there're enough sources to model this in Wikidata, like ModDB, those are mostly unreliable in enwiki). But then I don't see how the same logic is not applicable to the general Category:Unreal Engine games (since the List of Unreal Engine games was deleted). To me it looks like either we should delete most of the engines' categories, or we can keep separate categories for Unreal Engine versions. Whenever a media covers game engines, it usually specifies UE version (Stormgate, Mass Effect Legendary Edition, Sin City, etc).
    And I don't see how WP:TRIVIALCAT is applicable. The difference between Unreal Engine 1 and Unreal Engine 5 is very significiant, both from user's and developer's perspective, so in my opinion it actually helps the navigation.
    There were no inwiki discussion about splitting the category as far as I can remember. We discussed some aspects of it on Russian WPVG Discord server, but that's probably it. A particle for world to form (talk) 06:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The separate versions pretty much characterize the games, comparing to just "Unreal Engine", given its existence for many years. The UE versions are quite different from each other, both in terms of development and end result. They all have their own separate version tree as well, so I would even say to some extent these are the different engines under the same brand name. The versions are also extensively covered in the sources, just as the versions for individual games are often supported by sources and are listed in the infobox. There may not be enough material for individual articles (needs to be verified), but there is enough material to split up this clogged category. The difference between the versions is enormous and obvious to anyone who follows the industry, and generally useful to any reader. Practically, you'll have little use for the information that Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (video game) and Tekken 8 were made on the same engine. But looking at them as separate versions is already a defining characteristic - WP:DEFINING. The distinct version categories also correspond better to WP:CATDD, which explicitly states to use the most specific categories.Therefore, I support splitting c:Unreal Engine games into 5 subcategories with gradual moving of articles to corresponding versions and turning the main category into a meta category. On Russian Wikipedia it really looks much cleaner and more informative than the endless listing we have now. Solidest (talk) 05:02, 3 June 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/they) 02:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Either we get rid of the "Unreal Engine games" category entirely, or this should stay. Unreal Engine 5 is absolutely distinct from something like the original Unreal Engine, to the point that it's essentially two separate pieces of software sharing a similar name. The argument that they are the same thing doesn't hold water from either a technical or a visual standpoint. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female drug traffickers[edit]

Propose splitting Category:Female drug traffickers to Category:Female criminals and Category:Drug traffickers

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between gender, criminal, and specific kind of crime committed. I don't think that this holds up under WP:EGRS. Mason (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, how is this any less defining than other subcategories of Category:Female criminals? AHI-3000 (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to nominate sibling categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I was suggesting. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimadick: What do you think of this? AHI-3000 (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split There is no main article for female drug traffickers, which is a good indication it's not defining. If someone can prove otherwise and/or make a main article, I would think otherwise. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Single merge to Category:Drug traffickers only. There is no need for a dual merge. The large amount of articles is already in the tree of Category:Female gangsters and if they aren't, such as Schapelle Corby, then Category:Female criminals is an equally questionable target. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see no reason to not divide criminals by their gender. Gender is always defining. Dimadick (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it is hardly ever a defining intersection. That is why we have WP:OCEGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is this any less defining than other subcategories for female criminals? AHI-3000 (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Feel free to nominate the sibling categories too. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That's not at all what I'm implying. AHI-3000 (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Question: Can any of the opposers (@AHI-3000@Dimadick) make the case that this specific intersection with gender and type of crime is actually defining per EGRS? No one is saying that crime and gender isn't defining, but I struggle to see how this specific crime type is defining. Mason (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For those in favor of getting rid of the category, what should it be replaced with? Single merge? Double merge? Split? For those in favor of keeping the category, evidence that this is defining?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 02:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison and Zxcvbnm: please reply to my single merge vote above. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize most were already under gangsters, so I can support the single merge. As long as this category is removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Accidents during the New Year celebrations[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Accidents during the New Year celebrations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Non defining itnersection between day of the year and nature of the event Mason (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one article, and no parallel subcategories. We also Category:Attacks during the New Year celebrations, which is being speedy renamed to remove a misused definite article. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fireworks accidents during New Year celebrations could be a good topic article but victims are not individually notable. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

Wikipedia:TRIVIALMENTION[edit]

Wikipedia:TRIVIALMENTION → Wikipedia:Trivial mentions (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:TRIVIALMENTIONS → Wikipedia:Trivial mentions (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Usually, people are looking for WP:TRIVIAL, which has seen more attention, has more information, and details guidelines instead of just restating them. While searching these redirects will probably include the target page as a result even without this redirect, it will not bring out WP:TRIVIAL. Thus, I think it'll be most helpful to navigation to retarget both of these redirects to WP:TRIVIAL.

I've also talked about the confusion a bit on the article creator's talk page. I believe that this is a good compromise instead of using a hatnote as I've previously advocated for. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the request. WP:TRIVIAL is a redirect, and redirecting WP:TRIVIALMENTION there would create a double redirect. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I mean retargetting it to where that redirect points to. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/No Change: Currently, WP:TRIVIALMENTION is a redirect to the essay called "Wikipedia:Trivial mentions", which clearly makes sense. This redirect has been used int his way for more than a decade, and changing it would break the redirect in archived discussions. WP:TRIVIAL is a fine redirect, but doesn't discuss trivial mentions, and we shouldn't conflate the two. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shooterwalker. Thryduulf (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emigration from North Korea[edit]

Emigration from North Korea → North Korean defectors (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This may refer to multiple topics. I propose to retarget it to Category:North Korean diaspora. GZWDer (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carpenters[edit]

Carpenters → Carpentry (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I reverted a bold change of target from Carpentry to The Carpenters, but the idea deserves discussion. A disambiguation page is also an option. What do others think? Certes (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disamb makes the most sense, the terms seem co-primary for this redirect. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Carpenter (disambiguation) which already covers the plural. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I came here undecided but support that option. The two most likely meanings are (perhaps fortuitously) right at the top of the dab. Certes (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to disambig (if we keep it at all). It's easy to link to either Carpenter or The Carpenters, there's no need for this to be there to support one in particular as any sort of 'convenience' or 'clarity' redirect. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicktoons (TV network)[edit]

Nicktoons (TV network) → Nicktoons (American TV channel) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This title is a bit considerable considering the international versions of Nicktoons. But I'll also consider the other side of it towards deletion if the title is unmerited now. What do you think. Intrisit (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Nicktoons (disambiguation) as a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Thryduulf (who also fixed the hatnote on Nicktoons to point to the disambiguation page which I was intending to do as well). Skynxnex (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicktoons (TV channel)[edit]

Nicktoons (TV channel) → Nicktoons (American TV channel) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This title is ambiguous considering the international versions of it so it could be a DAB page. American Wikipedians may dispute this; that's why I've listed it here, since this title hasn't hasn't fallen into one before. Intrisit (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator

TheNuggeteer (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Nicktoons (disambiguation) as a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Thryduulf. Skynxnex (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

㌽[edit]

㌽ → wiktionary:Special:Search/㌽ (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Why would the English Wikipedia redirect to non-English Wiktionary entries? Fram (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? The target is an English Wiktionary entry. Thryduulf (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary entries for non-English words or terms. Wiktionary starts with the languages an entry is in (the heading), and the only such heading here is "Japanese". For comparison, the entry for "bread"[12] has headings "English", "Middle English", "Old English", and "Spanish", so that is an English Wiktionary entry. Fram (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because English Wiktionary explains in English the meaning of the Japanese word that forms the character. I don't know that there is any exact meaning of point (disambiguation) that is represented by ㌽, so I leave the readers to find out what works in their case. --Error (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But why would we have redirects to explain words in other languages? We could add millions of redirects if we do this, for every word in every language. Fram (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have articles and redirects for characters (not words), because people want to know what they mean and look them up in Wikipedia. In this case the English Wiktionary entry is better than anything we have locally, so the soft redirect is the most helpful to readers. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we allow redirects for foreign-language characters because people want to know what they mean, but not for words because people want to know what they mean? What makes characters so special? Fram (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because characters and words are not the same thing. The reason we don't have redirects for foreign words is expressed best at WP:RFOREIGN, those considerations don't occur for single characters. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a non-answer if ever I saw one. Why A and not B? "A and B are not the same, and here we explain why not B". Well yes, but you argue to keep A, and don't give a reason why the arguments would be different. Further, the page you list to is about internal redirects, not about redirects to Wiktionary or the like. You also claim that "those considerations don't occur for single characters", but most of the arguments in the "Rationale" section of that page apply just as well to single characters. Fram (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Fram:: Is your objection to redirects to Wiktionary, redirects from non-Latin characters or redirects from CJK characters? --Error (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects from characters, words, ... not in use in English and without an article here. Fram (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please wait before you create more similar redirects. You have now added ㍀ and ㍁, but if this one gets created, then adding more of the same onbly creates more work afterwards. Fram (talk) 12:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are tens of thousands of Han characters/Kanji. Is the plan to redirect all of them (or at least the reasonably common ones) to Wiktionary entries? What about characters in other scripts, or words in other languages? I actually agree that there is some value to a reader, however if you search for a Han character (arbitrary example) on Wikipedia, the corresponding Wiktionary entry will already appear in the search results on the side under the heading "Word definitions from Wiktionary". If the desire is to make the link to Wiktionary more prominent, that could be done much more efficiently with a few lines of CSS or JS instead of creating thousands of redirect entries. Just my 2¢. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that the entry above is not Kanji but rather a "square katakana" symbol, of which Unicode has only ~100, but I think the general reasoning may still apply. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are some kanji categorized as Category:Kanji, Category:Kyōiku kanji. I think that Category:Simplified Chinese radicals‎ and Category:Kangxi radicals list most of the radicals. There are few redirects there, either because they don't exist or they are not categorized. Category:Specific_kana lists all of them, it seems. Picking one at random, ra has seven redirects from specific Unicode characters, all of them seem reasonable to me. --Error (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Open Access/OAFD[edit]

Template:WikiProject Open Access/OAFD → Wikipedia:WikiProject Open/Open access task force/Open Access File of the Day (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Cross namespace redirect that existed for 22 minutes. Gonnym (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Template → Wikipedia CNRs are uncommon but only problematic if transcluding the target would be harmful in some way (or it conflicts with something else). In this case it's not harmful (transclusion works fine) and it doesn't appear to be in the way of anything else. That said it isn't transcluded anywhere and I can't think of a reason why it would be transcluded (unlike {{OAFD}}). Ultimately I think I'm neutral. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Druisk[edit]

Druisk → Kaunas (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 11 § Druisk – Keep

This redirect is simply incorrect. It stems from a misinterpretation of a redirect in a paper encyclopedia printed over 100 years ago. Druysk is an agrotown in Vitebsk Oblast, Belarus, near Braslaw. It is situated over 200 km away from Kaunas, Lithuania. The mixup arose because the Jewish Encyclopedia (1906) contains the following entry:

DRUISK. See Kovno.

However, this just refers to the fact that Druysk belonged to the Kovno Governorate of the Russian Empire, an administrative division which covered a fairly large area, including Braslaw and its environs. For confirmation of this fact, one may consult this 1864 map of Kovno Governorate. Druysk (Друйскъ) is in fact the easternmost labelled locality on the whole map, found within the yellow-green (i.e., primarily Orthodox) region centered around Braslaw (Браславъ).

The Jewish Encyclopedia does this with other localities as well. For example, the entries for Dusyaty (Dusetos; Russian: Дусяты Dusyaty) and Eiragoly (Ariogala; Yiddish: אייראַגאָלע Eyragole) also redirect the reader to Kovno, and the entry for Eishishki (Eišiškės) points to Wilna.

What's even more confusing is the online version of the Jewish Encyclopedia hosted on StudyLight.org, cited in the previous RfD discussion, which includes full entries for these redirect entries that just transclude the content of the redirect target, without any indication that this is what's happening. Thus, the entry for Druisk is identical to the entry for Kovno, except for the header; the same applies to Eishishki and Wilna, and so forth.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I would like to solidify the argument for deletion by showing that other written sources that talk about “Druisk” are in fact referring to the city in present-day Belarus and not using it as a synonym for Kaunas.

Cholawsky, Shalom (1998). The Jews of Bielorussia During World War II. Routledge. ISBN 9057021935.
"Druisk" is mentioned alongside other towns in Belarus (e.g. Braslav, Glebokie, Dolhinov) and eastern Lithuania near the Belarusian border (e.g. Swienciany, Podbrodzh). None of these locations are near Kaunas.

Petronis, Vytautas (2007). Constructing Lithuania: Ethnic Mapping in Tsarist Russia, Ca. 1800-1914. Stockholm University. ISBN 978-91-89315-78-5.
“Druisk” is described as being on the Dvina River, in the Vitebsk province. Mostly accurate, but the author (or I) might be slightly confused. Druysk is not directly on the Dvina, which actually forms the border between the nearby towns of Druya, Belarus and Piedruja, Latvia. The Dvina is approximately 10 km from Druysk. In fact, the place-names Druya, Druysk, and Piedruja all refer to the Druya/Druyka tributary of the Dvina. In any case, nothing to do with the city of Kaunas.

Lokotko, Aleksandr; et al. (2013). Tourist Mosaic of Belarus. Belaruskaya navuka. ISBN 978-5-457-63663-7.
“Druisk” is described as being in the region of Braslaw, listed alongside other nearby Belarusian localities such as Opsa and Ukolsk. Again, this description definitely does not apply to Kaunas.

By the way, in the course of researching this, I also noticed that Eiragoly → Eiguliai is probably another incorrect redirect. As mentioned above, this refers to Ariogala (here's a source to support the identification), not the Eiguliai neighborhood of Kaunas whose name is pretty different anyway. I hypothesize that the author of this redirect also created it based on the Jewish Encyclopedia, but in that case tried to make sense of it by finding a part of Kaunas with a somewhat similar name.

98.170.164.88 (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules[edit]

Template:Foreign relations of the DPR and LPR[edit]

Template:Foreign relations of the Donetsk People's Republic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Foreign relations of the Luhansk People's Republic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The DPR and LPR were puppet states of Russia and had no foreign relations. Aldij (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They did have recognition from a few other countries, although, looking at Donetsk People's Republic–South Ossetia relations, sourcing doesn't seem to be of the quality you'd want to write good standalone articles that go further than "X officially recognized Y". The navboxes have four and two links respectively, so not great, although there's no objection to recreating them if more articles can be written (hopefully with better sources). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination has nothing to do with the templates and is a political statement than of actual concerns with the navboxes. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pacific Electric Trail[edit]

Template:Pacific Electric Trail (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused route map template. Gonnym (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to Upland–San Bernardino Line#After passenger service jengod (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eingebundene Diskografie[edit]

Template:Eingebundene Diskografie (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a template. Gonnym (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NYCS Sandbox header[edit]

Template:NYCS Sandbox header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Incorrect location for a sandbox template. Currently unused. Gonnym (talk) 09:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NYCS Sandbox[edit]

Template:NYCS Sandbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Incorrect location for a sandbox template, which does not seem to be a sandbox for Template:NYCS. Currently unused. Gonnym (talk) 09:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Counter-Vandalism Unit/fpage[edit]

Template:Counter-Vandalism Unit/fpage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. Replaced with a simple change here. Gonnym (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite California Invasive Plant Council assessment[edit]

Template:Cite California Invasive Plant Council assessment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused citation template. Gonnym (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Positionskarte Österreich[edit]

Template:Positionskarte Österreich (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused location map. Gonnym (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Positionskarte Welt[edit]

Template:Positionskarte Welt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused location map. Gonnym (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Positionskarte Erde[edit]

Template:Positionskarte Erde (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused location map. Gonnym (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Railway signal mast[edit]

Template:Railway signal mast (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused railway related image template. Gonnym (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Water polo/doc[edit]

Template:WikiProject Water polo/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused documentation page of a banner wrapper. Gonnym (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Vatican City/doc[edit]

Template:WikiProject Vatican City/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused documentation page of a banner wrapper. Gonnym (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just redirect? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find anything worthwhile saving in these documentation pages that need to be redirected. These are all the same boilerplate copy/paste versions that have no actual added value. Gonnym (talk) 09:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, delete. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject United States Public Policy/doc[edit]

Template:WikiProject United States Public Policy/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused documentation page of a banner wrapper. Gonnym (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject UK Roads/doc[edit]

Template:WikiProject UK Roads/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused documentation page of a banner wrapper. Gonnym (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Iowa/doc[edit]

Template:WikiProject Iowa/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused documentation page of a banner wrapper. Gonnym (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Color/doc[edit]

Template:WikiProject Color/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Parent now uses |DOC=auto. Gonnym (talk) 09:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vistula boulevards (Warsaw)[edit]

Template:Vistula boulevards (Warsaw) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused route map. Gonnym (talk) 09:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As its creator I do agree template should be deleted. I've created it as an experiment, in wrong name space, at my beginings in wiki editing. Antoni12345 (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subterm and Subdefn[edit]

Template:Subterm (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Subdefn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates were meant to be visual sub-terms and sub-definitions in structured {{Glossary}}s. They didn't add semantic sub-structuring, only indented their equivalent terms & definitions. They were only used in Waveguide filter#Glossary, but I replaced them with nested {{glossary}}+{{term}}+{{defn}} inside their defining {{defn}}, producing a near-identical indentation, plus semantic structure. They are now unused, and probably shouldn't be used (TemplateStyles on the glossary, or term/defn templates, would satisfy any potential need). the template. — sbb (talk) 08:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, though the glossary at that page was wonky in another way (fixed [13]). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Virudunagar–Sengottai line[edit]

Template:Virudunagar–Sengottai line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused route map. Gonnym (talk) 09:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TfLstyle[edit]

Template:TfLstyle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused citation template. Gonnym (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Charles-Valentin Alkan/doc[edit]

Template:Charles-Valentin Alkan/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Parent template now uses {{Navbox documentation}}. Gonnym (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Challenges[edit]

Template:WikiProject Challenges (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Project hasn't been active around 14 years and usages of this banner are being incorrectly applied to articles that involved "challenges". The dead project has no categories or any usage for this banner. Gonnym (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive[edit]

Template:WikiProject Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The project hasn't been active for over a decade, does not have categories or any reason for tagging pages with a banner. Gonnym (talk) 08:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gbq/doc[edit]

Template:Gbq/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The {{Gbq}} template was simply a wrapper for {{Quote}} with some specified inline styles (specifically, reduced vertical margins). It was intended for use in structured {{Glossary}}s. It was only ever used correctly once, in Glossary of Brazil investigative terms. All other ~6 uses in article space were used in {{efn}} for condensed spacing (which I replaced with the equivalent {{quote|style="..."}}). I have edited {{Glossary}} to use TemplateStyles, which has allowed the use of {{quote}} inside of glossary {{Defn}} templates to be formatted exactly as {{Gbq}} was formatted. I.e., TemplateStyles has obsoleted the need for the style-only wrapper {{Gbq}} around {{quote}}. {{Gbq}} is now a redirect to {{quote}}. Asking to delete the now-obsolete "/doc" subpage. — sbb (talk) 08:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as creator of the template). It's nice that TemplateStyles obviates the need for this sort of thing today. PS: It would probably be better to just replace every instance of {{gbq}} in the wild with {{blockquote}} (the actual name of what {{gbq}} and {{quote}} redirect to), and then get rid of the {{gbq}} redirect, since it no longer serves any function, not even a mnemonic one. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've replaced all in situ uses of {{gbq}} with {{blockquote}} (other than references to deletion discussion and in Template:Gbq/doc itself). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I was going to TfD {{gbq}}, but I figured leaving it behind for the several uses in user pages wasn't going to hurt anything. But from a purity standpoint, I'd love to see it go. — sbb (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also... I forgot, might as well get rid of {{Gquote}} too (which used to redirect to {{Gbq}}. — sbb (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Mathematical and Computational Biology[edit]

Template:WikiProject Mathematical and Computational Biology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology. Replace with {{WikiProject Molecular Biology|computational biology=yes}}. Gonnym (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replace then delete the redundant template, per Gonnym. We don't need misleading as well as redundant wikiproject banners lingering around. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused already-merged Bio_coatrack et al[edit]

Template:Bio coatrack (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bio-coat rack (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bio-coatrack (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Merged into {{coatrack}} since [14]. Their names falsely imply that they will still display a more biology-related notice. In reality, they are just unused redirects. Only mentions are basically Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template_redirects and other lists. 184.146.170.127 (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This should be completely uncontroversial, but from a purely clerical standpoint template redirects should be at RfD and not TfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, though I'll chime in here in favor of delete in case it's not moved/reopened as an RfD. We don't need weird redirects lingering around that are not in actual use. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Wrong venue. Disambiguation pages should be handled at WP:AfD. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preethi (disambiguation)[edit]

Per Talk:Preethi#Requested move 2 June 2024 the film is the only topic with this title. The other two entries are names and should follow MOS:DABNAME. Polyamorph (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The is at least one film and one person with "Preethi" in their name. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion review[edit]

^ Sawyer, Sam (February 15, 2020). "SALEM Animated Series Creator Sam Sawyer, Cryptids, Nonbinary & Witchcraft". Piper's Picks TV (Online). Interviewed by Piper Reese. Archived from the original on December 12, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020. YouTube video of interview here
^ "Exclusive S.A.L.E.M sneak peek". Inconceivable Events. November 13, 2020. Archived from the original on 19 September 2021. Retrieved 19 September 2021.
^ Johnson, Bill (February 4, 2020). "Artist Sam Sawyer to LVL UP Expo". Las Vegas, NV Patch. Archived from the original on December 12, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020.
^ Sawyer, Sam (December 18, 2019). "Artist Sam Sawyer Creates First Animated Series with Non-Binary Hero". Starshine Magazine (Online). Interviewed by Sandy Lo. Archived from the original on November 18, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020.

[piper-1] Sawyer, Sam (February 15, 2020). "SALEM Animated Series Creator Sam Sawyer, Cryptids, Nonbinary & Witchcraft". Piper's Picks TV (Online). Interviewed by Piper Reese. Archived from the original on December 12, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020. YouTube video of interview here

[incon2020-2] "Exclusive S.A.L.E.M sneak peek". Inconceivable Events. November 13, 2020. Archived from the original on 19 September 2021. Retrieved 19 September 2021.

[3] Johnson, Bill (February 4, 2020). "Artist Sam Sawyer to LVL UP Expo". Las Vegas, NV Patch. Archived from the original on December 12, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020.

[4] Sawyer, Sam (December 18, 2019). "Artist Sam Sawyer Creates First Animated Series with Non-Binary Hero". Starshine Magazine (Online). Interviewed by Sandy Lo. Archived from the original on November 18, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

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