User talk:Gene93k/Archives 2020

• 36
• Archive 37
• 38

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Maltese female models

A tag has been placed on Category:Maltese female models requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of 5th AVN Awards for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 5th AVN Awards is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/5th AVN Awards until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sandstein 20:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gene93k, I had the above notice posted on my page today and thought you might be interested. I don't know who the other active editors are these days though who might want to know about this; could you let me know? Or let them know about this? Thanks. pumik9 • (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Need assistance

Hi Gene93k,

Thanks for your edits to the Valhalla High School (New York) Wiki page. I am really a beginner (as you can tell), so I am still learning ...

I based my initial changes on the Wiki page of the Horace Greeley High School, which is close to Valhalla. Please have a look at that page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Greeley_High_School.

It seems like that school's page is full of text meant for promotional purposes and "academic boosterism" ... And I don't see citations for all of these entries there, either. Is all of that allowed?

Could I just add a reference to, for example, the fact that Valhalla High School was granted the Blue Ribbon award? I will then leave the description of the school, etc. out. I realize that I will have to provide a proper citation.

Thanks for your help!

Halvalla

(18:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halvalla (talk • contribs)

• @Halvalla: While Horace Greely High School is also on my watch list, I haven't looked at it for quite a while. A quick glance tells me that it needs a substantial clean up. That said, existing problem content does not justify other problem content. The new content at Valhalla was obviously problematic enough to revert. It is okay to note a Blue Ribbon distinction. It is not okay to copy and paste what the school says about itself in the first person. If VHS clubs and athletics are distinctive, state facts that you can cite to reliable independent references. I can see that HGHS club content is unsourced, the references for sports do not appear to support the content, and the notable alumni section is already tagged for issues. I will see what can be salvaged. You can find additional guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article advice. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

SpaceNinja80 (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC) I didn't want to start a new thread just to say hi back. My edits were automatically signed when I was responding to the talk page from my phone. It's interesting that my first acquaintance is such an accomplished contributor. It looks like our areas of expertise will overlap in places. I'm still trying to figure out how to set up my own user page. Did you have to compile the user facts for yourself, or will WP generate those? If I contribute 10 individual items to the list I'm working on, will WP credit me for 10 edits? Will I have to create new pages for the red items? I'm also proofreading a translated article given to me when I signed up, but I need paper media to source. I'll get around to the tutorials when I'm done correcting the grammar. Advice is welcome in the meantime. Thanks again. SpaceNinja80 (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Stephen Kelly concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Stephen Kelly, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

AfD

Thanks for expressing exactly what I was trying to say, only much better. Couldn't remember that link for the life of me, and you stated your argument better too. I guess not being able to go to work has me a bit addled. John from Idegon (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Need help

Hi, can you please tell me if this a reliable source or not? Thanks.মোহাম্মাদ ইসমাইল (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• @মোহাম্মাদ ইসমাইল: Short answer: credibly verifies XBIZ's assessment but is of little value as evidence of notability. The article is an obvious press release. Even if you accept it as a reliable reference, it is not count as significant coverage to pass WP:BASIC for the persons, WP:NFILM for the videos nor WP:CORPDEPTH for the companies and products. The XBIZ Award generally lacks the coverage of independent sources to support claims of WP:ENT notability. Moreover, porn award nominations ceased to count towards notability years ago, long before WP:PORNBIO was taken down. • Gene93k (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for making it clear. What do you think about this? and what is the difference between this and this source?মোহাম্মাদ ইসমাইল (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• @মোহাম্মাদ ইসমাইল: Few porn sites are considered reliable. Nearly all, including thelordofporn.com, are self-published. Porn trade press, such as AVN and XBIZ, may be considered reliable, but most of their articles are republished press releases. Comparing porn awards with mainstream arts and science awards has been done to death at AfD. The key difference is coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the award's recipient and its granting body. You can do a quick GNews search on the Man Booker Prize 2011. 35th AVN Awards gets some incidental coverage from independent reliable sources, but almost nothing about the award winners. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the answer.মোহাম্মাদ ইসমাইল (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Stephen Kelly

Hello, Gene93k. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Stephen Kelly".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Gene93k, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Purezza concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Purezza, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

New Delsort category

Deletion sorting

Since you sometimes perform deletion sorting for AfD discussions, check out the new Delsort category/page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Products. Take a look, and note the criteria for posting there, listed atop the page in a box. Thanks for your work to manage Wikipedia! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Ricky Martinez

hallo, I must have done something wrong when I nominated AFD Ricky Martinez, from his page I can find the reasons I gave for the deletion but here it shows the old debate. Can you please help me?. thank you --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• @AlejandroLeloirRey: The AfD debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricky Martinez (3rd nomination) looks okay, and the article's AfD tag points to it correctly. The edit summary pointed to the old nom, but a dummy edit can fix that. I haven't check the daily log yet. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• @AlejandroLeloirRey: P.S. I just fixed the daily log entry. Everything should be set. This is why I use Twinkle especially for 2nd nominations and onward. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

thank you, I appreciate it. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Purezza

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Purezza, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Praxidicae (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: The real creator of the page is Fatbobcat22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who has just been notified. Apparently, the article was promptly recreated at the leftover draft redirect when the main space article was deleted. The pattern is 1. Create a stub that can get past AfC; 2. Load up the advertising once the page is published. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't check who it notified. Sadly this was actually accepted by an AFCer...Praxidicae (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Praxidicae: Not your fault. I approved the previous version at AfC. That's my part of this mess. Purezza appeared to pass WP:CORP when I approved it, but it's really not worth the trouble. Nuke and pave at the very least. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Request on 17:33:31, 24 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by 1836Texas~Republic1846

• 1836Texas~Republic1846 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Waco Fire Department (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Request for a further review of the article. I am asking that you further review the article I have submitted, and take note that all content is purely factual, with sources for the facts provided. I understand the strive that all articles have an extended reference list so to ensure the accuracy and legitimacy of as much information as possible. However, the subject of my article is a difficult one to find so many sources, and not because of a lack of importance. It is merely due to the subject itself. I can assure you that such an article is used extensively by many forms of people, including personnel in the fire service profession, as a reference for study, material and resource reference. As a simple search will show, many articles are about Fire Departments throughout the world, with many of their references being the same type as the ones I have listed. This is because as a municipal government department, there are not an abundant of sources out there available to cite other than the ones already listed, but this does not remove from the significance of the subject matter. Many of these other pages also have alerts at the top of their pages, mostly due to the same reasons mine has been rejected, a lack of references cited. These pages are still important and of great help to the people that read them. I know you can see that I myself, have not written any other articles before, but I have used many that contain information of Fire Departments, and I know the importance that these articles serve, so it is difficult for me to agree with your uninformed decision that this article is simply not "Wikipedia Worthy."

1836Texas~Republic1846 (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• @1836Texas~Republic1846: The draft is substantially unchanged since the original submission. The previous reviewer tagged the draft for possible copyright infringement. I see no effort to address this problem Proof of permission would only be the first step. Please familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guideline, especially the WP:ORGDEPTH section (depth and audience of coverage). The only reference that plausibly meets the WP:ORGDEPTH standard is the book citation, which I cannot evaluate online. The book by itself is not enough. The general notability guideline requires multiple non-trivial coverage by reliable published sources that are both independent of the subject and intellectually independent of one another. In addition, the WP:ORGDEPTH states that routine coverage (announcements, personnel changes, etc.) and local news sources don't count. The content may be true. However, the content must be editors' own words based on facts that are verifiable through citations to independent reliable sources. Even if you can prove permission to use the text, the article should not be based primarily on what the department or the City of Waco says. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• What you have failed to notice, is that the material originally flagged as copyright infringement (which is false, but I digress), was the departments logo (image). This was removed by the FIRST rejection. It was mistaken to be flagged as a copyright issue, but the article doesn't NEED the logo, so it has been removed and I have no intentions at this time of even attempting to use it. The fact that you cannot find vast information on the book cited, is the fact that only a small number of copies were ever printed. I believe if possible to even find, Amazon would be the only place to buy it, and I doubt they even have a copy anymore. Every single line of text was typed by myself, with the knowledge I have gained from the sources cited, as well as gathering MUCH of the information on my own, from the department itself. Which obviously, is not published, but is also public information seeing as how the topic is a department within a municipal government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1836Texas~Republic1846 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• @1836Texas~Republic1846:It's not that I failed to notice. A draft copyright flag, placing the draft in Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations, is about content. The reviewer who tagged the draft, Dan arndt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), can clarify why they tagged the draft. Again, copyright is only the first hurdle. The citation style is vague at best, completely lacking in inline citations. Inline citations match the facts asserted to the reliable references that can verify them. If the reference is a book, the references need specific page numbers. A book can be found in a library where a reader can verify. The publisher calls itself a printer of commemorative books, and a Worldcat search only lists the book in two libraries, the Library of Congress and the Waco-McLennan County Library. Again, however reliable that source is, it is still one published source where multiple sources are required. Facts need to be compiled from published sources. If you are getting non-published information from the department itself, you are doing original research, which is against Wikipedia's core content policies. Inline citations also serve to keep out original research. If two or more independent, reliable, non-local published sources describe the department in a non-routine and non-trivial manner, the department is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The draft is short of that. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

afd

Hallo, i am sorry to disturb you. I nominated J. D. Slater Again but on the page of the AFD of today I see the old discussion. did I do something wrong? thank you --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• @AlejandroLeloirRey: I see that you fixed the nomination. If you are doing a 2nd, 3rd... nomination by hand, please use the {{Afdx}} instead (for example, {{subst:afdx}}, {{subst:afdx|3rd}} or {{subst:afd|PAGENAME (2nd nomination)}}). Again, Twinkle automates this process, saving substantial effort and grief. Twinkle is available as user preferences checkbox item. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

thank you. I really appreciate ur help. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cellcast Group

The article Cellcast Group has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The organisation is not notable, the article also contains significantly inaccurate information, the article is about a company that has launched Babestation and Psychic Today on to various TV platforms. The sources that exist are about the channels, not the parent company. The article has no hope of meeting WP:NCORP notability criteria. - "A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries. The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ForExampleFromWahWei (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol Granted

Hi Gene93k. Based on your experience at Articles for Creation and because you have the autopatrol permission, I have added you to the "New page reviewers" user group for three months. Please check back at WP:PERM if you would like to make it permanent. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. The culture around NPP is a bit different than AFC. So, before doing any new page patrols you need read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.
• This allows you to "unreview" an accepted article from AFC to allow a second look while in mainspace. To do this simply click the green check after accepting an article from AFC.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

My Draft

Hello, it says that you have reviewed my draft, Saint Lucia national under-20 football team, but I have no knowledge whatsoever on if you have accepted or declined the draft. Please do so soon.

Thanks and best wishes, --WellThisIsTheReaper, 15:50, 15 Octoer, 2020

• @WellThisIsTheReaper: I just did the new page patrol function (confirming a legitimate page). As for being ready to publish, I will leave that to editors more familiar with WP:WikiProject Football's guidelines. That said, I may do some technical clean up, time permitting. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi User:Gene93k, thanks for reviewing my article Molly Stewart (pornographic actress). I have other articles waiting to be reviewed as well, when there is time please assist me with that. --Ajpoundz (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

"The 2019 conspiracy is an end product of long-running conspiracy spinning."

Can you explain this a bit? I don't see how a person, even a president, can theorize about a conspiracy relating to a scandal that hasn't happened yet. I understand how he'd refer to the Ukraine scandal involving Hunter Biden's 2014 appointment, but the Ukraine scandal in the sentence I corrected is clearly the one involving Trump's 2019 phone call. Thinking about THAT scandal in 2016 is impossible, no? Anyway, thanks in advance, I'm probably missing something really easy here and will feel stupid for asking later! 142.51.204.154 (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic data Saint Lucia

It is good to see you are doing a fine job of updating the covid data for Saint Lucia. Are you aware firstly that toady's figure seems to be revised downwards by one? and also however, that the days press release has a different figure to the dashboard? Sill that's better than Dominica where "new" press releases are at least a week old Simuliid talk 19:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Simuliid: The dashboard gets updated last, sometimes a day later. The Ministry of Health is the source for all St. Lucia numbers. Today's total has been updated to 8 new cases.[1] In recent days, the Chief Medical Officer announces the day's test results on the TV news first. I then look for an official posting. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Gene93k,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Rita Pavone albums

A tag has been placed on Category:Rita Pavone albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)