Wikipedia

Wikipedia:XfD today

Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
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
Template Large category TOC via CatAutoTOC on category with 1,201–2,000 pages
Template Large category TOC via CatAutoTOC on category with 2,001–5,000 pages
Template Large category TOC via CatAutoTOC on category with 5,001–10,000 pages
Template Large category TOC via CatAutoTOC on category with 10,001–20,000 pages
Template Large category TOC via CatAutoTOC on category with over 20,000 pages
2024 in Russia & Ukraine
Battle of Sindan
Draft:Choclate milk
Draft:List of Indian Kingdoms overthrown due to Muslim conquests
Draft:Pancho Mansfield
Mr Curry
Mrs Bird
Plasma protein
Draft:Sheluvsstutt
User:Snigdhakm/sandbox
Southlake Carroll Dragons Football

Articles edit

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 10

Files edit

File:VINCE COLLETTA PAINTING BY ROMEO TANGHAL SR.jpg edit

File:VINCE COLLETTA PAINTING BY ROMEO TANGHAL SR.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Franklin222 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Evidence of permission from the artist is needed. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Mr. Tanghal's email response to my asking for permission to use the painting of my father, Vince Colletta.
romeo tanghal <tanghalromeosr at yahoo.com>
Tue, May 16, 2023, 11:53 AM
to me
Hey Frankie,
Yeah, it's OK to post.
Romeo Tanghal Sr. Franklin222 (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Franklin222: Please follow the instructions at c:Commons:Volunteer Response Team and have the artist forward their correspondence to the VRT. Ixfd64 (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ethnic Composition of the Armed Forces in Burma, 1931.jpg edit

File:Ethnic Composition of the Armed Forces in Burma, 1931.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RDeckers (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Nominated for speedy deletion by Battlesnake1 with the reason: "Replaced with table in the Karen conflict article". Wikiacc () 01:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aoid2.png edit

File:Aoid2.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GanzKnusper (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Substantially similar to standard cover, no need for more non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ratboys AOID alternate cassette cover.png edit

File:Ratboys AOID alternate cassette cover.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GanzKnusper (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Substantially similar to standard cover, no need for more non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For this file and the one above, am I right in thinking that from the non-free content criteria (WP:NFCCP), the one that would be violated here is 3a: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information"? Or 8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic"?
(I am uploader of the files, but I'm trying to be unbiased here - I am new and still learning!) GanzKnusper (talk) 08:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TresHanley2007.jpg edit

File:TresHanley2007.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by PleeUK (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphan image, article where the image was used, was deleted recently: (WP:Articles for deletion/Trés Hanley). Delete per WP:NOTFILESTORAGE. Mika1h (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Camila Cabello - C,XOXO.jpg edit

File:Camila Cabello - C,XOXO.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by H9v9n9 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per WP:NFCC#3a, the main cover File:Camila Cabello - C,XOXO.png conveys equivalent significant information pertaining to C,XOXO. And, per #8 of the same policy, the inclusion of this artwork will not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. livelikemusic (TALK!) 15:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously no. The main cover doesn't covery equivalent significant information pertaining to C,XOXO because the latter one was made available for multiple significant retailers like HMV and Target, which means the first part of your opinion doesn't make sense. The inclusion of alternative covers for Guts and Sour proved it's necessary to let it be there, and not to remove it. Moreover, the alternative cover contains the title C,XOXO with the new font this era used everywhere, which is also the brand of this album, which means it's necessary to leave this alternative cover alone and not to remove it. In fact, the inclusion of this artwork will significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding, definitely. H9v9n9 (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories edit

NEW NOMINATIONS edit

Category:Drakengard edit

Nominator's rationale: There seems to be enough articles for a split, with 11 going to Nier and 7 going to Drakengard. Bringing to CFD as I am uncertain in this split, and with Nier not having a series article yet. Category:Nier would also likely be a subcategory of Category:Drakengard. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rhino Records albums edit

Nominator's rationale: Rhino Records was renamed to Rhino Entertainment. Same company shouldn't have separate categories. Add all three renames to Category:Rhino Entertainment. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gruppo API edit

Nominator's rationale: Category contains 1 eponymous article and 1 redirect, which is targeted to the same eponymous article. Gjs238 (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-denominational edit

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC/U#not-based * Pppery * it has begun... 18:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People educated at Alcester Grammar School edit

Nominator's rationale: Superseded by the list at Alcester Grammar School#Notable alumni, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: a list on a single article is no reason to reject a category accomplishing the same task in a different area of the site. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People educated at De La Salle College Dundalk edit

Nominator's rationale: Superseded by the same list at De La Salle College Dundalk#Notable alumni, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: a list on a single article is no reason to reject a category accomplishing the same task in a different area of the site. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People educated at Coláiste an Phiarsaigh edit

Nominator's rationale: Unneeded category - Only 2 entries which I've added to the school article, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: a list on a single article is no reason to reject a category accomplishing the same task in a different area of the site. Plus, there are now twice as many entries as there were at time of proposal. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nance Family edit

Nominator's rationale: Only three entries and no others to add. Not necessary to have a family category when this is the most there will ever be in it. SportsGuy789 (talk) 04:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the articles are already directly interlinked in the body text of the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:14th-century French Sephardi Jews edit

Nominator's rationale: 3x upmerge for now. It's not helpful for navigation to diffuse 14th/13th century sephardi jews by nationality when theres only one or two people in the category Mason (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete, one article is about a Jew who wasn't of Spanish origin, the other about an ex-Jew who wasn't French. Generally the concept of French Sephardi Jews does not make much sense before 1492 (Alhambra Decree). Marcocapelle (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects edit

Template:R ac edit

Ambiguous between {{r acronym}} and {{r from alt cap}}. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Trotskij edit

"Trotskij" appears to be the spelling of Trotsky's name in various North Germanic languages and this spelling isn't used in the article. The mention in the article was removed as part of another RfD for Lev Trotskij that was deleted. Delete this as well. Jay 💬 19:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Council edit

Currently redirects to Basingstoke (UK Parliament constituency)#Elections in the 2000s because someone used "Millennium Council" as a ballot paper description while standing for election in Basingstoke, England 2005. He received 0.3% of the vote. Not sure this is appropriate nor the most suitable target. Suggest deleting or retargeting to White House Millennium Council. AusLondonder (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANDSF edit

Likely primary topic is Afghan National Security Forces, not this internet protocol component. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANDSF (disambiguation) will likely be deleted unless it decided to be moved to this title. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nominator. Internet search results for "ANDSF" alone refer overwhelmingly to the former military. --NFSreloaded (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget and add hatnote per nom. Okmrman (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Merica edit

These should point to the same place. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the second redirect was subject to several prior RfDs resulting in the current target. I created the first one over a salt to match the second one, and then it was boldly retargeted using an argument that could apply to both IMO. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that Murica is a disambiguation page including a listing for 'Murica as a term referring to the United States. That would at least seem to be a better target than the Wiktionary entry. BD2412 T 15:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Murica per BD2412. I'll note that that disambiguation page was at the time of the 2018 discussion just a redirect to Murcia. Skynxnex (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Desi (Tibetan) edit

The target doesn't tell me what "Desi" means in the context of Tibet. Is there a better target, or should we delete it if there's no substantive information? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The most substantive information I can find is at Dalai Lama, where the term is used several times and briefly defined once as "regent" or "viceroy." I am not sure that would be a suitable target, however, since the discussion is so brief. It might be better to leave as a redlink or perhaps find a more suitable article where a substantive mention could be added (maybe Ganden Phodrang?). - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jhanak edit

Redirect with confusing history left over from promotional copy-and-paste moving. A draft of this television show exists at Draft:Jhanak (and has also been created at other titles). Target is one of the networks it has aired on, but has no information on the show at all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freaky deaky Dutch edit

possible WP:FANCRUFT Okmrman (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pan-American English edit

I just created it but I'm not sure if it's the best idea. I based it on Pan-American Spanish, but English language has no specific article for all the Americas. Or does it have under another name? --MikutoH talk! 22:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M. edit

English Wikipedia is not so closely affiliated with the French language that a single punctuated letter "M" should redirect to an article on a French word, rather than to the disambiguation page, M (disambiguation), which lists other things that might be punctuated. Retarget to M (disambiguation). BD2412 T 13:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokédex (Sinnoh) edit

retarget to the list of gen 4 pokémon? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Sinnoh Pokédex doesn't only include Gen 4 pokémon, but it isn't unlikely that someone would be looking for these specifically when typing it. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on retargeting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the current and proposed target talk pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

98.0 FM (disambiguation) edit

Delete these redirects, because whilst the targets of these redirects list radio stations that broadcast the respective frequencies, they are not disambiguation pages, or pages that disambiguate articles that might otherwise be called e,g. "99.9 FM" (i.e. they are not disambiguation-like pages). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:CHEAP. I can't speak to other countries, but, in the U.S., referring to radio stations by their frequencies is fairly common (more so than being referred to by their callsigns). It seems plausible that a searcher would look for a specific station by its frequency. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Presidentman - 98.5 FM is close enough to a dab page for me. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:FLUFF edit

Should have the same target as MOS:PUFFERY. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is "broke", per the outcome of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 25#Wikipedia:PUFF. Whether or not fluff is associated with the manual of style is the question, as it would be more helpful to point to a policy page rather than a user essay if it does. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The essay reads to me like a combination of MOS:PUFFERY and WP:RELEVANCE, WP:BLOATED, WP:FART or other explanations related to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Looking through the internal links (there aren't many), I can see people using it to refer to these ideas and not just language-use as seen at MOS:PUFFERY. As a note: there was an 11 y/o redlink that got filled out by this redirect (~8 years ahead of the WP:FLUFF's creation) and the target makes sense in the context of that discussion. Seems intuitive based on that and useful enough. ― Synpath 01:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go. Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of Taiwan edit

Propose reverting target to Constitution of the Republic of China. I know there is a hatnote, but not sure why it was boldly retargeted. All references to "Constitution of Taiwan" in reliable sources I could find were referring to the original document, not any amendments unless explicitly stated. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Swedish Football Division 2 edit

The target article gives no information whatsoever on the 2016 season of the Division 2. It was created "as to avoid redlink at 2015 Swedish Football Division 1 article", which is not a good reason, since a red link would do no harm at 2015 Swedish Football Division 1, and could lead to an actual article being created about the 2016 Swedish Football Division 2. The redirect inhibits that. Geschichte (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coutroom edit

This redirect has an error in the title Мункач Варош (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, harmless and has been around since 2005. Geschichte (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Plausible error Okmrman (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRRRD edit

These two have similar names, but redirect to different pages. I'm unsure what these should redirect to, but I'm leaning towards a retarget both to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#Edit warring. mwwv(converse) 17:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both - They're harmless and currently being used by a handful of users each on talk pages. No need to break it for them. If REALLY necessary (and it isn't) I don't object to retargeting both to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#Edit warring, but it just doesn't seem necessary. Redirects are WP:CHEAP, and these are and have been useful to someone. It's not a harmful or ambiguous thing, it's not going to effect normal users, no one is going to search for these... yeah, these may be jocular, but they can make a useful rhetorical point. Again, while there was no real need to create them in the first place, there's no harm in having them either. Fieari (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XJP edit

Wikipedia:GLOBAL，When "XJP" comes to my mind, I'd like to think of it as "Xi JinPing", "Singapore" (the abbre. Roman spell of 新加坡), and "X Japan". I feel confused of whether "XJP" could be an appropriate redirection or not, so I'd like to start a discussion about it. Sinsyuan✍️🌏🚀 02:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules edit

Template:Keiser Seahawks football coach navbox edit

Only three total blue links that lead to individual standalone articles and two total transclusions does not warrant existence of this navigation template. No prejudice against recreation once enough articles have been created related to this topic. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Keiser Seahawks football navbox edit

Only two total blue links that lead to individual standalone articles and two total transclusions does not warrant existence of this navigation template. No prejudice against recreation once enough articles have been created related to this topic. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Madonna Crusaders football coach navbox edit

Only one blue link that goes to a standalone article, not enough to warrant existence of this navbox. It is only transcluded on one mainspace article, which does not meet WP:TG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deleted template edit

Underutilized template that is redundant to several other templates and methods. If we need to ensure old revisions are correctly visible, we should use Internet Archive or some other archiving utility and should not rely on the MediaWiki software. Pointless templates are probably going to be depopulated and deleted anyway and having something like this is unhelpful. Awesome Aasim 14:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nominator makes assertions without support and make illogical arguments.
"Underutilized template that is redundant to several other templates and methods."
Yes, it's underutilized. You can help fix that by utilizing it. Deleting it would make it non-utilized and non-utilizable.
What other templates and methods? Don't be vague list them all!
"we should use Internet Archive"
OK, go and sort that out, then come back and ask to delete the on-wiki method. Don't break something on the off chance that someone might, perhaps, one day, make something maybe as good or maybe better.
"...probably going to be deleted anyway..."
This statement - what even is it? It's like going out and breaking windows because "they are probably going to be broken anyway." Even if it's true, let them stay unbroken for as long as possible.[1]
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
The problem is this template is underutilized. Why should we be too worried about old revisions? This template has existed since 2011 (almost 13 years to demonstrate that this template has use) and only has 32 active transclusions. This is probably indicative that there is not much prospect for this template. Deprecated templates are already tagged with {{deprecated}}. I would not mind redirecting to that. Awesome Aasim 21:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ I think this is a previously uncategorised type of fallacy, I hereby dub it the "might-ought" fallacy.
  • Awesome Aasim, redundant to several other templates and methods What are those? If you are going to claim redundancy, you should be able to point to the specific other templates and methods. Izno (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for all the reasons why we're keeping an article history and not just relying on Internet Archive for everything. 32 transclusions is more than enough to justify keeping it. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Chaotic Enby Only 3 of which are on templates. Always consider context to numbers like "it's like 30 times" or "it's transcluded 5". Izno (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point indeed, I missed that part. I assumed that the message was counting transclusions in template space only, but the context helps, I'll be retracting my vote. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What Links Here is actually missing a few transclusions for some reason (probably because those transclusions are wrapped in <includeonly>). {{Expand}} also uses {{Deleted template}} but doesn't show up. Who knows how many other transclusions are missing? Nickps (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This wikitext search indicates that there are 5 pages in the Template namespace which call this template. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 12:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed the link because it was broken. I hope you don't mind. I also notified WT:RFD of this discussion due to the RfD template your query found. Nickps (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Transclusion count doesn't take old revisions into account, and those old revisions are precisely the purpose of this template. jlwoodwa (talk) 09:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am simply correcting the completely misleading statement about how often this template is meaningfully used. You'll note no comment in this discussion from me that actually gives an opinion on whether this template should actually exist. Izno (talk) 05:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Administrator note a full list of templates containing this template (currently 6) is found at this search. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While it doesn't matter in this case, the regex used above is incomplete. This one is probably incomplete too but it shows some of the ways the original could have failed. Nickps (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out I was right. The regex above is incomplete. Here's another attempt that's probably wrong too. We really shouldn't be using regex for this. Nickps (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My above comments are pointless. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#What Links Here misses links/transclusions wrapped in includeonly for the reasons regex is a bad idea. Nickps (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2024 Upper Midwest Athletic Conference football standings edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This group of templates for Upper Midwest Athletic Conference football standings are only used on one page each, so no need for templates to exist at this time per WP:TG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; these templates are now all used on two articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Immigration sidebar edit

A template with no meaningful content, yet may not be suitable for CSD. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 05:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn Appears to have broken this in Special:diff/1212752126, where they replaced all the sidebar parameters with "list" parameters for some reason? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to have been moved/merged to the navigational box {{Immigration}}, and after that the sidebar template is deprecated. There's certainly a possibility of rescue. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 10:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem has nothing to do with a merge or depreciation, the templates have always worked like this. {{immigration}} can display either a navbox or a sidebar, depending upon which parameters you pass to it. {{Immigration sidebar}} just calls the sidebar version of {{immigration}}. The sidebar code for {{immigration}} was broken about a month ago for some reason. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. All I did was revert the last edit, which had locked the navbox from opening. Please watch out that when deleting the sidebar that the {{Immigration}} navbox isn't deleted (it is linked to the sidebar for some reason). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn It looks like people have been going back and forth breaking the infobox to fix the side bar and vice versa. You broke the sidebar but fixed the navbox, jarble broke the navbox to fix the sidebar, 2603:8001:... broke the sidebar to fix the navbox etc. I've edited the template so hopefully both versions will work, and added a bit of documentation to warn people to check both versions of the template. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing them as far as possible. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sidebar and the footer, 86.23.109.101 has done a fix which shows the content as still existing (see above notes). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Approx edit

According to its doc page, this template exists because the HTML entity ≈ (&approx;) didn't work on WP at some point. Since it works now there's no reason to keep it around anymore. At some point the template also got an abbreviation tooltip if an optional parameter is provided as in ‹See Tfd› ≈. This functionality is very rarely used [1] and is redundant when {{approx.}} exists. The uses of the template that don't use the abbreviation parameter can all be either subst:ed or replaced with the HTML entity without consequence. Nickps (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kinddddddddddd of inclined to make this a subst-only template, without the inclusion of the {{abbr}} thing going on. The only pause given is the similarly named {{approx.}} as identified by the nom. But yes, generally tend toward the "we don't generally need a 'living' template" end of the spectrum. Izno (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany edit

Deletion review edit

Draft:Kashana Cauley edit

Draft:Kashana Cauley (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This draft was nominated under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, and - after the discussion had been open for over a week - it was procedurally closed by a non-admin after their moving of the draft to mainspace. As I mentioned on the closer's talk, I believe that this was a bad close for several reasons:

  • I don't believe that it was fair towards the nominator or the discussion's participants for the (reasonably well-attended) MfD to have been procedurally closed based on a move that occurred some time after the discussion had started (in addition, I would question whether it's appropriate to move a draft currently at MfD to mainspace at all, given that this could effectively short-circuit/nullify any discussion that had already taken place). I see this as especially true due to the fact that, in this situation, the same rationale - WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE - applies regardless of the discussion venue.
  • Given the split of opinions expressed by editors in the MfD, I believe that this was a WP:BADNAC - i.e., that [t]he outcome [was] a close call...or likely to be controversial, and so the MfD should therefore have been closed by an administrator. (I'd also argue that closing this discussion as procedural close was likely to be controversial in and of itself.)
  • The closer was involved with regards to the page in question, having edited the draft and accepted it/moved it to mainspace. I disagree with the closer's assertion that their involvement does not matter...because the close is of a procedural type - there is nothing in WP:PROCEDURAL that excludes such closes from the requirement to be uninvolved, and I don't believe that this is an appropriate situation to IAR.

I therefore believe that the closure should be overturned, and the page moved back to draftspace pending the outcome of the MfD. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 11:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse own procedural close. The close was a mere recording of an objective fact that the discussed page is no more from the standpoint of MfD. There had been a draft and then the draft was no more, so there's nothing to do in an MfD. That's not a close call or a non-close call, it's not a call. There is no dispute in which I might be involved. The AfC accept was not an outcome of the MfD discussion. The mainspacing comes fist in time and in the logic of things. The close is just a recording an objective fact that came first, indpendently from the MfD. I could, in my independent capacity, and I did, accept the submission because the submission is okay, and that is for an AfC reviewer to decide, not for MfD, as MfD is not a venue to review pending AfC submissions. A running MfD does not suspend AfC, and does not transform drafting from an optional to an obligatory apparatus. Once the move is performed WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies and the only recourse is AfD. I notified the concerned subject at User talk:Blacksun83#Article instructing her to start an AfD if they wish.—Alalch E. 11:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Following this logic, if there was an AfD open, and someone unilaterally moved it to draft during the discussion, would that mean that the AfD would need to be procedurally closed as "the discussed page is no more from the standpoint of [AfD]. There had been a[n article] and then the [article] was no more, so there's nothing to do in an [AfD]"? I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with unilateral page moves to render a discussion mid-way through moot. Daniel (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It isn't symmetrical. Drafting is an optional mechanism, subservient to the encyclopedia in the narrower sense (the article space). Article space takes precedence and is where the matter of what pages constitute the encyclopedia gets truly settled. It would not be appropriate to move to draftspace during a running AfD, but it is appropriate to mainspace during a running MfD. MfD discussions about deleting drafts quickly stop making sense when editors in good standing (multiple in this case) start believing that the page should not be a draft but an article. That's generally when MfD should stop and AfD should start. MfDs to delete drafts are for very problematic pages that exist as drafts for which no one thinks they are worthy of article space, and the issue is whether it's sufficiently important and purposeful to delete those drafts before G13 kicks in (often a pretty esoteric question and often useless to even contemplate). When a reasonable AfC submission is made and editors exist who believe that not only should the page not be deleted, but that it should be an article (entirely different from merely not deleting the draft which is independent from the issue of whether that page will ever become an article), that transforms the nature of the dispute: It's not about whether to delete quicker than the natural course of things dictates, it's about whether to have or not to have a particular article in the encyclopedia, which is an issue of article deletion/retention, and is no longer a topical matter in an MfD. —Alalch E. 12:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can sort-of accept that. I'll say endorse close of the MfD, while noting I'm still not 100% sold on the act of moving an article from Draft to mainspace halfway through an MfD. But that's a totally different conversation. Daniel (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close this and start a fresh AfD. WP:BADNAC is there to prevent adjudication by those who don't have the tools, the experience, or the trust of the community to close such discussions. However, in this case, no adjudication was required. The closer merely informed participants that the MfD was now moot, as the closer has already moved the article to mainspace. Yes, it was the same closer who moved the page from draft to mainspace, but they did so rigorously following our AfC guidelines. Since no adjudication was required in the procedural close of the MfD, the issue of WP:INVOLVED is also of no practical bearing. Had Alalch E. accepted the AfC and asked a fellow editor to close the MfD, the result couldn't have been any different. Such an extra step seems redundant, although it's fair to ask whether it should be followed for appearances sake.
Should the AfC have been accepted while the MfD was open? A case could be made for withholding AfC acceptance until the MfD (which was already open for nine days!) was closed, although I don't see any such requirement in our policies. But what would be the benefit of such a delay? Deleting the draft would not create a G4 basis for deleting a subsequent mainspace article anyway. And with sourcing that meets our BLP policy, any editor, including the original author of the draft, would be rightly encouraged to recreate the article for an apparently notable person. Which brings me to my recommendation of withdrawing this DRV, and starting a fresh AfD for the article, ideally notifying all the participants of the MfD. Once deleted in mainspace, recreation will be restricted based on our policies, which is the remedy the appellant and the subject of the article are seeking. Owen× ☎ 12:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Hi, I am the subject of the article as well as the nominator, and I think this outcome was fair to me, the person who made the deletion request in the first place, for reasons I will explain below. I became aware that there was a draft about me when I started to be deluged by scammers who wanted me to pay them to rewrite it and get it accepted. It got so bad that I took my publicly available email off the internet, but they still kept coming. I figured I had two options to try and get them to stop contacting me: I could try to get the article deleted, or I could try to get it accepted. Acceptance seemed complicated and less favorable, since I honestly thought the draft should have been accepted in the first place, since my novel was selected for two things: indies introduce and indie next, that are an enormous deal in the book world. So when it was declined, I realized I didn’t know what qualified for wiki acceptance, or even how to go about trying to get acceptance without running afoul of the conflict of interest guidelines. Requesting a deletion seemed like the more straightforward option, so I tried that. I was well aware that I might be deemed notable over the course of the review, since my novel has enjoyed even more of the non-interview, secondary coverage you all prefer here since the first version of the article was submitted. I have looked over the accepted article and think it is accurate, and a fine article to have on Wikipedia. Having an accepted article will also make the scammers who want me to pay to get an article accepted lose interest in emailing me all the time, so it is also, in my opinion, an ok option, and an outcome that fulfills my original goal of defeating the scammers. I obviously cannot speak for all the people involved in the other discussion, and for all I know, if the article is kept an entirely new type of scammer may fall out of the sky, but the outcome of all of this is an article I approve of. Thank you, User talk:Alalch E.. Blacksun83 (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome. You're also welcome to suggest changes to the article on its talk page, especially as new independent reliable sources emerge in the future, enabling more comprehensive coverage. I'm sorry about your experience with the scammers. The best way to protect Wikipedia from disruption from the scammers is to keep our processes sane and clean and keep priorities straight at all times. —Alalch E. 13:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Will do! Thanks again! Blacksun83 (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • IAR Delete which I am fully aware isn't an answer here. When you have a draft that the subject does not want, for myriad reasons, moving it to mainspace because you can is not what should be done especially when consensus at MfD is trending toward deletion. This is not what is intended by draftspace being optional. So within policy, move back to draft space where there are fewer eyes on it, and let the MfD run. If consensus changes, AfC can be determined. Star Mississippi 13:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC) Leaving the first part, which was less about this situation and more in general of procedure. But in light of the subject's comment (thanks both for the heads up) I guess my BLP comment is moot. To closer: please don't let my comment stand in the way. Star Mississippi 14:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please take a look at the comment by the user who says they are the subject and who had originated the BLPREQUESTDELETE left in this DRV: Special:Diff/1223182504/1223192509 —Alalch E. 14:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as appellant: Following the comment here by the article's subject, I no longer seek this page's deletion/moving back to draftspace. I'm not closing this review as withdrawn, as I still believe that the closure was procedurally erroneous given the information available at the time (and so stand by my request for its review), as other editors have commented on the issue of moving the draft to mainspace mid-MfD, and as I can't speak for all of the participants who !voted delete in that discussion. That being said, I'd like to apologise to Blacksun83 for the somewhat drawn-out process that this has become, and for any part I've played in that - and I hope that this puts an end to you being contacted by the scammers. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 14:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, and thank you. Blacksun83 (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Procedural MfD close. Whether moving something from draft to mainspace while an MfD is in process is procedurally appropriate is a separate question, but an MfD can't delete a mainspace article, full stop, so the close was proper. Separately, the article subject appears notable based on the coverage in the article at the time I write this, so regardless of what it looked like before, it almost certainly should not be deleted on the basis of subject request, because LPI/NPF is for edge cases and does not apply to someone who unequivocally meets notability criteria. We should explore other ways besides deletion to help the article subject minimize disruption brought on by becoming "notable" in Wikipedia's eyes. Jclemens (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse procedural MFD close per above. Anyone can start an AFD on the newly mainspaced article if they so choose. Frank Anchor 16:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:XfD_today&oldid=1222059439"