Wikipedia

Wikipedia:XfD today

(Redirected from 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
Apart Group
User:DAMOP12/sandbox
Draft:Dastan Laveri
Don Siage
Draft:Eric Babak
Draft:Jaeigh Gallagher
User:Kanika2108/sandbox
Draft:Martina Dimoska
Wikipedia:Namespace/Shalses
Template:Peach Tree Rascals
Pedophile Island
Draft:QYYTYYMITES
Wikipedia:Shalses
Draft:The Fence and the Fox

Articles

edit
< June 13 June 15 >

Purge server cache

M. Firon & Co.

edit
M. Firon & Co. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see no reason this is notable. It just seems to be a law firm with no significant coverage. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Internationally operating, 8th-largest law firm of Israel with plenty of coverage in 74 (!) years of existence. Easy pass of NORG. Unclear how this could have nevertheless been nominated. gidonb (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment @Gidonb, could you provide a few hebrew RS with sigcov? FortunateSons (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had put a few references in the article when I removed the reference warning. There are plenty of sources out there by the golden NEXIST rule. Nom's It just seems to be a law firm with no significant coverage doesn't convey a solid BEFORE. We can belittle any company or topic by putting "it just seems to be" before, while claiming that there seems to be no SIGCOV. Seems to be is extremely uncommitted. Such nominations are better not made as we have too many nominations already. M. Firon & Co is definitely not just a law firm. It's steadily one of Israel's top 10 law firms (currently number 8) and has been around for 74 years. This was written in the article all along. gidonb (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just checking what was added. This from Globes is a company announcement about expanding to Haifa with a merger and contains no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND. this in YNet is another company announcement, this time expanding to Casablanca in Morocco, also fails ORGIND. They're a big firm, as can be seen from the announcements, but that doesn't meet our criteria for notability, we need very specific types of references. HighKing++ 16:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 16:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to consider Highking's argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of photo stitching software

edit
Comparison of photo stitching software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Everything is either unsourced or reliant exclusively on primary sources discussing individual pieces of software to paint a picture that no source explicitly makes AKA performing improper synthesis. Additionally inherently violates WP:NOTDIR. Compare Dynluge's argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of XMPP server software, which I find convincing to this day and appears to be just as relevant. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Software, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is full of WP:SYNTH. Orientls (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Should be called list of photo stitching software, it listing valid information about things on the list in the various columns, with some columns that perhaps shouldn't be there. But the vast majority of things in this list article do not have any articles for them. Category:Photo stitching software shows 17 total. Those could easily fit in Image_stitching#Software. Dream Focus 21:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Ultimately, Wikipedia is a website that combines features of many other types of websites; did Diderot's Encyclopédie have a list of LOST episodes? Of course not, but we do. Yes, yes, WP:OMGWTFBBQ, I'm well acquainted with all of the policies in question; but at the end of the day these policies exist for a reason, and the reason is to create a website that meaningfully informs its readers. For sixteen years this article has done that, quite well. If we look at policies like WP:NOT you can see that they were not intended to simply purge articles on the basis of not being "serious enough" (i.e. WP:NOTCHANGELOG was specifically written to include articles consisting of Android and Chrome version histories). If this is cruft, then God bless cruft. jp×g🗯️ 11:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a discussion about sourcing. What did anything you wrote have anything to do with sourcing? HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is a discussion about whether an article titled "comparison of photo stitching software" should exist on the English Wikipedia.
    What kind of "sourcing" do you think we need for the claim that Adobe Lightroom is proprietary and not open-source? Do you actually think Adobe's own website is incorrect? What basis is there to think that?
    The topic of comparing photo-stitching software is obviously notable and many people care about it. Here are some articles about it that I found after searching for about ten seconds:
    • Coleman, Alex (September 21, 2023). "Best Panorama Stitching Software for Photography". Photography Life.
    • "Best panorama stitching software: Retouching Forum: Digital Photography Review". www.dpreview.com.
    • "What is the best photo stitching software to use in 2024? | Skylum Blog". skylum.com.
    • "8 Best Photo Stitching Software for Making Panoramas [2024]". www.movavi.com.
    • "10 Best Photo Stitching Software in 2024 (Updated)". expertphotography.com. November 8, 2021.
    • "Top Photo Stitching Software for Breathtaking Panoramas". Cole's Classroom. December 7, 2020.
    • "9 Best Photo Stitching Software To Create Panorama Images". carlcheo.com.
    People who are on the Internet looking for information (i.e. the people that this website actually exists to serve) are obviously interested in this subject, and it is not only possible but very easy for us to maintain high-quality well-sourced information for them. We do not need a long-form thinkpiece from The Atlantic to do this: we just need to cite reliable information about photo-stitching software. Adobe's website is a reasonable citation for how much Adobe's software costs. The thing being demanded here -- that somebody find a New York Times article or something listing how much Adobe Lightroom subscriptions cost, and then cite that instead of Adobe's website -- is unnecessary, unreasonable and likely impossible.

    The idea that we should destroy this information is both inexplicable and infuriating, and when people have told me they no longer enjoy using Wikipedia as a resource, about eight times out of ten it happened after watching large amounts of neutral reliably-sourced material disappear forever because somebody found it aesthetically distasteful. jp×g🗯️ 00:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, I don't think there's much of a discussion to be had. Most of the sources you listed are either not credible or don't make any meaningful comparison between software offerings, as they are essentially listings. It's notability is not obvious at all to me, and that's nothing to say of the original research in the original article, and to say that we only need to find citations for one small portion of the article is a very rose-tinted view. I'm sorry to hear that you're infuriated by this AfD, but this article should be deleted. It's not about aesthetics, it's about policy. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is about policy -- WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF are policy. Again: do you actually think Adobe's own website is incorrect? Why?

    Of course Adobe's website is not a reliable source for "Lightroom is the best and easiest-to-use software ever", but it's a reliable source for "Lightroom has a stitching mode for fisheye lenses", which is indeed what we're citing to it.

    These sources -- again, they are from the first page of a Web search, I could certainly find more if I actually went to the library -- are obviously not canonical listings of the best photo stitching software packages, they're evidence of this being a notable subject that people have a consistent and strong interest in. If you really want evidence that evaluating and comparing types of panoramic stitching software is a subject that's been given proper scholarly treatment by serious people with graduate degrees, I can also do a quick publication search.
    jp×g🗯️ 05:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those articles, ironically, describe how to stitch images without the use of the software programs listed in the article. Those sources might look authoritative, but they only cover image stitching as a general technique, for which we already have an article for. In fact, the existence of these sources are a reason to delete this article, because it shows that people tend to avoid buying expensive subscriptions for photo stitching programs in favor of DIY solutions. And again, that's nothing to say of the mountains of original research and synthesis in the original article. Tunneling on one specific use of one primary source misses the bigger picture that the nominator and two other delete votes have painted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The original research could be hypothetically cleaned up, but we'd need reliable sources that make meaningful comparisons between photo stitching software in order to preserve the article. I've found a couple self-published articles, but nothing that I would consider reliable. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:46, 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! 05:41, 30 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! 03:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer Rising (book)

edit
Lucifer Rising (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NBOOK and GNG. I was able to find one review from Melody Maker on ProQuest (which I could not actually access, but I'm going to accept it's sigcov), this however is not enough for NBOOK, which needs two. Merge/redirect to author Gavin Baddeley if there aren't more reviews? There are a few sources that are interviews with Baddeley that were printed in many newspapers, and while that would be useful for expanding the article if it passed NBOOK, does not count for notability since they don't provide independent commentary on the book itself. It's halfway there, but I haven't been able to find another review.

FWIW I did remove the sources from the page, but not a single one actually mentioned the book, just about the topics the book covered. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene C. Lee

edit
Eugene C. Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one (arguably) notable credit, likely to fail WP:NACTOR. KH-1 (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brower Youth Awards

edit
Brower Youth Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No WP:SIGCOV about the awards themselves to establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prestige Communications

edit
Prestige Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP as there is a lack of independent significant coverage. Let'srun (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foot in Mouth (EP)

edit
Foot in Mouth (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Appears to have not charted or been covered by reliable sources - May be some Japanese coverage, but difficult to locate. Mdann52 (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green Day discography#Extended plays: None of the coverage in the article is from reliable sources, and I found no reliable coverage. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Japanese title is Bakuhatsu Live! +5 and charted at number 45 on the Oricon Albums Chart. I wasn't able to find much in the way of reviews, but I admittedly only made a surface-level check (爆発ライブ!+5, if anyone wants to search further for sources). IanTEB (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this info it helps me out. i will add this to the page Stnh1206 (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has found a oricon article on this EP where it shows to have charted. number 8 on the reference page Stnh1206 (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Except it's not an EP, it's the same length and a longer track listing than the bands debut album. If it's redirected it should be to live albums, but if it's charted it shouldn't be redirected, just retitled.Hoponpop69 (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is tune in Tokyo is 33 minutes and it says it is a live ep Stnh1206 (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Commentary in relation to WP:NALBUM number two and the new information that this EP charted in Japan?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gee-Haw Stables

edit
Gee-Haw Stables (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage, and the two references are trivial mentions. SL93 (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rockoons

edit
Rockoons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG; all coverage both in article and in BEFORE search provides only WP:TRIVIALMENTION. WP:TVSERIES does not apply in the absence of reliable sourcing about its production. As an alternative to deletion, I propose to redirect to Soyuzmultfilm. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't see how this fails notability. There are sources in the article. I must also add that the addition of the deletion tag seems premature as it was added only 9 minutes after the addition of those calling for the improvement of the article. Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added them as part of new page review, which was when I did source analysis and decided they did not meet WP:GNG. Did you look at the (two) sources? They each have a single passing mention of the show, nothing close to WP:SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying that the sources should only write about the show? At least they say something like the show is one of the selected ones in the country aimed for more international exposure. Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I beg of you to read the WP:SIGCOV page. It's very clear about the kind of coverage required. Brief passing mentions don't count. The sources you cited are fine to include in the article to validate facts, but they don't do anything to establish the notability of the subject. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect as suggested is fine, PR items don't help notability. I don't find any else. Oaktree b (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the second source I posted here is PR. It doesn't explicitly say so. Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rol Naath

edit
Rol Naath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no reliable sources which refer to the place or term "Rol Naath". It may need to be renamed, e.g. Nuer Nation, but is it a nation? The sources included in the article do not seem to mention Rol Naath, but I do not have full access to the offline soures. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MSGJ Rol Naath is the Nuer people's home in South Sudan just like Igboland, Yorubaland in Nigeria to name a few. Nuer Nation is an English translation of what the name means. To your question "Is it a nation?", According to the dictionary, a Nation is a body of people having a common descent, history, culture, or language but without a separate or politically independent territory. It doesn't necessarily mean an independent country. Sovereignty is a different thing.
Rol Naath is part of South Sudan. South Sudan is comprised of 64 different ethnic groups and each of these groups has its own land with its name. You can't just nominate an article for deletion just because you don't know what the title means and even after reading through the article. This Nuer people are one of the most studied people in Africa by anthropologists. Please read The Nuer, The Nuer conquest, The Nuer religion, The Nuer Nation, Bok in Yel, Wut Naath, few of many reliable sources that back up this article.
To address your concern about renaming the article, according to Wikipedia:Article titles, The title must indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles. Rol Naath is what the article is about, the land of Nuer People within South Sudan and some part of Ethiopia. The title should not be the translation of what the article is about. The translations in both Arabic and English are already within the article. Gatwech Gai (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple sources around Igboland and Yorubaland in Nigeria but this article looks like a fringe claim to bolster an ethnic group land claims. If you look to the map in this article and compare it to the on in Nuer people, that becomes clear as you look to the land in the west of South Sudan.
From your work at Nuer massacre, I really think you have an axe to grind and you are using self published books and primary sources, synthetic arguments, and editorialising. FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know its surprising to me to hear what a lot people think about Africans. I guess i understand now why people rarely find stuff about Africa on Wikipedia "a fringe claim to bolster an ethnic group land claim'? really? this land existed even way before the European colonization and you are making it look like Nuer are some kind of European who are trying to colonize some other ethnic groups?
there is clear traditional land borders between each ethnic groups in South Sudan and even though the country is not stable currently, its not because of land and its not because some ethnic groups want out.
Take a good look again on the maps in this article and the one in the Nuer people, do not let the grey lines confuse you, Dinka written is there on their land and Nuer is written on the portion of their land.
Leave the Nuer massacre work to its talk page. This is about the land. I checked too many articles and almost all of them are build up on combination of sources from books and others and they are perfectly fine. Gatwech Gai (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Wikipedia:Article titles, this is clearly at the wrong title. It's also difficult to determine whether the topic is actually notable or whether it's WP:SYNTH or a WP:POVFORK, as none of the scholarly searches I can actually access which contain the phrase "Nuer nation" discuss anything the article talks about, and the sources are off-line. SportingFlyer T·C 06:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well per Wikipedia:Article titles, its clearly noted that the title be about the article which the Rol Naath is. How come you can't find scholarly research about the Nuer and their land when they are the most studied ethnic group in Africa? E.E. Evan Pritchards in 1940 went to Nuer land on British government order to study the Nuer, he published The Nuer Nuer Religion, which pretty much cover every aspect of Nuer people's lives. These books ended up being taught in various universities in England and United State.
    There are other books that specifically talk about Rol Naath as well and you may as well take a good look The Nuer State: Rol Naath, The History of Nuer Nation 5000 BCE to 1943, The Uniques Background of the Nuer Nation.
    Notes: there are many sources about the Nuer people's land out there but most of them are not for free. Any one here who think Rol Naath be deleted might first need to sacrifice some money to acquire these sources before you claim that no scholarly sources available. Gatwech Gai (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even considering that it is sometimes rendered "Rol Nath", the sources you give are clearly self-published. All of them, including "The History of Nuer Nation 5000 Bce to 1943" looks like a screed to get Nuer people to take some sort of political action, which in Africa usually leads to ethnic cleansing. Moreover, the 5000 BCE is laughable and evidence of uncorrectable bias. Abductive (reasoning) 06:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, your point of view on this topic is leading you to difference issues. If you think Nuer land being on Wikipedia is getting them take some sort of political action, did the Igbo and Yoruba people demand political action since their lands were published on Wikipedia? Was the Nuer massacre perpetrated because of their land?
    let this be about the topic in question and not making it about what you think may happen. keep that to yourself. Gatwech Gai (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Wikipedia is not someplace to "keep it to myself". You are a keyboard warrior who very likely is one of the people who wrote/posted those unreliable sources. Abductive (reasoning) 23:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I performed scholarly research and book searches for both "Rol Naath" and "Nuer Nation" (and now "Rol Nath.") No hits for Rol Naath and Rol Nath, and "Nuer Nation" brought up 37 sources, but nothing which closely matches the topic of this article, which is about a geographic area. SportingFlyer T·C 07:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's definitely parts of this article which could be added or merged to other articles on the Nuer people, but I'm not seeing clear GNG-qualifying sources which suggest notability for the geographic or cultural region, making this WP:SYNTH. SportingFlyer T·C 07:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "not seeing clear GNG-qualifying sources which suggest notability for the geographic or cultural region"? the 1955-56 map made by British Condominium rule in Sudan is in there and the geographical border between Dinka land and the Nuer land is very clear.
    So you really think Nuer people do not have cultural region? why not check Sudan open archive (or may be you will have trouble finding source in there) if the sources that i have provided are not enough for you, seems like each one here is trying to justify his/her POV of why they want this article to be deleted but refused to acknowledge the wonderful work E.E Evan Pritchards on Nuer people.
    Nuer people is unreadable by the way, one of the Nuer fellow called me yesterday to help improve the article but it look like the African input about themselves are not welcomed here but non-African input about Africa are being welcomed with open armed.
    I still think this article about Nuer people's land should not be deleted. Gatwech Gai (talk) 09:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not suggesting otherwise - I am suggesting this particular article, as written, is problematic. I did find some accessible writings by Evans-Pritchard, and he calls the area "Nuerland" so I did a search on "Nuerland" which brings up far more sources, many of which are reliable, and I think it would be possible to write an article at that title. SportingFlyer T·C 16:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete comment: This article looks like a fringe claim (maybe totally a hoax too) to bolster an ethnic group's land claims. If you look to the map in this article and compare it to the on in Nuer people, that becomes clear as you look to the land in the west of South Sudan. See this video that comes as the top of the list when searching for the article title which exactly talk about ethnic separation.
From this editor work at Nuer massacre, I really think they have an axe to grind and they are using self published books and primary sources, synthetic arguments, and editorialising to do that. This editor has refused to listen and accused everyone who is pointing to the problems with the way they operate, as "working for the genocidal government of South Sudan?", or some kind of conspiracy and has been warned for it but continued with the same behaviour when challenged. You can also look no further than the discussion above.
editors can choose to merge it to the Nuer people article but please be careful to weed out what is opinion written as fact (which can be fixed) and what is just totally fabricated.
As for now, Gatwech Gai has responded to all comments, almost engaging in some serious WP:BLUD FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before you accuses me of all of that, if you can use whatever video you find on Youtube to justify the deletion of the article on Wikipedia, did you use the Puntland declaration of their own autonomy region from the rest of Somalia to delete their article on Wikipedia? or Did anyone here use the need for Igbo independent state as a reason to delete Igboland from Wikipedia?
Random talks on Youtube do not justify an article deletion from Wikipedia. Anyone can make videos on Youtube just to generate some viewers and get paid at the end of the day. There is never separation happening in South Sudan. Two of the five vice presidents of South Sudan are both Nuer.
Again, the Rol Naath article shouldn't be deleted on Wikipedia. Gatwech Gai (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UP Diliman Electrical and Electronics Engineering Institute

edit
UP Diliman Electrical and Electronics Engineering Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged as unreferenced since 2009. References found via GSearch are mostly primary sources from the University itself. Do note that several notable academics and engineers did study here but Notability is not inherited. Alternatively, redirect to University_of_the_Philippines_College_of_Engineering#Academic_departments per WP:ATD. --Lenticel (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of mosques

edit
List of mosques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge request at Talk:Lists of mosques#Merge proposal that did not seek to merge any content. Their rationale implies that the content is not worthy of being merged, so it is within the scope of AfD.

List of mosques serves no useful purpose. It's clearly too vague to ever be a viable list article per WP:SALAT (e.g. there's no List of church buildings either, as far as I can see). This is a function accomplished by Category:Mosques. The list has no proper inclusion criteria: the lead states "some of the more famous mosques", but that's obviously unhelpful, there's little about the current list that suggests the additions are being limited to "famous" mosques, and even if we tried to enforce such a criteria it would inevitably be an unclear POV mess; anything can be "famous" from a certain POV, and "notable" would by definition include every Wikipedia mosque article (which, again, is what categories are for). There are of course almost no sources in that article either, despite the many additional claims inserted into the list. All of this makes it incompatible with the guidelines outlined at WP:STANDALONE. The only useful version of this would be an article that links to more precise lists of mosques. This already exists here at Lists of mosques (notwithstanding some needed improvements). Two articles with such similar titles are also likely to cause confusion and they already look like WP:CONTENTFORKs of each other. Therefore, List of mosques should simply redirect here.
— User:R Prazeres 17:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. Indeed I only proposed as merge because I thought a blank-and-redirect would fall under that type of proposal, but deleting (with or without redirect) addresses the problem too. R Prazeres (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This can survive, and quite possibly should, as a list-of-lists, assuming someone wants to make sub-lists, say for per-nation mosque lists, which can in turn be lists of per-province mosque lists. Absent that, a comprehensive list in one file doesn't seem to be terribly useful or maintainable. Jclemens (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I understand you correctly, is that not what Lists of mosques is? (That was the context of the original merge proposal copied above.) R Prazeres (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. I appear to have missed the hatnote. Carry on. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, easy to miss! R Prazeres (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I got confused by the similar titles but while lists of mosques is a navigational list this one isn't. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Sebalu

edit
Lawrence Sebalu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

2 cited sources, one is a blog and the other is unreachable. Yes, he may be the Minister of Finance, but I'm failing to find SIGCOV of this individual. All I can see is passing mentions. Probably not notable just like his successors. dxneo (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Having sources unreachable is not a genuine reason. Subject is not the current but was a finance minister soon after independence which I hope in the days was notable. A quick Google search on books brings lots of recorded books, see here, here and here. This shows that subject passes WP:GNG/WP:NPOL - Tumbuka Arch (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw the nomination: per recent article improvement. Word to Tumbuka Arch, I would suggest that next time if an article is moved to draftspace, it must not be moved back to mainspace without convincing improvements that it passes WP:NBIO as WP:BLP is a very delicate subject which requires strong sourcing. I couldn't verify the notability of the subject based on an unreachable source and blog source. dxneo (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with Dxneo here. I have cleaned-up the article and added to it significantly in terms of both prose and sourcing, but am generally not a big fan of cleaning up other people's messes. Curbon7 (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files

edit

File:Oil portrait of Alexander Buchan, before 1769.png

edit
File:Oil portrait of Alexander Buchan, before 1769.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kusma (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free file may actually be free. From what the uploader provided, this painting is likely 18th century, so {{PD-old-assumed}} would apply even though the author is unknown. Wikiacc () 03:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image was earlier discussed here, where Kusma wrote: "as it was first published in 1979, it may be protected by copyright". Note also that the 1979 publication was in the United Kingdom, not the United States. So I doubt this work was eligible for restoration under the URAA, but this is worth discussing. Wikiacc () 03:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

edit

NEW NOMINATIONS

edit

Bengali–Assamese script

edit
Nominator's rationale: There is a single Bengali–Assamese script shared between the two languages, even though they use different alphabets. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, there are multiple scripts for both languages (note the plural "scripts"), and the Bengali–Assamese script is one of these scripts used and shared by both languages (with minor differences), but there are other scripts (like Naoriya Phulo script). Look at the category content, they clearly cannot be merged as their listed scripts are not the same. They are not all the same single script. Only the Bengali-Assamese script (just named "Bengali script" in Unicode and also named "Eastern Nagari") is unified; the other scripts are distinct. As well within the "Bengali alphabet" and "Assamese alphabet" (which are relevant parts of the shared script specific to each language) are not the same (just like there are multiple Latin-base alphabets). verdy_p (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

edit

Templates and Modules

edit

Miscellany

edit

Deletion review

edit
  1. ^ "Праздничный выпуск, музыкальное поздравление в исполнении юных звёзд и много подарков — мультсериалу «Енотки» 3 года". re-port.ru. Retrieved 2024-06-08.
  2. ^ "Мультсериал «Енотки» – детские мультфильмы на канале Карусель". www.karusel-tv.ru (in Russian). Retrieved 2024-06-08.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:XfD_today&oldid=1222059439"