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
1958 East Pakistan-India border clashes
Chip Chilla
Draft:Laxmikanta Roy
Draft:Natalina Palamara
Sandbach (surname)
The Legacy Continues... (The Inspirations album)
Winperc

Articles edit

< June 02 June 04 >

Purge server cache

Walton School of Auctioneering edit

Walton School of Auctioneering (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)

This is just a bare ad for a non-notable school listing its curriculum that's been inserted into Auction school as a form of advertising. lizthegrey (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Giganto edit

Eric Giganto (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 am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Filipino men's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was this short piece. JTtheOG (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Westview Secondary School edit

Westview Secondary School (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)

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

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

School District 42 Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows edit

School District 42 Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows (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)

This article is nominated for deletion as it doesn't meet WP:V, WP:N and not WP:S talk more of WP:RS — Preceding unsigned comment added by War Term (talk • contribs) 03:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaadi Impossible edit

Shaadi Impossible (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 to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 02:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Same rationale for almost every nomination. I am doubting WP:Before is done or not. Plenty of good refs which indicates notability [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] Libraa2019 (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Libraa2019, But there's no mention whatsoever of the subject in sources # 1, 2 and 4, Source # 3, though OK for WP:V, but insufficient for GNG because its WP:ROTM coverage. As for source # 5, SomethingHaute is a WordPress blog per this, which isn't deemed a RS. Source # 6 is only a WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LogFS edit

LogFS (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)

Non-notable software that doesn't appear to pass WP:NSOFT. One source is a self-published announcement; the other is a forum post. ZimZalaBim talk 13:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources:
Honorable mentions:
Dishonorable mentions:
jlwoodwa (talk) 20:50, 17 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! 16:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 02:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment is there an article with a comprehensive list of filesystems that have been in the Linux kernel? If so, perhaps that could be a redirect target. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't know what "forum post" means, unless you are talking about the LWN source, which is certainly not a forum post No comment on notability otherwise. jp×g🗯️ 11:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For academic proposals, I generally look at Google Scholar citations. As of writing this, there's 43 citations. I couldn't find any that appeared to be independent and cover the subject in-depth. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I was grateful to find this article. I was doing some research on embedded systems, and was pointed to https://elinux.org/images/9/9a/CELFJamboree29-FlashFS-Toshiba.pdf ... which (for me, at least) raised several questions that this wikipedia page answered. JimJJewett (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be nice to hear a review of the sources brought to this discussion and how the editors commenting here would "vote" regarding the outcome of this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italy–Montenegro relations edit

Italy–Montenegro relations (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. Nothing here that cannot be covered under Foreign relations of Italy or Foreign relations of Montenegro. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Italy, and Montenegro. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article contains 2 primary sources. Lacking third party sources to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is no criteria that articles (apart from BLPs) have to have third party sources to meet GNG. The notability is not to be judged by the sources in the article at present, but the potential available scope of sources. It's pretty obvious that there is enough material out there to expand the article on the relations between these 2 neigbouring countries. --Soman (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true, please read WP:GNG. "Independent of the subject". It is a basic requirement of GNG to provide third party sources. For an editor who has edited since 2004 you should know this. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    and they're not really neighbouring, yes across the sea but no land border. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "it's pretty obvious that there is enough material out there to expand the article " Please list these or it's WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd counter-question is any WP:BEFORE was performed here? In this case it's pretty easy to assume that sources would be available. How about [7], [8], [9], "Italia e il Montenegro , firmato a Cettigne il 28 marzo 1883. È desso il primo accordo che l'Italia stipula con quel principato , ed è il secondo che il Montenegro conchiude con nazioni estere , il primo essendo stato concluso colla ." ([10]), "Nel novembre 1879 , Giuseppe Ottolenghi , delegato italiano nella commissione per la delimitazione nel Montenegro , nella sua relazione al capo dello Stato Maggiore riassume ." ([11]), "[Albania]... Italy, Montenegro and, traditionally, those of Austria, was not a minor problem. This issue, therefore, was destined to alter the relations between Montenegro and Italy, and between Italy and Serbia. Projects of Italian occupation..." ([12]), etc, etc. --Soman (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for finding third party sources which is a requirement of GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LibStar @Soman With the exception of link 1 above (and link 2, which is a dead link), the sources provided refer to historical episodes already covered in detail in other articles. See Italian governorate of Montenegro, Italy–Yugoslavia relations. Again, with the exception of link 1, the sources are not about the relationship between Italy and the current post-Serbian state of Montenegro. My BEFORE search did not turn up enough significant coverage of post-2006 relations, which means that WP:NOPAGE should apply to avoid creating a content fork with Italian governorate of Montenegro or Italy–Yugoslavia relations. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Dclemens, from your analysis of sources, I stand by my delete !vote. I agree that coverage should be about the current post-Serbian state of Montenegro. LibStar (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not an approach consistent with how other bilateral relations articles are delimited. Look at Russia–United Kingdom relations, China–India relations, Germany–Italy relations, and so forth. At no point does this article have to relate to post 2006 material only. --Soman (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Germany/Italy article starts only with the establishment of modern unified Italy. It's not a history of how Prussia interacted with the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Likewise, the Italy/Montenegro article starts with the first establishment of a sovereign Montenegrin state that can engage in foreign relations... in 2006. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, let's not limit AfD discussions to the current contents of an article. The discussion should relate to the potential scope of how an article can evolve. There are difficult cases and grey areas, but taking the timeline back to 1800s (unification of Italy and Prinicipality/Kingdom of Montenegro) makes perfect sense to start in this case. It is in line with how articles on Russian bilateral relations link back to more or less same period. --Soman (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Otherwise liable to be closed "no consensus."
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:01, 26 May 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) 02:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One Spoon of Chocolate edit

One Spoon of Chocolate (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)

Article about a not-yet-released film, not yet reliably sourced as the subject of enough production coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria for films.
There's a common, but erroneous, belief that the WP:NFF section of WP:NFILM grants an automatic presumption of notability to every film that enters the production pipeline the moment shooting has started on it, even if that's basically the only notability claim the article contains -- but what NFF actually says is that "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines."
That is, "notable once principal photography has commenced" is a special criterion that applies to very high-profile films (such as Marvel or Star Wars films) that get such a depth and range production coverage that they'd probably still remain notable even if they failed to ever see release at all, while the bar that most normal films actually have to clear is that they've actually been released and reviewed by film critics.
But what we have for referencing here is one casting announcement and one glancing mention that the idea was in the works 12 years ago in an article about the director's prior film, which isn't nearly enough coverage to get the NFF treatment.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation if and when the film finally sees release, but simply single-sourcing that production has commenced isn't "inherently" notable in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there are 2 reliable sources that are not blogs discussing the film, The New York Times a newspaper company that exists since 1851 and The Hollywood Reporter, the biggest Hollywood trade in the business. So no the sources aren't unreliable, so your argument about deleting the page are invalid.KingArti (talk) KingArti (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also I provided a 3rd source that filming is actually happening as we speak. KingArti (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained above, the base notability bar for films is not that production has started; the base notability bar for films is that they have been released to the public and garnered reviews from film critics. And as I noted above, one of the two footnotes that were in this article at the time of nomination was not coverage about this film, but a glancing mention that the basic idea for this film was in the germination stage 12 years ago in an article about a different film, and thus it does not support the notability of this film at all.
The potential exception to the regular notability criteria is for films that can be shown as special cases of much greater notability than the norm, and just two hits of coverage is not enough to get there. Nobody said anything about the sources being unreliable — what I said was that there isn't enough sourcing to exempt this from the normal notability criteria for films. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Existing significant coverage in reliable sources includes the articles quoted in the article + (1st page of a one-click search.....) :
  1. https://blavity.com/rza-contemplating-one-spoon-of-chocolate-period-piece-spanning-1960s-through-1970s
  2. https://deadline.com/2024/05/jason-isbell-boards-rza-film-one-spoon-of-chocolate-1235916186/
  3. https://www.hot97.com/news/rza-set-to-direct-one-spoon-of-chocolate/
  4. https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/paris-jackson-shameik-moore-to-lead-one-spoon-of-chocolate-drama/article68101471.ece
  5. https://www.hola.com/us/entertainment/20240425359223/paris-jackson-one-spoon-of-chocolate-movie/
  6. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/rza-on-his-new-movies-and-recording-with-paul-banks-101527/
  7. https://blexmedia.com/one-spoon-of-chocolate/
  8. https://www.blackfilmandtv.com/news/rza-to-direct-produce-one-spoon-of-chocolate-shameik-moore-and-paris-jackson
  9. https://ew.com/article/2012/10/29/rza-man-with-the-iron-fists/
  10. https://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/jason-isbell-boards-rza-action-201425470.html
etc. So this meets the general requirements for notability imv.
A redirect to RZA#Filmmaking should have obviously been considered anyway......-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - The nomination is not saying the sources are unreliable, it is stating that they do not show a notable production period, i.e. since April 2024. All sources published before that do not contribute to satisfying WP:NFF as that was development or pre-production. The question comes down to this: If the film were cancelled tomorrow and never released, what can we say about the production of the film? I don't see much we can say other than it started, and a picture was provided. "Now Filming in Georgia" only provides dates and locations with no prose to be considered significant. I'm fairly inclusionist, and I consider this one pretty close, but I think we could easily wait for slightly more coverage. Draftification is a better WP:ATD option than a redirect in my opinion because I feel it's easier to add new content there than getting lost in a redirect history. KingArti is also very active in Draft space, so I don't think draftifying will add any risk of backdoor G13 deletion. -2pou (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The nomination is not saying the sources are unreliable? OK. Good, then, let's keep this. Sources published before filming started are absolutely as relevant as those published recently! I don't understand what notable production period means. A film is judged notable or not. And sources back the claim that it is notable, or not. Time has nothing to do with it. Wikipedia happens to consider films whose filming started are more likely to be notable (or simply to exist at all as films) than those whose filming hasn't started. It makes sense but that does not invalidate sources from before the moment filming started, when filming does indeed start!!! I don't see much we can say other than it started, and a picture was provided. "Now Filming in Georgia" only provides dates and locations with no prose to be considered significant. Do you consider the cast, genre, premise and production history of a film non-significant? I don't. Finally, I don't think draftifying will add any risk of backdoor G13 deletion, maybe not, but you feel it's a risk worth mentioning here, though. I concur it's as easy for users who know the draft exists, to edit it, as it is to edit a section dedicated to the film, in the article about the director. But not for newcomers. And if facilitating new contributions concerning the film is a concern (and a fair one, in terms of Wikipedia's raison d'être), a Keep seems the best solution (not to mention the possibility of good faith creations of articles such as OSoC (upcoming film) or OSoC (RZA), etc.). Anyway, thank you for your input, and sorry if this was too long and inappropriate. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The permanent notability of a film that's still in the production pipeline is not established by showing a couple of hits of casting or production announcements — every single film that ever entered the production pipeline at all can always pass that test. Even films that never get completed or released at all, in order to actually pass the primary notability criteria for films, would pass that loose a reading of NFF and have to be kept forever — so no film would ever be subject to the main notability criteria for films at all if just a small handful of production coverage were enough to bump a film from "regular criteria" to "NFF criteria", because no film that enters production ever fails to generate that small handful.
So "the production is itself notable" is not passed by every film that can show one or two hits of casting or production coverage — it's passed only by films that get Marvel/Star Wars volumes of production coverage, to the point that even if the film were to collapse and never come out at all it would probably still pass the ten year test for enduring significance anyway. The Batgirl remake that got shelved last year is an example of that level of production coverage; most films which just get run of the mill coverage are not. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: With all due respect, but if the standard is that only major blockbusters like Disney films can have articles retained, then approximately 80% of current unreleased film articles would need to be deleted. This would be quite confusing for editors, as it raises questions about where exactly the notability bar should be set. Do only Marvel films count as notable? What about DC? What about blockbusters of other big companies like Paramount's Mission Impossible 8 or Universal's Gladiator 2? And what about art house films? Should all of them not be allowed to create independent articles until they are released? These types of questions could go on endlessly. The thing is, not all editors have the same keen judgment when it comes to determining notability. In reality, it can be a highly subjective assessment that varies from person to person. The original purpose of NFF was to provide clear criteria to help prevent these kinds of disputes. As long as a film has checked the boxes, it should be allowed to create an article. I'm concerned that adopting such a restrictive notability standard through this AFD could set a bad precedent. It could lead to many controversial deletions of articles about major film projects, simply because some editors don't find the coverage "significant" enough. Therefore, I think as long as an article meets NFF, it should be retained. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 05:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I beg to differ, as I believe the nominator has misinterpreted WP:NFF. The nominator cited the third paragraph in NFF to argue that despite a film having begun shooting, with confirmations from reliable sources, the article should not exist. But if we review the guideline carefully, it states that a film (although it has begun filming) should generally not have an article unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. So this is where the reliable sources' confirmation mentioned in the first paragraph comes into play. If films have been confirmed by sources as having begun filming, it can be considered as fulfilling the notability guidelines (in other words, GNG), and be allowed to have its own article. The sentence the nominator cited is more likely to refer to a film that has already begun filming, but the production isn't covered by any independent, secondary, reliable sources - in such cases, the film should not have an article as it fails the notability guidelines. There could be various reasons for this, such as the film not being notable enough for secondary sources to cover, or the production companies concealing details for marketing purposes. Regardless of the reason, these films no doubt fail to meet the requirements of NFF and should not have an article, even though the commencement of filming has already begun in reality and may be supported by primary sources. As long as a film has been confirmed by multiple RS, having completed pre-production and moved on to shooting, it should be allowed to have an independent article as it has ticked the boxes. I understand the concern about Wikipedia being flooded with pre-mature film articles poorly sourced with media articles that only have passing mentions merely about a film's commencement of filming. But in this case, the film has numerous secondary sources providing SIGCOV on the production details and filming plans (as provided by Mushy Yank), as well as additional coverage about the film being conceptualized by RZA years ago. This makes it not one of the marginal cases we were concerned about, and it is safe to cite WP:NFF exactly as the reason why the film should be kept.—Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such thing as any film that ever enters production without being able to show at least one or two hits of coverage — casting annoucements can always be found somewhere, at least one hit of verification that photography has started can always be found somewhere, for every single film that has ever entered the production pipeline regardless of whether it ever came out the other end as a finished film or not. So if that were the distinction between regular criteria and NFF, then every film that entered the production pipeline would always pass NFF, and no film would ever actually have to meet the regular criteria at all anymore.
So the test is not passed by a film showing a handful of production coverage, and requires a film to show significantly more production coverage than films in production are routinely expected to get — as in, so much coverage that even if the film collapsed and never came out it would probably remain permanently notable as a failed production anyway. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: That is not necessarily true. A recent example that comes to mind is the Hong Kong film The Dream, the Bubble and the Shadow, for which a trailer was presented at an exhibition of the production company with a projected release date of 2024, so it is most likely that the film has already finished production (if not, at least filming has already started), but every detail was concealed for marketing purposes, not even with the main cast revealed. So in this case, the film should not have its article until it has been officially released. (Despite there being numerous media articles reporting on the trailer, and some primary sources, like the filming plans of the production companies may support the fact that the film has already begun shooting) Also, I have actually voted Redirect in another AFD of an article written by the same editor, because in that case, the film literally only has two sources merely covering the commencement of filming and the composition of cast and crew. In that case, I think it does not demonstrate enough notability. But in this case, from the sources Mushy Yank presented, there are actually quite a lot more coverage on the production other than the original announcement. For instance, RZA has conceptualized the project 13 years ago, covered by Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly and Black Film and TV, and there have been additional casting choices recently in May, see Deadline Hollywood and The Hindu. I really share your thoughts on barring pre-mature film articles from flooding Wikipedia, but I have reservations on whether this is really a marginal case that we were concerned about. It can still be filed for deletion if the film was scrapped, it is never too late. I agree to disagree, but I think there is enough to fulfill NFF at this point and this article should be kept. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

San Jose Taiko edit

San Jose Taiko (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)

While previously deleted for G11, this time the page has been written in a more encyclopedic tone. Unfortunately, there is just not any coverage that I can find. BrigadierG (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References to published academic work demonstrating the significance of this organization to the art of taiko in North America have been added, as well as national recognition from the NEA for the original managing director and artistic director of the organization. 31N2024 (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider new sources added as well as User:Atlantic306's question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ecko Miles edit

Ecko Miles (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 do not see enough evidence to establish WP:NMUSICIAN. Some sources are unreliably having a close connection to the subject, some are WP:ROUTINE coverages announcing founding of Daed Empire, most are PRs, announcing collabo or music release, etc. Fails WP:GNG in a nutshell. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep the subject meets some of the criterias of WP:NMUSICIAN for example the song he had with popular Nigerian rapper and musician charted major charts in the country as was cited in the article , also I would say it meets WP:GNG the sources used in the subject article are in line with WP:NGRS too, after thorough investigations I will say this the subject was not as notable as he was before the collaboration he had with Zlatan and odumodu blvck but that collaboration was what increased his notability and brought him further into the limelight.ProWikignome (talk) 21:23, 20 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! 22:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:MUSICBIO due to chart position of his song. Hkkingg (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Pontremoli edit

Michel Pontremoli (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)

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

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

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

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

Battle of Monastyryshche edit

Battle of Monastyryshche (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)

A poorly written article, devoid of reliable sources. In addition, the language is very engaged and one-sided. Marcelus (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You keep going on and on about the poor article, but you won't even point out examples, and on what grounds are the sources unreliable? Querty1231 (talk) 19:07, 20 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! 23:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a Stub - these are actual events so what is the point of deleting it? If someone has reliable information to the battle then they can expand it at any time.Olek Novy (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. References are very poor and I am having trouble finding RS on this, there are some snippet mentions in few academic sources but nothing substantial (well, I am also doing a quick search too, no time for in-depth one - but nom should do it - I see little evidence of WP:BEFORE here). The nom also writes thatthe article is "devoid of reliable sources", but one ref is "Wielcy hetmani Rzeczypospolitej" from 1983 by Jerzy Besala - why is it unreliable? Now, given the crappy writing found in the article, I would not be surprised if that source does not mention this battle - but this needs to be verified first. There are also more reliable positions in bibliography that should be checked. Lastly, why did the nom not nominate this for deletion at pl wiki (where I see a page range is given for Besala, making it more likely this event is mentioned there, and another RS, Leszek Podhorodecki, is cited)? Sorry, Marcelus, but I think you need a WP:TROUT here. Such messes should be tagged and improved, but not deleted. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the article is going to stay, basically 90% of it needs to be removed as unsourced OR. Marcelus (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of the amount of available reliable source material available about this subject would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KLHU-CD edit

KLHU-CD (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 GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:45, 19 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! 23:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why articles are deleted, but I found this article in “Edge” search and it provided the information I was looking for. If it had been deleted I would still be looking! The reason I use “Wikipedia” is I almost always find something about what I’m searching for and why I on an annual basis contribute to its support, Thank DWE! 172.56.84.213 (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Leon McClanahan edit

Darrell Leon McClanahan (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)

Nearly every single source cited on this page is about the Missouri GOP's effort to disqualify his 2024 gubernatorial campaign. Per WP:1E, this doesn't make McClanahan notable, and this information could simply be transferred to the 2024 Missouri gubernatorial election page, with McClanahan's page being made into a redirect. I don't see the argument for McClanahan being notable on his own. The only two sources not about the disqualification controversy are WP:ROTM coverage of his 2022 Senate campaign. The ADL lawsuit is somewhat interesting, but given that it didn't seem to receive news coverage, that doesn't seem notable either (and the paragraph about the lawsuit on this page could easily be transferred to the ADL's page). BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP:POLITICIAN and blatant BLP violations. Non notable politician, who failed in his 2022 election attempts. The rest of this is speculation of a future run, and criticism of his personal life, and his alleged associations with the Ku Klux Klan. — Maile (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Buffington edit

Phillip Buffington (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)

Played one season in the American third division and otherwise played in amateur leagues. Now coaches at a private high school in Jackson, Mississippi. Several searches brought up a single local mention for the amateur Mississippi Brilla and several local pieces on the success of the team he coaches. He exists and is clearly a decent coach of high schoolers, but this falls well short of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files edit

Categories edit

NEW NOMINATIONS edit

Category:Roman generals edit

Nominator's rationale: Uphelpful bundling of Roman people. This category contains Ancient Romans and Byzantine people. Mason (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Great Britain edit

Nominator's rationale: Option A: remove header and a remove a number of parent categories. Option B: nominate subcategories for merger. In any case, the current content of the category is completely out of sync with how the category creator(s) intended. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, please clarify the issue with this particular category. I don't really follow. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just Delete & re-home articles as necessary. The period of the Kingdom of Great Britain - from 1707 to 1800, is not really used by historians or the public. If kept it should be more clearly named to avoid confusion with the (main) geographical meaning of Great Britain, which has clearly been taken by some adders as the intended meaning. In fact such a category might make more sense, at the top of trees with UK, English, Scottish & Welsh sub-cats. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Activists for Palestinian solidarity edit

Nominator's rationale: This is a random mix of people who aren't activists. Purge the category and leave in actual activists. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I'm not too sure about it but maybe rename to "Pro-Palestinian activists". Any other suggestion would be helpful; this one seems rather vague. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to "Pro-Palestinian activists", if only because that new name would be shorter and simpler, yet also straight to the point. AHI-3000 (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait for some consensus here before I proceed with the subcategories. Honestly, going through them, I don't think any of these people in any of these categories were checked to see if they actually were activists for Palestinian solidarity, particularly given a number of these aren't pro-Palestinian but rather anti-Israeli. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer keeping this category, I should add, since there is a big Palestinian movement and activists who are pro-Palestinian. I just think we should be careful who to put in. Some of these "pro-Palestinian" people aren't pro-Palestinian at all. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think renaming it to "Advocates for Palestinian Solidarity" would be best. NesserWiki (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support doing something, but mixed on the alternative rename. I think that the "Pro-Palestinian activists" are indeed a more specific subgroup that are definitely nested within Anti-racist activists. Perhaps splitting or nesting/reorganizing to acknowledge that there are also activists for Palestinian civil rights etc. idk 🤷 It's really complicated.Mason (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smasongarrison, it is quite complicated, you're right. I'm not too sure about myself but, IMO and as you have said yourself, "Pro-Palestinian" is less vague and more definable than "Activists for Palestinian solidarity". Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair point. (To be clear, I'm not opposed to the rename if that's were consensus goes. ) I've started cleaning up the ethnic/religious intersections with the group in the hope that I'll have some inspiration. Mason (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smasongarrison, I only just noticed this and wanted to say thank you! Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge: a removal of articles about people who weren't activists is a no-brainer. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus on rename.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:North-America-cricket-ground-stub edit

Nominator's rationale: Used on only 3 articles. Merge the category to Category:North American sports venue stubs. Follow-up CfD to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_26#Category:North_American_sports_venue_stubs. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ICC Men's T20 World Cup related lists edit

Nominator's rationale: There are just T20WC lists; no need for the term "related". Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 02:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of the T20 World Cup edit

Nominator's rationale: Same topic covered by both categories Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 02:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disinformation operations edit

Nominator's rationale: this is follow-up on this previous discussion. After purging it is more clearly about disinformation, but does not clearly distinguish itself from its parent Category:Disinformation. Hence manually merge (only insofar appropriate). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Coddlebean, Nederlandse Leeuw, and Hmains: pinging contributors to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    do not agree 'Disinformation' is a about a fact: false and misleading information. 'Disinformation operations' is about a process, something that people are organized to carry out, generally by a political entity of some kind. Very different articles involved, as they should be. Hmains (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kurdish people by occupation and century edit

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st-century Kurdish women politicians edit

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now: Isolated category at a currently narrow intersection of ethnicity, gender, occupation and century. Mason (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of films by date edit

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't agree that it is redundant, it helps keep the parent category less crowded.★Trekker (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is 14 or 15 subcategories, that does not make the difference. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uruguay-cemetery-stub edit

Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Uruguay cemetery stubs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am currently reading no consensus on deleting the template but consensus to merge the category. Relisting for further input, but if there is none within the week I would expect it to be closed as consensus for a category merge as described.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Polish social activists of the Prussian partition edit

Nominator's rationale: This category should either be merged or renamed to make it clearer how this is defining. Mason (talk) 01:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Joseph de Goislard de Monsabert edit

Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. This category only has the eponymous page and a image of statue of their likeness, which is not needed/helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects edit

Kontra Code edit

implausible misspelling (or is it a pun?), google gave me nothing of note cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 00:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules edit

Template:Wildstorm Universe edit

No transclusions or incoming links. Created in 2009. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany edit

Deletion review edit

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:XfD_today&oldid=1222059439"