Wikipedia

Wikipedia:XfD today

(Redirected from Wikipedia:Deletion 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
Draft:Ashish Pal
User:Dina96/sandbox/test
Jet Lag: The Game 1
Draft:Kevin Zhang
Template:Latest stable software release/Opera Mini
David Maas
Draft:Matthew Gorelik
Template:Proposed deletion: Please just delete this draft. I really do not care for waiting nearly an entire month in limbo, only to receive a rejection notice with very low tier comments sniping about the writing quality.
Shamim Hasan Sarkar
Olanrewaju Smart
Tour By Me
Draft:Wiki:BFDI
Draft:Wikipedia:UNCYC

Articles edit

< June 10 June 12 >

Purge server cache

Temürtas edit

Temürtas (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 could not find any coverage in WP:RS to justify inclusion per WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Gardner edit

AfDs for this article:
Harold Gardner (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's sole claim to fame is that they served in the military for one day, because the war ended right afterwards. Trivial press coverage on this basis. Otherwise utterly mundane life. Previous AfD in 2005 was kept based on non-policy arguments around his being one of the last surviving WWI vets, of which there are now none at all. BD2412 T 22:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bart Versieck, Dbiv, Durova, Endomion, Flyboy Will, Jeffrey O. Gustafson, JJay, KillerChihuahua, MisterHand, Moriori, Orbframe, Quarl, and Xoloz: - courtesy pinging participants from the 2005 discussion. BD2412 T 22:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dajjal: The Slayer and His Followers edit

AfDs for this article:
Dajjal: The Slayer and His Followers (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)

It is clearly WP:HOAX and WP:NOTPROMO. The film never released because it never existed. The trailers were made by some 3rd-class animator(s). The film's director/writer Rana Abrar, is basically a journalist who tried to promote himself through this medium. The film only has directories and databases; there is not a single quality source to prove it. There is no crew, no cast, and not a single reliable source on the film anywhere. It has already been nominated once but the discussion was closed because of a lack of consensus. I think it should be looked at closely this time. Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 22:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Ebarle edit

Dean Ebarle (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. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I researched Dean Ebarle, it has some notability, being the defender for a popular football team, im not that much interested in football, so correct me or ping me if im wrong.
TheNuggeteer (talk) 09:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you present the sources of your research? Svartner (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you know of any sources, please mention them here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Dobson edit

Matthew Dobson (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 South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the Delete vote is a weak one
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Abdul Malek edit

AfDs for this article:
Muhammad Abdul Malek (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)

Not a single source used in this article is reliable which can establish notability of the person. - AlbeitPK (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Csabdi edit

Csabdi (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)

Not notable. 48JCL TALK 21:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Molloy edit

Jon Molloy (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)

Poorly sourced rugby BLP. All I found were transactional announcements (1, 2, 3) and a routine injury update (1). There seem to be multiple redirect candidates (List of Wakefield Trinity players, List of Salford Red Devils players). JTtheOG (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Some non-routine coverage here. I'm a bit surprised I couldn't find more for someone who made nearly 50 Super League appearances. Perhaps someone can add more using offline sources, as a lot of websites unfortunately haven't kept archives during the time period he played in. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficiently soured in my opinion. Mn1548 (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Wanjau edit

Nana Wanjau (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 businesswoman and "philanthropist." Sources do not support notability under WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Most references are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or they fail verification. The only examples of WP:SIGCOV are problematic and unreliable. Mkazi (the website is inactive) was a lifestyle blog with no named editors or legitimate editorial process. The Parents Africa profile is really a WP:INTERVIEW, and it makes major errors (for example, stating that she left a highly-paid corporate job in a year when she would have been 20). Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I have reorganized the article and added some news articles sources from Gale. The top two references are here:[1][2] The Mkazi article mentioned above also provides biographical details. I updated the citation for the Mkazi article, and other inactive URLs, to use archived URLs. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Munde, Claire (October 22, 2016). "I blend my charity work with personal growth". The Star (Nairobi, Kenya) – via Gale.
  2. ^ "No husband no dignity? Group helps widows rebuild their lives". The Star (Nairobi, Kenya). July 15, 2017 – via Gale.
Can you provide some details on what the second Star source you cited says since there appears to be no online version? Thanks! The first one (link here) is a WP:INTERVIEW and thus would not qualify for notability. As for the Mkazi piece, it was a lifestyle blog with no named editors or legitimate editorial process and thus cannot be a reliable source for purposes of notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second article is 1300 words on the charity founded by Wanjau. Also, I would argue that the first source I provided includes expansion of the conversation with Wanjau, and thus showing 'depth of preparation' that would be needed to establish notability as is quoted in the essay you linked. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1300 words on Wanjau or on her charity? Re: the Star interview, every other paragraph is a quote from Wanjau. There are no quotes from other interviewees, and she appears to be the sole source relied upon by the interviewer, which shows the opposite of "depth of preparation." Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article you cannot access is about her charity and biographical details on her. I stand by my statements that the citations I provide were more than interviews; the Mkazi piece and the lengthy editorial from Parents Africa are also more than interviews. At this point I leave it to other people to comment. DaffodilOcean (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Télé Lyon Métropole edit

Télé Lyon Métropole (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)

insufficient notability or coverage in reliable sources. Additionally, it may lack independent, third-party references to establish its significance in the context of television broadcasting. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One would expect a TV station reaching 1.3 million inhabitants fulfills WP:GNG and it does. The French Wikipedia article shows an abundance of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. I agree the article needs to be updated and better sourced (the TV station seemingly does not exist anymore), but WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Broc (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that BFM Lyon Métropole is the rebrand/successor of this station [1]. There is no sourced content in the (English) article; the article should not be kept in its current form. A redirect (to BFM TV) might be better than trying to fix this article. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Centralised decentralised finance edit

Centralised decentralised finance (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)

Previous prod (tagged by Remsense, removed by Kvng) so I don't want to do anything unilateral, but while the sources may provide sufficient depth of coverage to write something, I don't think they're what we would normally consider RS. Specifically, they seem to be all sources within or closely related to the cryptocurrencies community. I would suggest maybe adding a few sentences to decentralised finance since it's quite closely related and redirecting there. (Also, does anyone else find it weird that centralized finance redirects to central bank?) Other suggestions welcome. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a potential WP:BLAR candidate. Remsense诉 20:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hye, i did add the problems of the DeFi (Decentralised Finance), the reason i didn't add more about DeFi is because there's already a page about it so i've added a redirect, as for the Centralized Finance, i could remove that redirect but Centralized Finance does mean finance with a central authority which would be a central bank in this case. As for the source, it's not a very popular topic so you wouldn't see many articles from the Reliable Sources, i still did some digging and managed to find some reliable sources that other pages also use. PikaBoo (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, if there aren't enough sources that meet the criteria, we would not be able to have a separate page for it but we could potentially have a short section mentioning it on a closely related concept, say, the decentralised finance page mentioning the differences. Also, "centralised finance" is pretty crypto-jargon-y, I don't really think it's used much outside of the context of crypto, and someone clicking on the link may be a little surprised (WP:RASTONISH) especially since the Central bank page does not explain what that term has to do with it (and probably shouldn't). Then again, this is AfD not RfD, I'll probably have to raise that one with them later. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:24, 31 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! 21:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loïc Jean-Albert edit

Loïc Jean-Albert (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)

Declined prod. With only 2 google news hits, the first one not being in-depth, not enough coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 16:26, 28 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! 21:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep: [2], [3] and [4] give at least basic coverage of this person, he was an early adopter of the wing suit it seems. Oaktree b (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incognito (operating system) edit

Incognito (operating system) (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)

"Relies too much on primary sources", it says, and that appears to be because this failed Yet-Another-Linux-Distro barely lasted long enough for Linux Magazine to notice it, ironically in the same month it was abandoned. The article is paywalled, so it's impossible for me to tell whether it is, as is common for such things, simply a reiteration of the product announcement, at least not without summoning up $7 of caring which I do not have (the latter, that is), but at any rate this is obviously not meeting WP:GNG standards of extensive coverage. Mangoe (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francois Esterhuyzen edit

Francois Esterhuyzen (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 South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was this routine news piece and a few interviews in Russian-language media (1, 2, 3). JTtheOG (talk) 20:44, 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! 22:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles in England edit

List of battles in England (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)

WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to

@Nederlandse Leeuw, I see no issues with the article, but it should have been merged not deleted. Am i getting this right. I split them because the parent article was very large, yet that lists don't have to be sourced. I would like to merge the content to List of battles by geographic location. I have no idea why my creations are getting reduced; I am current not happy with it. ToadetteEdit! 23:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, why don't you also nominate List of battles by geographic location too? ToadetteEdit! 23:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you're not happy about the fact that I am successively nominating articles for deletion that you just so happen to have created. I rarely look at who created it, only at what the contents are, and how valuable they might be. I've got nothing against you or your work in particular. That said, these split-offs are a cut & paste job that takes less than 5 minutes of effort each. Recycling existing content is a lot easier than writing brand new articles with proper sourcing.
The reason why I am nominating the lists is in this manner is that I am following a step-by-step approach, building broad consensus based on easy precedents before going on to complex cases. Since actively participating in CfD and AfD from 2023, I learnt that that is the most realistic strategy to solving issues, and avoid WP:TRAINWRECKs. The second reason is that List of battles by geographic location had already been AfD'd in 2022, closing as Keep but Split: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles by geographic location. If I still want to get it deleted anyway, then overturning that consensus is going to be difficult. The split-offs provide a good opportunity to show in smaller cases why creating lists of battles by modern countries' geographical borders is not very useful, and difficult to justify when done almost completely WP:UNSOURCED. It seems to be working, as 4 split-off lists have already been deleted, and a consensus has been building that they should be deleted, especially most recently in the Croatia case.
The new round I am going for now is Afghanistan, England, Egypt, and medieval India. You didn't create the latter two articles, so this is nothing personal. If all 4 are deleted as proposed, then perhaps I may nominate List of battles by geographic location next. But we'll see what fellow editors have to say first. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- This is a well-populated list, which provides better detail than is available from a category. It might be useful to purge by moving battles of the Civil War (War of the three kingdoms into a more specific list. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have two suggestions for Merging but with two different target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby League Conference Yorkshire Premier edit

Rugby League Conference Yorkshire Premier (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)

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby League Conference Welsh Championship edit

Rugby League Conference Welsh Championship (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)

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby League Conference North West Premier edit

Rugby League Conference North West Premier (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)

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby League Conference North West Premier edit

AfDs for this article:
Rugby League Conference North West Premier (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)

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rojda Aykoç edit

AfDs for this article:
Rojda Aykoç (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)

Her notability cannot be proven by independent and reliable sources. Only IFEX source is good, but it is not adequate for passing GNG. As a result of the research conducted on the person, it was not possible to find independent and reliable sources. Considering there are not enough resources, deletion is appropriate. Kadı Message 20:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 official visit by Shehbaz Sharif to China edit

2024 official visit by Shehbaz Sharif to China (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)

WP:NOTNEWS. WP considers the enduring notability of events and its WP:TOOSOON to determine enduring historical significance or widespread impact of this visit. Saqib (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barr Tribunal edit

Barr Tribunal (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 excessive coverage of a primary source, and should be replaced with a redirect to Death of John Carthy. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Carthy was in 2007. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All Eyes on Rafah edit

All Eyes on Rafah (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 about a social media slogan, with the thumbnail - essentially its main bit - a social media AI generated image which was trending on Instagram on two days. The slogan gained traction as it was used by, among many others, many social media influencers. In accordance to WP:NOTDIARY, as well as WP:RECENT as a whole (because it is a small event belonging to the Rafah offensive), I believe this article should be deleted. A bit about this can be added to the "international reaction" header in the Rafah offensive article, but it should not exist standalone Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 20:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Lakki Marwat bombing edit

2024 Lakki Marwat bombing (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 NEVENT. No lasting effects. Saqib (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midlands Rugby League Division Two edit

Midlands Rugby League Division Two (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)

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midlands Rugby League Division One edit

Midlands Rugby League Division One (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)

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lively Laddie edit

Lively Laddie (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)

Delete: as insufficiently notable animal. Tkaras1 (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Andruzzi edit

Tony Andruzzi (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)

Borderline notable magician possibly but complete dearth of any remotely reliably sourced biographical and career info. as far as I can tell. I don't think this link cuts it. Tkaras1 (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South West Rugby League edit

South West Rugby League (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)

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South East Men's League edit

South East Men's League (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)

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midlands Rugby League Premier Division edit

Midlands Rugby League Premier Division (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)

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midlands Junior League edit

Midlands Junior League (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)

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

London Mens League edit

London Mens League (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)

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

East Rugby League edit

East Rugby League (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)

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire Men's League edit

Yorkshire Men's League (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)

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pennine League edit

Pennine League (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)

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North East Rugby League Premier Division edit

North East Rugby League Premier Division (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)

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hull & District League edit

Hull & District League (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)

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CMS Yorkshire league edit

CMS Yorkshire league (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)

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Pi Delta edit

Delta Pi Delta (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 references except to one reference at the list of student organizations with minimal information. Naraht (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North West Men's League edit

North West Men's League (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)

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North West Counties edit

North West Counties (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)

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cumbria Men's League edit

Cumbria Men's League (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)

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cumberland League edit

Cumberland League (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)

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barrow & District League edit

Barrow & District League (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)

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Farah Dualeh edit

Ahmed Farah Dualeh (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 possibly a hoax. I've moved the discussion over from the hoax talk page to save time. This is my reasoning:

While attempting to WP:DEORPHAN the article on Ahmed Farah Dualeh, I noticed an inconsistency. The article states that he is the President of Jubaland, whereas Jubaland has Ahmed Madobe as the president in the infobox. The results of my research were: Google: I could not find any reliable sources to support the claim that he is the president of Jubaland, or even that he exists. Most sources are either clones of Wikipedia or social media accounts. JSTOR: Searching "Ahmed Farah Dualeh" in quotes had zero results. Searching "Ahmed Dualeh" in quotes had a six results. Some of the results are about Elmi Ahmed Dualeh, which I initially believed that "Elmi" was some sort of Somalian title, which I wasn't familar with. However, it is not, as the papers refer to Elmi Ahmed Duale. One result, Against All Odds: The History of Archaeological Research in Somaliland and Somalia, says The most remarkable of these students is Ahmed Dualeh Jama, who published his PhD on Mogadishu; so talks about a different person who has the same first and middle name. The article was created, with the claim that he is the president of Jubaland, over fourteen years ago.

Svampesky (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [reply]

  • Delete I have had to remove the URL as malware. There are no sources. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Diff/1228531930, I'm assuming. Thank you for checking. When I tried it, I got a "Deceptive website warning" and didn't know if it was a false-positive or not. Svampesky (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a hoax, but "Jubaland" is a bit misleading here. In ~2010, Somalia was embroiled in a certain civil war (it's still ongoing); much of the region of Jubaland was (and still is) occupied by al-Shabaab. One consequence of this is that a bunch of self-declared mini-states were established, many with competing claims and no de-facto control. This article from Somalia Report has more detail on the mini-states and mentions Dualeh as the president of a "Jubbaland (2)"; this other Somalia Report article contains an interview with Dualeh, who established his claim in January 2012 in the US. This claim obviously didn't go very far; other claims like Azania, which was initially supported by Kenya during its invasion of southern Somalia to oust al-Shabaab, had more success. There are other sources as well; for example, here's an interview with Dualeh in which he talks about being the "president of Jubaland" at around 1:20. He also appears in Danish media (where he's based), like Jyllands-Posten [5] [6] and this in-depth profile of him in POV International [7], and has an X profile [8].

The POV International profile mentions the Danish movie that Tcr25 found above. Malerisch (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's how a Danish newspaper interview/report describes his "presidency" when talking about the movie: "In 2012, Danish-Somali Ahmed Dualeh was elected by exiled Somalis as president of the regions Gedo, Middle Jubba and lower Jubba, which together make up Jubaland in the civil war-torn country of Somalia, and it is precisely this story that DR tells in the new documentary." (via Google Translate). —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Unity Football Alliance edit

World Unity Football Alliance (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)

An "international football" organization article that is a WP:HOAX in its current form. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South American Board of New Football Federations edit

South American Board of New Football Federations (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 borders on a WP:HOAX. It is not a notable organization, just a very self-important one. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto national football team edit

Esperanto national football team (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 isn't a "national football team". In an attempt to propose a move target, I determined that it should be deleted rather than renamed.

For the first match: some attendees at the 99º Universal Esperanto Congress had a friendly game of football during the event. [9]

The rest appears to be cosplay. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimír Hirsch edit

Vladimír Hirsch (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)

Previously deleted and repeatedly created by sockpuppets and meatpuppets; also, more importantly, it's questionably sourced. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

InterTown Series edit

InterTown Series (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)

Seemingly non notable competition that relys on a single source Mn1548 (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Sutcliffe's cricket career (1919–1927) edit

Herbert Sutcliffe's cricket career (1919–1927) (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)

My third big afd nomination in the Anglo-Australian fancruft forrest on here, planted in the 2000s. Its simple, this time as it is a set of articles about Herbert Sutcliffe, where exactly identical articles were successfully called for deletion here just today Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:
Herbert Sutcliffe's cricket career (1928–1932) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Herbert Sutcliffe's cricket career (1933–1939) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KOHC-CD edit

KOHC-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)

There is no significant coverage of this station, even as a low-power TV station in the 1990s, after an extensive search. It should be redirected to the national list at List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hermias Strauss edit

Hermias Strauss (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)

Redirect to List of Namibian first-class cricketers as I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this modern cricketer. JTtheOG (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rap Rakesh Sethulingam edit

Rap Rakesh Sethulingam (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)

Barely meets WP:MUSICBIO, a non-notable music artist. I can't find any notable works or significant coverage about the subject. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 17:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bredell Wessels edit

Bredell Wessels (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)

Redirect to List of Namibian first-class cricketers as I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this modern cricketer. JTtheOG (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II LD Aspherical IF edit

Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II LD Aspherical IF (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 evidence of meeting WP:NPRODUCT * Pppery * it has begun... 17:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Cup edit

Victory Cup (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)

None notable competition, article relies on one source. Mn1548 (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minolta STF 135mm f/2.8 T4.5 edit

Minolta STF 135mm f/2.8 T4.5 (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)

Spammy article on a model of lens with no evidence of meeting WP:NPRODUCT * Pppery * it has begun... 17:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vhairi Munro edit

Vhairi Munro (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 evidence of notability for this footballer; the only independent source is an interview. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan McCready edit

Ryan McCready (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 claim to notability is serving one term as a local councillor in Derry. Fails WP:NPOL. Media coverage is mostly local and routine - for example, coverage that he changed parties or chose not to seek re-election. AusLondonder (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JC Kritzinger edit

JC Kritzinger (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 South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mint Velvet edit

AfDs for this article:
Mint Velvet (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 clothing brand. Most coverage discussing the brand is actually coverage of its founder, Liz Houghton. In a brief search I found only two detailed writeups: this piece in Vogue which reads like a press release, and this article indicating the brand was acquired by another company in 2019. What little content is here could easily be merged to Liz Houghton. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Janke edit

Grant Janke (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 South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was this piece detailing a criminal charge in Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tertius Maarman edit

Tertius Maarman (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 South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raewyn Murphy edit

Raewyn Murphy (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 evidence of notability for this footballer; the only independent source of note is an interview. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bryony Ross edit

Bryony Ross (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 anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this Scottish women's footballer -- fails WP:GNG. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eilidh Begg edit

Eilidh Begg (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)

WP:TOOSOON for an article for this young footballer. The Perthshire Advertiser piece already in the article is the closest to WP:SIGCOV I was able to find. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bastard Sword edit

The Bastard Sword (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage in independent secondary sources is limited to a single review, [10]. Listed film festivals do not appear to be notable, and tellingly overlap significantly with those listed at Ravenstein (film), another Eveshka Ghost production. The primary editors to these articles appear to have a COI. signed, Rosguill talk 15:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film. signed, Rosguill talk 15:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One review and an possibly significant award at the LA Film Festival. (wrong LA Film festival:D) It could have been redirected to the director but....the nominator just moved their page to DRAFTspace five minutes before nominating their films....so no choice, if we don't want to editwar and make this very confusing...let's DRAFTitfy this and maybe users can make one or two or three decent pages with redirects and merge of content.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With which sources? Across the three articles we have on Eveshka Ghost and their work, the totality of independent coverage is the review identified here and a local news announcement about a screening of Ravenstein (film) ([11]). signed, Rosguill talk 17:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With which sources, what? Improve the article about the director? No idea. If you don't think it's feasible, why did you Draft it? My point is: since you Draftified it, let's draftily everything connected with them. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC) (see also Draft:The Attack Of The Astroharvesters)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, the LA Film Festival is notable.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...which is not the same thing as Los Angeles Film Awards, the festival actually mentioned in this article. It's a cut-rate promotional event designed to trade on the similarity of its name, hoping people won't notice the difference. From their website, [12] Our mission is to promote films, and be another step up in the filmmakers' careers. Each month, our Jury will award the best films through private screenings, and make a special interview with the winner of the Best Picture award. All winners receive a free certificate (PDF/JPG file, ready for print). signed, Rosguill talk 17:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I stand corrected. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenstein (film) edit

Ravenstein (film) (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG, no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Coverage is limited to promotional announcements of upcoming screenings in a local paper ([13]), awards published by non-notable film festivals and primary sources. Rotten Tomatoes lists no critics' reviews; searching online, I was able to find only this, which is an unreliable one-man blog. signed, Rosguill talk 15:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. signed, Rosguill talk 15:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: It could have been redirected to the director with the local source mentioned above but....the nominator just moved their page to DRAFTspace five minutes before nominating their films....so no choice, if we don't want to editwar and make this very confusing...let's DRAFTitfy this and maybe users can make one or two or three decent pages with redirects and merge of content. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even taken all together none of the sources really seem viable for writing either an article about the director or the films. The totality of coverage in independent sources across the articles is the local paper announcement and a review of another film in a maybe-reliable indie source ([14]). signed, Rosguill talk 17:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, maybe, I don't know. But since you draftified the article on the director, I think we should draftify this. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murree rebellion of 1857 edit

Murree rebellion of 1857 (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)

Well it has needed more sourcing since 2014, much of the content seems to be about other events, and there is no real; evidence of notable coverage.

As well as some of the sources being a bit iffy. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you that more sources should be added, maybe also an infobox to sum everything up since it's a pretty long article. However I could find multiple reputable sources with a quick google search such as articles by the University of the Punjab, the Pakistan Perspective, the United Service Institution of India, and a book titled Murree Rebellion of 1857 by Barnabas Crist Bal. I think its important that we expand on this article instead of deleting a piece of history. Thomas Preuss Harrison (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New White Sox Stadium edit

New White Sox Stadium (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 a good example of WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. This is one proposal, but it is so early in the process that this article is not warranted. Angryapathy (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep They are still in negotiations with the state of Illinois on the proposal along with the new Chicago Bears stadium. That's why they are categorized under Category:Proposed stadiums in the United States. If nothing becomes of this proposal, then the category on the page changes to Category:Unbuilt stadiums in the United States. That's the whole purpose of these categories... Roberto221 (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The existence of a category doesn't mean any subject that falls under that category gets its own Wikipedia page. WP:N is paramount, not categories. Angryapathy (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yonezawa PR21 edit

Yonezawa PR21 (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)

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGSIG. The references are PR articles. WP:NPRODUCT can also be applied. Wikilover3509 (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wasn't able to find any independent sources. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Mohiyuddin edit

Ahmed Mohiyuddin (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 couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is quite a famous officer of PSP. He has a big fan following on social media. He is known for live coverage of open court where he listens to people and issues directions on the spot to resolve their problems. In my opinion, article should not be deleted. 39.63.226.172 (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huston Huddleston edit

AfDs for this article:
Huston Huddleston (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 subject appears to fall afoul of WP:CRIM, specifically the criminal...should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: 1) The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or 2) The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.

I would contend that neither of these conditions is met. I don't think there's any argument that the motivation or execution of the crime itself was unusual or of historic importance, or that the victim was a renowned individual. While it was stated at RFUD that the subject is a high-profile individual, coverage since their fall from grace (i.e. post-2018) is extremely limited, and that which does exist ([15]) suggests that the subject is intentionally avoiding the limelight and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Following the guidance at Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual, I would conclude that Huddleston is a low-profile individual at this time.

Even before the indictment, significant coverage in RS is limited to the context of Hollywood Sci-Fi Museum; if we had an article on that topic (or if the biography of his father Floyd Huddleston, made any mention of Huston and/or we had a source to back up that claim) a redirect outcome would be appropriate, but we don't at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 14:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd Huddleston does mention Huston:
"On December 30, 1965, Huddleston married Nancy Adams, a commercial jingle singer, at the First Baptist Church chapel in Memphis, Tennessee. Huddleston died from a heart attack on September 27, 1991, at a hospital located in Panorama City, Los Angeles. Huddleston was survived by his wife Nancy, his son, Huston, and his mother, Hettye T. Huddleston." Miri1966 (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that Huston Huddleston has not been avoiding limelight and has been making independent films (hiring underage actresses) which he has posted about on his own social media. It does not seem relevant to include in the article but it is in context for why the article should remain. Miri1966 (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NOTINHERITED. Angryapathy (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say his notability is due entirely to being Floyd Huddleston's son, only that it is not true that Floyd's biography fails to mention him.
His notability is anchored in his own activities as a writer/director which are ongoing; the museum project which has had numerous news articles and financial campaigns; his conviction which merits documentation as he has continued to work in both listed areas. Miri1966 (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a perfect example of WP:ONEEVENT. The news stories picked it up for a news cycle, and then immediately didn't care about him. He wasn't notable before or after the short flurry of news coverage. Angryapathy (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been an ongoing event for years between 2018 and 2024 and there are additional news sources that I can provide - additional information may still be pending. This information being captured here has been critical. Miri1966 (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuuguu edit

Yuuguu (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)

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGSIG. The Telegraph article is about Powwownow and just mentions why they are acquiring Yuuguu. The TechCrunch articles are PR articles. Wikilover3509 (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 F-35 crash edit

2024 F-35 crash (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 military aircraft crash, fails WP:EVENT: no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, highly unlikely to be any WP:LASTING effects Rosbif73 (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Michael's School B zone unit edit

St. Michael's School B zone unit (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)

Completely unsourced since its creation in 2013. No reliable sources found online, does not meet WP:NORG. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of preserved Boeing aircraft edit

List of preserved Boeing aircraft (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)

It duplicates the content on the main article pages. (e.g. Boeing 707) Dedicated aircraft on display articles are only created for single types when the list becomes too long for the main article. The list also includes pictures, which runs counter to the WikiProject:Aviation style guide.

Subsequent to the creation of this AfD, I discovered there is an additional article created by the same user at: List of preserved McDonnell Douglas aircraft. –Noha307 (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 4. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 05:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, Lists, and Virginia. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The linked "No images should be included in lists of aircraft, this is not what lists are for." is one of the strangest things I've seen here. All of my lists include pictures and this prohibition makes no sense, why would this be here? What lists does this refer to specifically? I can imagine for certain large lists you wouldn't want excessive pictures that look similar and add little, but I don't see a need to apply that here; that is not a justification for deletion. Where you're talking about individual aircraft that are preserved and on display for people to see, showing everyone here who can't go to all these museums what they look like is a great idea! While I agree that duplication with the bullet-point lists in the main article is not great, I think a list that can include additional details like useful pictures – or at least be a central navigation page – can be reasonable. Keep Reywas92Talk 17:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    All of my lists include pictures and this prohibition makes no sense, why would this be here?

    It increases the file size of the page. However, it also unnecessarily increases the height of each row of the table and reduces the width of the other cells, which makes the table longer and the legibility of information more difficult as the text is wrapped onto multiple lines. However, these are my own reasons. There's a bit more in a section on the talk page of the style guide.
    It's worth noting that a number of the images don't show the aircraft on display, but in service, which is not appropriate or useful for a list of this type.

    that is not a justification for deletion

    Agreed. In and of itself, it is not a justification for deletion. However, it is something that adds weight against it. –Noha307 (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have any size concerns here, nor issues with the length of the table or column/text width. Even if the retired craft on display is preferred, I would not remove images of service. Reywas92Talk 01:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this list appears to be missing the 707 Air Force One as noted at Air Force One#Boeing 707s and entry to jet age. No opinion on whether this should be kept or not, but that seems a strange omission. Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nom and Reywas95 both make valid points. That said, the concerns with the article do not warrant deletion. Rather, improvements are welcome. In this respect, I wonder if it would be possible to create shared sections (not sure on the WP jargon) that can both fit into the model articles and into this article. gidonb (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of the problem is that it duplicates information that already exists. There's no need for a separate article listing preserved aircraft unless they are too long for the main article and if that is the case, then it should be broken down by airplane model, not manufacturer. You could argue WP:MERGE into main articles or separate into dedicated articles each models instead of deleting it. However, in the latter case a) certain aircraft would not have sufficient numbers of entries for a dedicated article and b) that would make the manufacturer just a list of links that could be replaced by a category. –Noha307 (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split to individual aircraft types. These manufacturer-based lists are problematic because they either end up duplicating the information in the article on the type, or they are incomplete because they omit types that have only a couple of surviving examples which are adequately covered on the main article on the type. It looks like the anonymous editor creating these manufacturer-based lists was also recently involved in a bad-faith PROD of an aircraft type article. It would be good for the folks involved in creating and maintaining lists of preserved aircraft could generate some consensus on thesholds of when to split from type articles, and also agree not to create manufacturer lists like this one. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why does the list only cover Boeing 7x7's? Boeing made many other aircraft types, so shouldn't they be covered in the list is kept? Mjroots (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yeah. This arbitrariness is another argument against these manufacturer-based lists IMHO. --Rlandmann (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I've updated the article to be based on other aircraft Boeing series aircraft, not just 7x7's 220.244.141.72 (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per @Reywas92 and @gidonb 220.244.141.72 (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I found a few sources to justify WP:LISTN through a quick google search. From the nom's perspective, I can understand how the article as written was focusing on the 707's. But AfD is not cleanup. Conyo14 (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Progress Chapter Two: The March Of Progress edit

Progress Chapter Two: The March Of Progress (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 reason why this small show would be independently notable from the parent company. WP:BEFORE didn't show this event was particularly notable. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for the sincere feedback. However, I believe that a proper categorization and documentation of Progress Wrestling's "Chapter" flagship events should exist. Now I understand that the early chapters might indeed be less notable than the more recent ones but I believe they should be part of the project which has to benefit from clear continuity. The presence of only some of the chapters on the mainspace would disrupt it as this continuity should be sanctioned as a book with pages. Let me know what you think. Regards! JeyReydar97 (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have articles on subjects that aren't notable simply because later similar articles might be notable. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of these events are also featured on WWE Network's broadcast system as VOD shoes as Progress has held business relationships with WWE. They're pretty popular on that streaming service. JeyReydar97 (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No coverage in RS, nothing found now. Was a decade ago, likely no further coverage. I don't see any sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It has video coverage on Progress' Youtube channel. I also found written coverages from two trustworthy sites. One of them is 411Mania. They should be more than enough as references. JeyReydar97 (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment: Perhaps @JeyReydar97: could combine a couple of these early events into a larger article? Mixed martial arts does something similar for articles such as 2020 in Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki. JTtheOG (talk) 03:15, 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! 20:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HHH Pedrigree: Thank you; I wasn't sure wether they had done it for wrestling events too. JTtheOG (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morrigan Aensland edit

Morrigan Aensland (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)

Genuinely so surprised to find that this article literally has nothing in the way of Reception. I took on the task of cleaning out the very outdated and over bloated Reception, and when I was done trimming out trivial mentions and unreliable sources, I found practically nothing left over. I performed an extensive BEFORE in the hopes of finding something to salvage this article, but there is genuinely nothing out there bar trivial mentions from stuff like CBR. In the article's current state I'm really not seeing enough to meet the GNG, and I'd suggest a merge or redirect to the Darkstalkers character list as an AtD. I'm genuinely so surprised there's nothing here, so if anyone can find anything I missed to improve this article, please feel free to share them, but right now I just don't think there's enough for an article here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A reception section is not necessary for a fictional element to meet GNG. Can you comment on the plethora of other sourcing still present in the article? Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconding this. I've mentioned this to the nominator many times before but they never seem to hear me.. Sergecross73 msg me 01:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would appreciate not being accused of ignoring advice, here, and I've been wary of that primarily after the Koopa Troopa debate. Akin to that article and other articles I've seen in similar situations, those articles had a demonstrated impact beyond or within their series (Koopa Troopa influencing the designs of many characters in the series, for example.) Morrigan has some decent conception information, yes, but there's nothing in her conception information really demonstrating an inherent importance to her series or beyond it, especially in conjunction with the real lack of overall Reception, hence why I nominated it. Pinging @Jclemens for this reasoning so they're notified of this reply, given that both of you had the same query. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't like the accusations, stop writing nominations that hinge so heavily on the lack of a reception section. Sergecross73 msg me 02:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reception is a major crux in showing the subject's notability. While conception and design info can greatly help with that, oftentimes it isn't enough. (For instance, I once worked on a draft for Celebi (Pokemon), and that article had fantastic conception information but nothing showing that Celebi actually made an impact on anything.) Reception needs to work in conjunction with design information to prove a subject's notability, and I have seen cases where this is the case (For instance, I recently got Mew (Pokémon) to Good Article, and that article's heavy amounts of developmental information in conjunction with its displayed cultural impact help demonstrate notability) but in the case of Morrigan, there's scraps of information in her Reception with a conception section that doesn't display that Morrigan impacted her series with her design (akin to Koopa Troopa) nor has there been extensive detail on the subject's development been published to a point where the development in and of itself is notable. I'm not saying the conception info here isn't bad, but what I am saying is that I'm not seeing enough for a separate article to be worthwhile when a more than valid AtD happens to exist. I will admit that past cases such as Shulk and Koopa Troopa turned out to be incorrect in terms of their consensus, but I have noted these past consensuses and adapted it into my overall philosophy with articles. If Morrigan had even a few sources more I'd believe her to be meeting the notability guideline, but in this case she just frankly isn't. I have concerns with your accusation not because I'm ignoring your advice, but because of the fact that I worry that you think I am. Just because I have had past AfDs with "Keep" consensuses should not immediately devalue this one solely on the grounds of the one who nominated it, especially since I have laid out my rationale in very extensive detail in response to both you and Jclemens's queries. Additionally, I would also appreciate that we keep to the discussion of the subject in question, as I feel continuing down this chain of response will only lead to us getting off topic, but I thought I'd at least make my stance clear for clarity's sake so this does not become an issue both for this discussion and for future discussions. If you have further concerns about this, I'd appreciate if we continue it on my user talk page, since an AfD is not the proper place for a discussion about editing practices that do not pertain to this discussion in question. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A reception section is one, but not the only, way to demonstrate notability. Many, but not all, RS coverage could be shoehorned into a reception section. Hence me asking the clarifying question: is there no RS coverage that you believe to be suitable for a reception section, or no RS coverage at all? You wrote a nomination that didn't answer that question, and I'd still like to hear your thoughts on that, because at first blush there appears to be a lot of references in the article, most of which are not in the reception section. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit confused about what you're asking. Are you asking about if there are sources for Reception used in the plot summary? From what I can tell, most of them are just verifying plot information or something similar, and any conception info isn't valid for Reception in this case. I can take another look when I'm home if you want but when I looked I didn't really notice much in the way of anything helpful in there. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Darkstalkers series (and its media spin-offs) were at the height of their popularity from 1994 to c. 1998. I an not certain that there are recent sources on for a series that has not seen new entries for about 25 years. Dimadick (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I definitely second this, but I admittedly was unable to find much in the way of coverage in a peruse of Archive.org, and any other form of accessing sourcing or magazine coverage from that time period is inaccessible to me. There may be coverage, but the existence of it cannot be ascertained unless other editors bring them to light. If significant coverage in those kinds of source is found, I'd definitely be willing to reconsider my stance, but I unfortunately cannot confirm the existence of these potential sources at this time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Darkstalkers characters. Could not really find any SIGCOV besides this, but there is a perfectly fine WP:ATD. However, deleting nearly the entire reception before nominating is considered something of a "cover-up" and not encouraged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I wasn't really intending anything of the sort, as I was intending to just clean up the article before I realized the lack of any actual coverage in there. I will assure you that the stuff I removed wasn't really doing much for the article, in any case, and if any editor wishes to take a look at the sources in the old state of the article, they can be found here. For the most part, it was primarily trivial mentions and sources of questionable authenticity (Practically of all of which were not really helpful either way). Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pokelego999 "I will assure you that the stuff I removed wasn't really doing much for the article" I disagree with you strongly (and I am a deletionist). Please do not remove such content ever again outside AfD, or without providing detailed explanation on talk why a particular source is unreliable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want, I am willing to do an analysis on each source I removed from the article. I am more than willing to justify my stance on this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm @Pokelego999 This is... bad. If the article is kept, I ask Pokelago999 to restore the removed content. What was wrong, for example, with " In 1996, Mean Machines Sega described her as "one of the most bewitching girl characters ever to appear in gaming, which explains her huge fan base in Japan – comprising men and women!"" sourced to "Mean Machines Sega 40 (February 1996), pages 18–20."? @Daranios in case you have not seen this (plenty of interesting sources there). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Half of these sources were using trivial mentions putting up a semblance of notability when coverage really isn't there. For instance, the article you're citing seems to really be only a sentence in terms of actual commentary. Looking at the magazine in particular, the text states "A succubus, or demon, who feeds on human blood while hiding in beautiful female form, Morrigan is one of the most bewitching characters ever to appear in gaming, which explains her huge fan base in Japan – comprising men and women! Given the chance, she reveals her less attractive batty form. Specialty attacks include creating mirror images of herself, and blasting across the screen on a beam of fire." and nothing more. For the most part this is relatively minor, with only the cited sentence really amounting to much. At most, all that can be cited is "in beautiful female form, Morrigan is one of the most bewitching characters ever to appear in gaming, which explains her huge fan base in Japan – comprising men and women!" which is at most an extension of one sentence coverage, aka the standard definition of a trivial mention. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While that source is not very relevant for notability (due to SIGCOV) it is very relevant to the content. IF the article is kept, this, and likely most if not all of what you have removed, should be restored. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But if it isn't relevant, why did you vote keep? You only provided two sources to prove notability, one of which doesn't apply to notability, and then didn't specify what other sources counted as SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Unless sourcing is found, per Zx. I went through the sources as shown in the article's history, and and extensively through WP:BEFORE. I *rewrote* the entire dev section on this article even. But I don't think Pokelego's reasoning is wrong here: when you look at what's actually being said here, and the context, it's not there or at least hasn't been found. Even the Troopa article had some footing on how it changed with the Mario series and affected it, and that'd been lost. Here anything major can be summed up for the list or series article I feel.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ADDENDUM I feel it's important to note too that this is one of Niemti/Snake's articles, an editor known for refbombing, overblowing sources, or outright fabricating information. The dev section alone before I rewrote it was a bit of a wreck in that regard, so reference count should not be considered as proof.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the content of this source [16] to list since the character didn't passed WP:GNG. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 22:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The source mentioned by Zxcvbnm together with the Kotaku article (which is about one sculpture representation, but also about the character as a whole) and the shorter treatment in this academic article, as well as many other shorter comments in my view fullfill the miniumum requirements of WP:GNG and allow to write a non-stubby article which fullfills the requirements of both WP:WHYN and WP:ALLPLOT. Also e.g. some commentary in the Gameplay section amounts to reception even if it is under a different heading for reasons of coherence. Failing that, I would obviously prefer a merge as WP:ATD compared to deletion. Daranios (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Daranios: The mention of Morrigan in the academic article is solely listing her as an example of an erotic devil and not saying anything about that depiction other than briefly stating what a succubus is supposed to be. Additionally the sources under gameplay fall under game guide, and are strictly relating to how the character played in those particular title. To boot, if you look at these articles, they are done for all characters there, not individually just for her. If that counted as SIGCOV, we'd have articles for every Pokemon.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kung Fu Man: If you would like to have sources with Morrigan as the main topic, which is not required by WP:GNG, there would be the two-page book chapter and the Kotaku web article, thus two sources for the bare minium of "multiple sources". The academic article talks about the iconography represented by Morrigan, I'll add what I see there to the article when I have time. Sources under game play descibe the game play, but there are also things like she's a "balanced character" "but doesn't stand out", which are clearly value judgements, i.e. reception. Otherwise things boil down to the usual discussion: That sources should not "count" for notability if they do not have long or exclusive treatment of the topic is an interpretation of WP:SIGCOV which I do not share. To the contrary my interpretation is that multiple short treatments collectively can form significant coverage, but of course only if said coverage is not trivial. That then is the something one can argue about, like the fact that someone had added source to the article thinking them worthwhile, while Pokelego999 has removed many in the good faith assumption that said coverage was trivial. So far I have only looked at the remaining sources after that clean-up. Daranios (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios: I'm all down for a "Death by 1000 Cuts" approach, but sources still have to be saying something and offering some sort of analysis to satisfy SIGCOV. There still needs to be something that illustrates discussion that warrants an encyclopedic article. "Morrigan is a succubus" and nothing more in an article academic or otherwise isn't that. I get trying to save an article, but you can't by calling molehills mountains.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kung Fu Man: Thanks for improving the content from "Lilith en la cultura audiovisual". I think what we have there now is indeed something (I've never claimed it was very long). So my opinion remains that there is enough non-trivial material based on secondary sources available to write a non-stubby article, and what we already have in this regard in the article now would be akwardly much if pressed into the current format of List of Darkstalkers characters. Thus I still prefer keep over merge. Daranios (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios: I strongly feel you are giving that source undue weight: it's not an examination of her as a character, or even commentary of, it's simply observing she's a succubus in modern media. It is borderline trivial, and nothing would be lost by the article being merged (unlike the Koopa Troopa article above).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kung Fu Man: I believe the two sentences added are suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia which has no space limit as in WP:NOTPAPER, I do not find this look into the creative origins trivial. That's all the weight I give that one source. Daranios (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage in Kotaku ([17], [18]), plus other sources (granted, many don't meet SIGCOV) should be enough. She is a classic icon in anime and manga fandom. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just being well known isn't enough for an article- debates such as Diddy Kong, King K. Rool, and Pit have shown as much. Additionally, one of the sources you cite here is CBR, which per WP:VALNET, bears no weight on notability in discussions such as these. The Kotaku source is... a figurine review? Admittedly the first paragraph is nice but the rest is the author criticizing fan artists and describing how good a figurine looks, which really doesn't discuss Morrigan much at all. As you stated above, most of the other sources don't meet SIGCOV. There really aren't many strong sources, if at all, to support this. Per my above comment, I'm willing to give an in-depth source analysis on every single source I removed to prove my point further. There's really just nothing here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subjective impression that a character is well known isn't enough for an article. But if secondary sources talk about this, like the Kotaku source does ("one of the most widely depicted characters in video games", very popular in cosply), then that is exactly what the notability requirement asks for. So, yeah, the Kotaku article does review a figure, which is well within the scope of this topic, but the same article additionally discusses the character as a whole. Daranios (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For about one paragraph, yes. The rest of the content, per my above comment, is mostly unusable as it does not pertain to Morrigan's character. I believe the paragraph, is, as you said, usable, but that's really all that can be taken from the Kotaku source. Even then, it really only notes that the character is popular, which isn't enough to support the article itself, given that there are only one (debatably two) other sources in the Reception contributing to notability. I concur with KFM on the subject of the book being pretty trivial since it's really only a two sentence comparison to another character stating their designs are similar. I can't speak on "500 Essential Anime Movies: The Ultimate Guide" since I lack access to it, but an article that's just a paragraph of people saying "she's popular" with no commentary plus one or two additional sources really doesn't have enough to justify a separation. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment given that editors are getting hung up over the removal of sources in my cleanup, I've elected to go over each removed source in this comment. This should hopefully allow for clarity on the reasons each of these sources do not aid Morrigan's notability.
-"Go On, Let Morrigan Drive You Batty" from Kotaku really only states "Since debuting in 1994 Darkstalkers: The Night Warriors, Morrigan Aensland has become one of gaming's most iconic characters. A fan service favorite, Morrigan continues to attract cosplayers, eager to put on succubus's revealing outfit..." the rest is just the author critiquing fan cosplays. This is basically a trivial mention given that, in basic terms, it's just saying "She's iconic and popular in cosplay." It can be used to bolster the point of the prior Kotaku article mentioned above by Daranios and Piotrus, but given how weak it is- and the fact that is three paragraphs and a swarm of links to random cosplays- its overall commentary is minimal.
-The "Mean Machines Sega 40" source, which Piotrus brought up earlier, has this one sentence summary of Morrigan being popular. Thing is, it only acknowledges that she's popular in cosplay, and she isn't even the sole focus, with Felicia also being brought up. A look at the source reveals no more than this. Frankly, this is a very trivial mention given how brief it is, especially given it isn't even specifically about Morrigan.
-I can't access the UGO source given it's a dead link like all other UGO sources, but given it seems to be an easter egg video for Scott Pilgrim, I'd assume the commentary is a rather minimal explanation of a cameo appearance in the game. At most it can really only be used to additionally verify the "she's popular" claim.
-"Top 15 sexiest characters to cosplay" is exactly the kind of commentary Wikipedia needs. But yeah, sarcasm aside, this basically just says "Morrigan is sexy" in a single sentence of a top fifteen listicle. Trivial mention in a nutshell.
-This Destructoid source is a brief, three-four paragraph article talking briefly about an upcoming figure, and unlike the Kotaku source, the reviewer barely comments on the figure in question. Again, just another brief thing saying "Morrigan is popular" with little to no substance.
-These sources for famous cosplay figures are... bizarre. The Nigri source is just a link to her Facebook page, the first Gosiengfago source is just a brief paragraph of how she likes cosplay and how Morrigan is one (among many) characters she enjoys cosplaying. I can't access the UNO Guam source but it seems to be owned by the same people who made the last Gosiengfago source. The Kotaku source is a brief couple paragraph blurb about how a photo of a Morrigan cosplay looked good. There's nothing on the character there bar verifying the fact that Gosiengfago cosplayed Morrigan. The first Le source is an interview, which is a primary source. The other Le source I can't access because of a pop-up for their newsletter or whatever it is... which seems to indicate the site itself is really iffy, but I can't ascertain reliability per the pop-up. The G4tv source is labelled as a blog but seems to be a staff writer which is confusing, but either way is really only a sentence or two of commentary at most. The first Meritt source is a trivial mention briefly discussing how she did Morrigan once. The second Meritt source seems to be a blog, while the third source mentions her for a sentence. The Bayonetta source mentions Morrigan once as a past cosplay with no additional commentary. While this kind of stuff is worth mentioning, there's a lot of very trivial mentions of it being roped in (Or straight up unreliable sources) being roped in that put undue weight onto this part of the subject. You can very likely trim this down to just a sentence saying "Several notable people have cosplayed Morrigan..." and leave it at that, though even then there's a lot of sources that need trimming first.
-Second usage of the same Mean Machines source which I've gone over above already.
-The two sources following Mean Machines- ""ベストキャラクター賞" [Best Character Award]. Gamest (212): 102. 30 January 1998." and "SSM 25/1997, page 125." are both random listicle rankings that place her rather low on it overall. There's not really any value in these sources and they're the exact type of thing that wouldn't be acceptable in an article these days.
-Famitsu source is the same as above, except this time it's literally just her name in a column and nothing else.
-I can't access the "muses" source, even via Wayback/Archive, but it seems like a rather trivial listicle given it's a top twenty for a niche subject.
-The Girls of Gaming source I can't access, but it seems minor overall given it's an introductory quote not even entirely about Morrigan. If you can find this one do let me know so I can take a look at it.
-The Kotaku source following this literally has all of its commentary summed up by what's quoted in the old version, that being "I've always found Morrigan a fascinating character. Darkstalkers is a fairly obscure series, one which few people will have played on a regular basis, and yet Morrigan is always front and centre when it comes to fan art and cosplay." Aka, it's one sentence of coverage in a three paragraph long article which is literally just the author sharing a cool piece of Morrigan fanart they found on DeviantArt.
-EGM Source seems to literally just be "Morrigan had a baby named after them" which is cool I guess but very much trivia and not even that uncommon among videogame characters.
-The GamesRadar source about Morrigan and Chun-Li in Project x Zone is not even entirely about Morrigan and just reiterates that she's popular and nothing more. The fact the bit quoted had to link Chun-Li in the quote for it to make sense is telling.
-The GamesRadar top thirty source mentions Morrigan as part of Felicia's description. Morrigan isn't even ranked on the list.
-The GameSpot source's entire text is "From the Capcom side, this week we're featuring everybody's favorite succubus, Morrigan. Hailing from the Darkstalkers universe, Morrigan has been a mainstay in the Capcom crossover fighting games and is definitely a fan favorite. Morrigan's default costume is perfect for her personality: somewhere between a batlike demon and a charming lover. The purple and teal are great colors to work from." Which is... very minimal. It, again, boils down to "she's popular" and I guess one sentence on color cohesion? Will note this whole source is mostly just summarizing alt colors for an upcoming fighting game, and that Morrigan wasn't even the only character being described, with Deadpool being directly before her, for example, with similarly trivial commentary.
-Again, I can't find or access the "play" sources, so I can't assess their notability, but given that they are summarized with zero quotes or anything, keeping them around is very much not a weight on notability unless their contents can be found and assessed.
-The Crunchyroll source is just the author making one sentence commentary on various pieces of fanart- and not all of them are about Morrigan. Very much a trivial mention.
-GamesTM is a standard "Why did this character get in instead of x and x" thing that happens every time a fighting game roster is fully revealed. Very much a trivial mention, especially since it isn't even exclusively Morrigan who is brought up here.
-The We Love Golf source is cool trivia but not much more.
-The Kotaku source following this mentions Morrigan once in the whole article. This is the most trivial mention trivial mention I've ever seen.
-I can't even access where Morrigan is in the Game Informer source due to the link expiring. Due to the fact that the link's stuck with a broken archive link, it's impossible to ascertain the notability of this source, but this seems to be a standard list akin to "twenty characters we'd like to see in the next Smash game" kind of deal. Not impossible for commentary but it seems unlikely.
-Complex source is a weak listicle per others above. The second complex link literally mentions Morrigan once in the whole article with no additional commentary.
-The only commentary I can glean from the GamesRadar listicle is "This sultry succubus is one of fighting games leading ladies, striking a balance between the dignified seriousness of Chun-Li and the hyper-sexualized cleavage-heaving antics of Mai Shiranui. Granted, Morrigans ridiculously revealing costume seems like it could slip off at any moment." The rest is plot summary and appearance summaries, and the second sentence of this quote is just "she has skimpy clothing" which really doesn't count as valid commentary.
-Third Complex source is another listicle per the others above.
-I can't speak on Gamenguide's popularity, but in the case of the article, it's literally just saying "She's popular because a Darkstalkers game just came out and strong in competitive" with a one sentence statement saying she's iconic. Really only is able to verify the above two "popularity" and "iconic" points more than anything else.
-Crunchyroll source after this is a figure review with one sentence of commentary on Morrigan, being "Morrigan Aensland is a perennial Darkstalkers favorite, and for good reason. She's gorgeous, powerful, and all-around awesome." which is the definition of a trivial mention.
-Do I even have to explain why 3/4 of the "sex appeal" articles are unreliable? You can take a look if you want but most of them are trivial rankings or listicles about how Morrigan is sexy and whatnot. It's very unprofessional and doesn't even have much significant commentary.
-A Top 50 listicle about "chicks behaving badly" offers very little real commentary on Morrigan.
-Morrigan isn't even mentioned in the following GamesRadar source, she's just included as part of an image collage alongside who knows how many other characters. This article is more about Chell (Portal) than anything else.
-The next two listicles really explain themselves. Following this, most of the sources there fall into similar pitfalls of "Really random thing tangentially related to Morrigan and how she was brought up in an oddly specific listicle." There's really nothing in any of them and they all lack substance. The Game Revolution source is literally just an April Fool's joke they did that doesn't even comment on Morrigan, and instead is just a joke.
-The entire paragraph on her cartoon appearance are all trivial mentions, primarily sourced to season reviews that are barely about her.
I feel you could maybe squeeze some stuff out of the celebrity cosplayers bit if you tried but that doesn't really help with notability when nearly every other source surrounding it boils down to a trivial mention or sources that just aren't valuable commentary in the slightest. Do ping me if anyone disagrees with any assessments here and I'll be willing to elaborate on these in further detail, but I do hope this helps enlighten some of my thinking with removing these sources and why I feel they don't contribute to Morrigan's notability in a debate like this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just repeat what I wrote above, which is that while you are right that most of those sources "don't contribute to Morrigan's notability", they are relevant to the article, and if the article is kept, they shold be restored. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they don't contribute to notability then they don't contribute at all. Several of these per Pokelego's analysis above literally don't say anything: they're just images. And speaking frankly, I would've cleaned the hell out of this article if they hadn't, because I have had the unfortunate experience of doing that with Niemti's works.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kung Fu Man above, if these don't contribute to notability, then how are they in anyway relevant to the notability of the subject in this discussion? We're not talking about what happens if this article is kept, we're talking about if it should be kept at all or not, and per above, the sources you've provided to prove it should be kept are very weak. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If it's any help, I've found two scholarly sources on Morrigan. MoonJet (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking through the two, the first is questioning if it's reasonable for her to be sexually objectified because she's a succubus. It's brief but could be useful, however it's also just a student essay and Anette Holmström doesn't appear to have any credentials or publication history. The second after hunting it down is discussing how a cosplayer came to like the character and the various stages of understanding them. It's mainly framed through the cosplayer's recollection, but some tangible thoughts could be cited from the paper's observations of her statements and reactions as it's published. It could at least give the whole "she's popular in cosplay" thing a little bit of a leg to stand on.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My opinions on the first source are akin to KFM's (It's pretty small, but it also has debatable weighting towards notability) while I am unable to access the second source. I trust KFM's judgement on the second source as potential elaboration on the cosplay point, but as I said I am unable to ascertain how much would be added, and if it would be trivial or substantial overall. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's been extensive argumentation from participants thus far, who are relatively evenly divided between merge and keep. Additional opinions from new participants would likely be the most useful contribution for establishing a consensus at this time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin Abdal edit

Miskin Abdal (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 and WP:BIO. References cited are unclear, poorly formatted and mostly incapable of verification. Unencyclopedic tone. Created and edited by sockpuppets. Geoff | Who, me? 16:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, clearly meets WP:GNG per [24], which is already cited in the article. Psychastes (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to read this citation. I see that it was published in 2001. What kind of document or any evidence it has? thx HeritageGuardian (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I found the citation 6 at https://ia801605.us.archive.org/26/items/huseyn-ismayilov-miskin-abdal-2001/H%C3%BCseyn%20%C4%B0smay%C4%B1lov%20-%20Miskin%20Abdal%20%20-%202001.pdf. It is the same as citation 5 in previous log. There is no references to any documents. HeritageGuardian (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - references to this article do not cite any documents that could support claims made in it. All of them are opinions of their authors.HeritageGuardian (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have investigated this article in depth and found out that this is a hoax for the following reasons.
1. All citation for this article do not reference any well known Safavid literature, although in its first paragraph, it is stated that "many years was in charge of foreign affairs of the Safavid state under Shah Ismail Khatai (1487–1524)." Names of all persons who were in charge of foreign affairs during Shah Ismail are well known. None of them was an ashugh or had nickname Miskin Abdal or was from nowadays territory of Armenia as stated in this article

2. At page 38 of the first citation "https://www.academia.edu/40616613" there is a picture supposedly of an order given to M. Abdal by Safavid King Ismail. However, it is fake. Because non of the Safavids Kings had that kind of large seal and usually Safavid orders have seal at the top of the text but not at the bottom. Also, kings' orders were not given to anybody, but kept in chancery.

3. In the first paragraph of this article it is stated "He was the founder of the ashugh school" and again referred to this book "https://www.academia.edu/40616613, where there is no references proving this statement.

4. The second paragraph states "One of the brightest figures in the history of Azerbaijan, he played an important role in the development of science and art." and refers to a book, where I did not find any proof to this statement. Only statement by its author.

5. The third paragraph states "Under the name of Miskin, Abdal (Architect of the soul) was the creator of the literature of Azerbaijani minstrels - ashugh folk singers." to which there is no reference.

6. The fourth paragraph states "After many years of service at the court of Shah Ismail I Khatai, in 1524 he returned home. He opened the first school in Sariyagub ... " and refers to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miskin_Abdal#cite_ref-3 However, the referred content does not have anything related to the above statement. So, the fourth paragraph is a completely false statement.

7. The rest of the article until the last sentence does not have any citations, so I accepted it as statement of users who created this article. Btw those users were identified as sockpuppets

Due to the above reasons, I recommend this article be deleted immediately. HeritageGuardian (talk) 05:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete, mostly per WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:V and WP:TNT. Searching his name on Google Scholar finds sources whose reliability I cannot evaluate stating that there was a sufi by this name at about this time period. For anything beyond that I get the impression that much is folklore (specifically, the epic "Miskin Abdal and Senuber" briefly mentioned in our article). Our article itself reads like it was transcribed from that epic, or maybe from a children's history book based on it. We need to clearly distinguish fact from folklore here, but we cannot do it with the current basis. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Eppstein Miskin Abdal was definitely not a fictional character. TNT feels really off here as I have pointed out given the problem is unsourced content, which I have removed now (thus not so difficult to solve). And the rest is easily solvable as the content is not much. Verifiability cannot be a reason for deletion alone, unless it is TNT. The results from Google Scholar are mostly academic journals. If the concern is their reliability, we would be better off assessing each one (44 results with one spelling) instead of making general statements. There is also a plethora of other sources that can be found on Google Books as well as those I have additionally linked above. Respectfully, I find this vote misguided since most sources are not in English, plus we most likely have a WP:SPA above (please check their edit history), who has gone so far to claim this is a hoax despite obvious WP:SIGCOV. Aintabli (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When you say "Miskin Abdal was definitely not a fictional character" it is difficult to determine whether you mean that (1) someone by that name existed, (2) nobody ever wrote any fiction about him, or (3) the content of our article is not based on fiction. Those are different things and we need to distinguish them clearly. If there is verifiable and reliable content about the factual details of his life, that needs to be sourced. If our article is entirely based on an epic, it should be about the epic, not the character in it. So far the best evidence we have is a Google Books link that tells us the title of a book, which doesn't help resolve these questions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Eppstein, I mean that someone by that name existed. Those are not the only sources, and Google Books has limited preview. See this for example, which is his entry in a biographical dictionary published by a university in Turkey. This is just an example of the variety of sources available about his life and not just his works. Aintabli (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are two more sources "solely" about him: paper from an academic journal and a book At this point, there are at least 5 publications shared here that delve into the details of his life and numerous other that are partially about him. As I have underlined, taking Miskin Abdal as a fictional character would be a huge misunderstanding, which you appear to have partially based your vote on. TNT leaves an open door to recreation, and as far as I know, is meant to be for incurable articles that would be timesinks to edit. A merely 50-100 word article does not fit into that description. Aintabli (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first citation you gave simply repeats statements made in book by İsmayılov Hüseyn, which I have already investigated and found out that it does not have any reliable references.
    The second citation you gave, a paper from academic journal, references some newspaper articles. A newspaper article does not provide a reliable source. It is expected that a scientific journal gives a reference to original documents.
    The last book you cited basically repeats content of the first book from the citations of this article. On page 43 a picture of a Safavid king order is presented, which is fake. Because none of the Safavid Kings had that kind of large seal and usually Safavid orders have seal at the top of the text but not at the bottom.
    Moreover, I did not find any reliable information about epic "Miskin Abdal and Senuber" that was mentioned in this article and in book by İsmayılov, Hüseyn. This looks suspicious because an epic was mentioned only in 2001. This is too late for an epic. It could be invented as a part of this hoax.
    I noticed that you removed much of the text and left the first paragraph intact, where a statement is made "... statesman, who for many years was in charge of foreign affairs of the Safavid state under Shah Ismail Khatai (1487–1524). He was the founder of the ashugh school" This statement is false. I have already commented on it. Will repeat again. Names of all persons who were in charge of foreign affairs during Shah Ismail are well known. None of them had nickname Miskin Abdal or founded an ashugh school.
    Overall, the more I investigated this article, the more I get convinced that a group of people tried to publish the same or similar content in various news articles and books, to create impression about existence of a known person. HeritageGuardian (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obe (Soups) edit

Obe (Soups) (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)

All sources cited are blogs, and thus not WP:RS. Few appear to even approximately support the content they are supposedly being cited for. And as far as I have been able to determine, 'obe' is simply a generic Yoruba word for 'soup' and/or 'sauce'. If properly sourced, an article on Yoruba cuisine might well be a legitimate topic, but such an article would have to describe, using appropriate sources, what made it distinctive. Having a word for something doesn't in of itself make a topic notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Peshawar (1758) edit

Capture of Peshawar (1758) (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)

Does this pass GNG?

Its not a battle (even a minor one) and seems to have only the briefest of mentions in sources (one line, at most). Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Ijebu edit

AfDs for this article:
Baba Ijebu (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)

Not notable betting company; no reliable sources to meet NCORP BoraVoro (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Sources look fairly dubious. 1 is a how-to guide with pros/cons of playing, 2 is highly promotional ("popularity spreading like wildfire"), 3 is a hagiographic (see "Not only is Sir Kensington a successful business mogul, he also continues to contribute his quota to humanity") profile of the owner, 4 is a brief statement that the company has signed an athlete to an endorsement deal. Passing mentions found on Google above do not contribute to notability. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources are allowed to be as promotional (or anti-promotional) as they want per WP:RSBIAS. What matters is whether there's information in those sources that we can use. What counts as "normal" tone for a news article depends on your culture, and we don't want to be tone policing the sources. When you read through a "highly promotional" source, you just have to ignore the fluff and focus on the facts. For example, in the first couple of paragraphs, this one says that the subject is named after the founder, says where the founder is from, and says it is computer-based. Those are all encyclopedic facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your helpful response. Though I have some awareness of RSBIAS, it was good to have the opportunity to read it again and ensure I consider that fully when opining at AFD. I could have phrased my initial comment more effectively. i did feel the sources may scrape past the GNG threshold, which is why I didn't vote delete. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dingtone edit

Dingtone (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)

Passing mentions only (including WP BEFORE), WP MILL. Fails GNG, NCORP. BoraVoro (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing special about it to differentiate it from any other VoIP app; fails NCORP. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nike Campbell edit

Nike Campbell (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)

Seems like not meeting GNG/ANYBIO. BoraVoro (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Splint (programming tool) edit

Splint (programming tool) (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 was PRODed in 2012 but wasn't deleted for some reason (I can't find a de-PROD in the edit history). Independently, this article doesn't meet WP: N -- I can't find any reliable secondary sources about the subject. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, a Google Books search brings up plenty of coverage, e.g. here and here. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, the second source didn't have much coverage, here is a better example source. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the second and third sources you provided give in-depth coverage. The first one might, but Google Books cuts off the passage. The onus is on the person providing sources to show that a source covers a subject with enough depth to establish notability. Are you sure this article should be kept? HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:51, 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! 02:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As Raccoon demonstrates, It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers. —WP:NSOFT Aaron Liu (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:14, 4 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, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ara Arush edit

Ara Arush (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 director whose films have been shown at some film festivals, but no awards mentioned. The films don't have articles. The references seem to be press releases or official bio blurbs, and not constituting independent, significant coverage per WP:GNG. Created 10 years ago by account that made no other edits. Here2rewrite (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Communist International edit

AfDs for this article:
International Marxist Tendency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
Revolutionary Communist International (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)

Despite attempts at improvement this article simply lacks any ability to establish its subject via sustained reporting via reliable, third party sources. All of the third-party RS that are currently on the article are simply in the History section and instead relate to the historical organisation Militant.

This means every source actually covering the RCI/IMT have been published by the group itself or relying on other primary sources written by its sections or former sections.

As a result, this article very much fails to demonstrate the meeting of GNG and should therefore be removed from main space, preferably with the contents being moved to draft in the hopes it'll be expanded in the future and the main space being redirected to Socialist Appeal (the only RS-compliant element of the RCI/IMT that exists on the English Wikipedia). Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Engutoto, Arusha District edit

Engutoto, Arusha District (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)

WP:CFORK from Engutoto. Aldij (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Equatorial Guinea–Tunisia football rivalry edit

Equatorial Guinea–Tunisia football rivalry (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)

Simply not a real rivalry. For some reason, the topic of "rivalries" is cherished by many, therefore some users create articles on rivalries on flimsy grounds. The policies that is failed here would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Geschichte (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Africa, and Tunisia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lol. What nonsense. Mccapra (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Did the Tunisian soccer team social admin write this? Even for the general standard of rivalry article notability not being met, if I was a fan of EQ I'd be on the talk page yelling about the biased tone of this article with that lede alone. Nate • (chatter) 20:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The two national teams are so far apart both geographically and in terms of magnitude of success. The tone of the article is just really petty. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter Four Uganda edit

Chapter Four Uganda (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)

An article that doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. The sources were solely based or more about the founders arrest. Hence if this is going to be beneficial, I would consider redirecting to Nicholas Opiyo. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 09:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Meyers (businessman) edit

Fred Meyers (businessman) (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 non-notable businessman. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Can't find any notable works other than founding his company which barely passes WP:ORG. I recently AfD'd his company's article as well. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 07:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queensboro (company) edit

Queensboro (company) (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 company that barely passes WP:ORG. I can't find any good sources about the company. Most references used in the article are from an unreliable website called WilmingtonBiz. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 07:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thue (programming language) edit

AfDs for this article:
Thue (programming language) (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)

Unsourced, non-notable, one of hundreds if not thousands of esolangs. wound theology◈ 07:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoopla Software edit

Hoopla 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)

Fails the notability guidelines for companies. PROD removed by IP editor claiming "I could find sources" without actually adding any sources. – Teratix ₵ 07:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shelving engineering edit

Shelving engineering (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)

The phrase "shelving engineering" returns zero google results beyond the name of one particular company. This appears just to be a random miscellaneous thing (shelving) that might need to be engineered, like a zillion other forms of "engineering" with no particular name. EEng 06:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AKA Mr. Chow edit

AKA Mr. Chow (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 clear evidence or assertion of notability. Article has previously been recreated, which I redirected to subject, and again a second time, which was disputed by creator, hence ending up at AfD.

References offered only prove show exists and that subject themselves is notable (as they have their own article), but a show about them is not in itself necessarily notable in its own right. In contrast to a running series of multiple episodes, this seems to be a single documentary programme that can best be covered on the subject's own article. Bungle (talk • contribs) 06:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the following statement is almost bizarre: In contrast to a running series of multiple episodes, this seems to be a single documentary programme that can best be covered on the subject's own article. .....???? .... Documentary films that are not series MAY be notable, most evidently.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: At least one of the current refs is clearly about the movie — the Hollywood Reporter article is called "Michael Chow Shares the Pain Behind the Glamour in New Documentary ‘AKA Mr. Chow’". There's also a Wall Street Journal review called "‘AKA Mr. Chow’ Review: Portrait of the Artist as a Restaurateur", and a Beverly Hills Courier review called "‘AKA Mr. Chow’—But Who is ‘M?’" Toughpigs (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My thoughts on this really are that this is a documentary programme, not a film, so we aren't looking at notability in necessarily the same way. The documentary is about the subject, who is notable, whereas a film article would be expected to assert notability in its own right (like a tv episode, series etc). The question really is whether the actual documentary series is notable in its own right, irrespective that it covers (and is biographical in its nature) a subject who we know is notable.
    My view on the sources largely are that they are really useful in expanding the article on the individual, but I can't be sure if they assert notability to have a standalone article for a 90min documentary programme. Bungle (talk • contribs) 11:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    a documentary programme, not a film....hmmm.....yes, this a documentary film. (it's available on HBO but that does not make it a non-film)...and yes, it's notable "in its own right" as multiple reviews and a lot of very significant coverage addressing the subject in depth and directly in extremely notable reliable (and independent) sources prove it. Kindly have a look at the sources that have been added and check the rest of the existing ones, thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Selena Gomez: My Mind & Me is also a documentary; so is Madonna: Truth or Dare. I'm not making an "other stuff exists" argument, just saying that there is no precedent for judging a documentary as non-notable just because it's about a notable subject. Notability is not un-inherited. As for the sources, as I said, there is a Wall Street Journal review that begins with the phrase "‘AKA Mr. Chow’ Review". Why doesn't that count? Toughpigs (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, the 2 reviews in WSJ and Guardian should be enough to keep ANY film, and here we have 5-10 times that. (The reviews can ALSO be used to expand the bio of Chow, but that does not diminish the notability of the film according to WP requirements). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Keep): I didn't search and only the sources that the page currently ha(d)s, but they seem(ed) to be sufficient to show it's notable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC) Did search 3 minutes. Added some. See for yourself. Changing to STRONG KEEP.[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Michael Chow (restaurateur) while there is nothing at all in the article. The sources are about the individual really and only mention the documentary as part of an interview or, worse, as a fact of existence, except the Hollywood Reporter article as mentioned. No need for a separate article— Iadmc♫talk  12:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Leaning towards keep. The article at least has some substance now. Will watch. — Iadmc♫talk  15:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep article is now well sourced to establish notabilty and I have added quotes to it— Iadmc♫talk  18:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I don't see the need for a standalone article at this point. Reywas92Talk 13:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to nominator@Bungle:: Have you really checked existing sources??? also @Iadmc and Reywas92: Reviews and significant coverage in WSJ, Decider, Guardian, NYT, etc, etc...I'm inviting you to kindly withdraw this nomination. Added some to the page. - Feel free to add more! My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, China, and United Kingdom. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Architecture. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article has plenty of reliable sources. Eric Carpenter (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the article know has referenced reviews from reliable sources such as The Guardian, Toronto Star, The Decider and therefore passes WP:NFILM in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3Roam edit

3Roam (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)

Likely to fail WP:NCORP. KH-1 (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Dancey edit

Joe Dancey (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)

Appears to be campaign advertising for a non-notable individual. Fails WP:NPOL. Nothing in his life or career up to now indicates notability. AusLondonder (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  06:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - in less than a month he will either be an MP or an also-ran, and the political notability will be entirely clear, so the timing of this AfD is puzzling. I've no view as yet on possible Olympic notability. Ingratis (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not puzzling at all. It's normal practice on Wikipedia to not create articles for candidates for political office with no other claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has notability due to his Olympic involvement. Also agree timing of this AfD is poor, as it is highly likely that he will also be an MP in 23 days which will establish the notability on the political aspect. ClevelandUpdates (talk) 11:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being an "executive assistant to Lord Seb Coe, the chairman of the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games" is not a free pass on notability. The one source regarding his involvement in the Olympics, a local newspaper, states "He was among the first 200 people who started organising the Games" - are all those people notable? We need significant, in-depth coverage of the role he played personally. Not seeing that at all. AusLondonder (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Meyer Davis edit

Pamela Meyer Davis (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)

WP:BLP1E. Could easily be merged into Rod Blagojevich corruption charges. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rheji Burrell edit

AfDs for this article:
Rheji Burrell (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 not sure how this article looked back in 2012 when the first AfD came about, but now the article is confusing because it doesn't seem to know whether it wants to be about Mr. Burrell alone or about him and his brother. At any rate, the article discusses a non-notable production team(?) whose own discography hasn't seen them ever having charted; and the list of albums that they supposedly produced for other artists isn't sourced. It doesn't help that the article reads like the brothers themselves wrote it. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of feature film series with three entries edit

List of feature film series with three entries (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)

Listcruft - an indiscriminate collection of information with no indication of its notability as a standalone topic. A list of films with a certain number of entries in a certain series isn't encyclopedic, unless proven notable as a group.

This nomination would also apply to these articles with the same rationale:

List of feature film series with more than twenty entries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of feature film series with 11 to 20 entries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of feature film series with ten entries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of feature film series with nine entries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of feature film series with eight entries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of feature film series with seven entries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of feature film series with six entries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of feature film series with five entries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of feature film series with four entries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) jellyfish ✉ 04:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Only the first article was actually tagged for deletion; I think the others probably should be too. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All. These are lists of film series, an obviously notable topic for a list (or set). The split into lists by number of films exists only for navigation reasons. "Listcruft", how? Indiscriminate, how?.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Not fancruft or indiscriminate.★Trekker (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Notable topic. That is what encyclopedias are for. Dimadick (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SIZE since all these lists are split off from Lists of feature film series, no suggested backup plan means we lose everything. If we had all the film series in one place, the list article would simply be too big. If anything, one could argue that the series should be split up alphabetically, but that's not being done here. (Could it be done in addition or in substitute to this? This doesn't seem to be the place to discuss that.)
In addition, WP:NLIST says, "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as 'Lists of X of Y') or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists."
From a quick search engine test, I do see articles about "longest-running" film franchises that to me indicates an interest in how many films a series has. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, but after this Afd is closed, please discuss on the talk page of the "more than twenty entries" list whether that list can be split. Georgia guy (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTAVOTE. You've offered no rationale about why this should be kept. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Don't see the problem. A monumental effort. Toughpigs (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:EFFORT, WP:HARMLESS. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as a non-encyclopepdic cross categorization, and also as WP:OR, since this requires WP editors to decide what goes in a "film series", rather than relying on reliable sources in order to tally. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we delete all this without a substitute plan, we would have no list anywhere on Wikipedia listing film series. Is that what you want? If not, how should film series be listed (since all of them in one article makes it too big)? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Erik: The most obvious way would be chronologically (by first entry), no? TompaDompa (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean the overall film-series titles being split out alphabetically. Like List of feature film series: A where we see, for example, ABCs of Death (three films), Abbott and Costello Meet the Universal Monsters (four films), Antoine Doinel (five films), et cetera being listed on that page. We can do that instead of the by-numbers splitting, or in addition to it. Each film series can keep the individual films chronologically-ordered. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I mean like List of film series from the 1920s and so on. We have Category:Film series introduced in the 1920s, after all. TompaDompa (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hah, I didn't think of (or realize you meant) that. I feel like that categorization and/or an alphabetical one are typical compared to this one up for deletion. If I had to pick, I'd prefer alphabetical more than chronological, just because a film series is more a range of years than defined by its first year. But both of these seem doable. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alphabetical would make a little more sense in terms of organization, but it doesn't avoid the OR problem. Is Star Trek 1 series (all together) or 3? (TOS, TNG, and the reboot). Who decides? What about reboots in general? What about remakes? Do the MCU movies all get lumped into one series? Does AVP go in Alien or Predator? Or both? Or neither? Do the Bond movies count as a series? They're mostly just standalone films based on the same characters rather than direct sequels. Unless you count the Daniel Craig ones. Do they go in a separate series? Who decides? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think box-office websites can be used as guidance for that kind of grouping. Something like Star Trek can list all the feature films. Same with Marvel Cinematic Universe. (Judging from the number of films in some cases, we don't even have to list the films, we could just link to the film-series article.) Something like AVP is likely grouped both ways, so both works. And yeah, James Bond is a film series, as reflected here. The term "film series" isn't intended to be used strictly like in the 007 example. There could be edge cases, sure, but most instances of film series will be clearly delineated and sourced. Edge cases can be hashed out through talk-page discussions. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elaboration. I'll admit that the nomination is pretty weak, but then again, so are the keep votes above. Let's not let that stop us from addressing the fundamental problems here. As I noted immediately above, the very tallying required for this list ultimately violates WP:NOR, a core content policy, as it requires WP editors to decide what constitutes a film series (is the MCU a film series? Does AVP count for both? What about unofficial sequels?), as evidenced by a lot of arguing about this on the various talk pages. This furthermore seems to fail WP:NLIST, as classifying film series (whatever that even means) by size doesn't seem to be backed up by sources. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I nominated this pretty late at night and some neurons of mine weren't firing as intended. You pretty much hit the nail on the head as far as why I nominated. I do see the point Mushy Yank made as far as organization goes, and same thing with Erik's point about more complex and cross-categorizational list. There has to be a better way to organize a list of feature films, though, that doesn't involve the same OR or subjectivity that number of entries suffers from. jellyfish ✉ 19:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films says The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) films are a series of American superhero films. Dream Focus 19:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All of these wouldn't fit as one list article showing which series had multiple films, so it was divided in a logical manner. List of short film series list the name of the series and how many short films it has in it, without listing all the names of everything, so it all fits in one article. Dream Focus 19:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voskos Greek Yogurt edit

AfDs for this article:
Voskos Greek Yogurt (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 was previously deleted, then re-created. Nothing seems to have changed to establish notability. The article cites four sources but the 1st, 3rd and 4th are press releases, on trade blogs that will publish anything about products. The 2nd is a very trivial mention. None of these would seem to establish notability under WP:CORP. Might be eligible for speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted content, but I can't view what was deleted and it was a long time ago. Here2rewrite (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minotaur VI edit

Minotaur VI (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 rocket model; I can't find sourcing beyond the company's website used now in the article. The blog used as the second source isn't a RS either. Delete for lack of sourcing, not meeting notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oaktree,
I will admit that yes, this article had a lack of sources. There are reputable secondary sources I used during edits of other Minotaur rockets that can be applicable here; I have since added those to the article. The spaceflight101 source is a data sheet from Spaceflight101, which is a now-defunct but otherwise reliable spaceflight news website. I did a little bit of digging just now and found that they have a whole encyclopedia of different launch vehicles (https://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/). The PDF I linked as a source is actually originally posted on this page: https://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/minotaur-v/. I personally find that to be a valuable secondary source, and I would expect other pages on that site to be useful for future edits of other launch vehicles.
As for the article's notability, I personally feel it's notable since Minotaur VI is still listed as available on Northrop Grumman's website and has capabilities that other Minotaurs do not have (i.e. can get payload to Mars). However I will say I may have bias as I created this article, so I am absolutely open to opinions from others regarding its usefulness. IanThePineapple (talk) 18:25, 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! 04:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scene description language edit

Scene description language (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’t find any sources that discuss more than one scene description language in-depth, so this fails WP: NLIST. A PROD was removed on this article without any sourcing changes. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western Canada Youth Parliament edit

Western Canada Youth Parliament (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 GNG. Nothing in Google news or books. Nothing when searching in cbc.ca. Only primary sources in plain Google search. LibStar (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Mbotela edit

Leonard Mbotela (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:NJOURNALIST / WP:ANYBIO. BoraVoro (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Procedural keep per meeting at least some credible and keep...able input. There can be sources since the article somewhat meets inclusion by importance and source by few reliable source per WP:RS. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 09:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing lots of keep opinions from this editor on this day, and regrettably, most of them do not make sense. "Procedural keep per meeting at least some credible and keep...able input" is close to nonsense. "Somewhat meets inclusion by importance and source by few reliable source" is not a helpful or useful comment. Please state which sources are reliable and contribute towards notability. Geschichte (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Geschichte, it seems I used mobile that caused much of the typographical error. Also the time shows I was in a sleep carried mode (ready to sleep for the night), that I may have edited wrongly (but with love not with prejudice). I didn't see this as early as because I wasn't pinged. Please this type of comment should be partly, when necessary addressed to the editors talk page and if likely, only on that particular case. If I had made mistake, advise me on my TP and not leave a message without diff as you did. Now j understand your message on my TP. The diff I requested wasn't sent by you and it was difficult to check if there was any error with my vote in AFDs. Thanks though and will value the spirit of rechecking. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 20:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after reading Geschichte's comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't think a diff is required when an editor is quoting from a message right above theirs. Sorry if it was embarrassing but some comments in AFDs just don't make any sense.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continenttimes.com edit

Continenttimes.com (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 indication of notability. Also see WP:NPERIODICAL. Further noting that this was previously deleted under a different name, see Contínent Times (digital newspaper). B3251 (talk) 04:32, 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! 04:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atala T edit

AfDs for this article:
Atala T (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)

Sorry, another company blatantly failing the notability guidelines for companies that is ineligible for PROD because this 2007 AfD exists. – Teratix ₵ 02:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:NCORP with absolutely no sources on this subject. Looks like the original creator just recreated the deleted article 15 years ago and no one noticed until now. Better late than never. Dclemens1971 (talk) 08:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WHPS-CD edit

WHPS-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) 02:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Michigan. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its complicated: Sammi Brie actually has local WP:SIGCOV material for this station, from newspapers. At the same time, I don't know how to actually put the sources in. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw (He/Him | Talk • Contributions) 15:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. This nomination appears to be the result of a content dispute. (SN: I am not involved in the dispute nor have I ever heard of this TV station; but I read the article and although it could stand a rewrite, the station seems notable, IMO.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 05:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This nomination has nothing to do with the content dispute involving Baltimore stations. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I will vouch that the content dispute has nothing to do with the slow drip of AfDs of non-notable low-power TV stations. I will also vouch this one shouldn't be tossed with them. Substantial local SIGCOV exists for this one.[1][2][3][4][5] Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Lords, Erik (November 19, 2002). "Local station seeks cable spot: WHPR wants Comcast to put channels on free". Detroit Free Press. Detroit, Michigan. p. 6B. Retrieved June 11, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
  2. ^ Schmitt, Ben (July 1, 2009). "Conyers takes to TV, apologizes to Detroit: She won't discuss case, but takes shot at ex-aide". Detroit Free Press. Detroit, Michigan. p. 3A. Retrieved June 11, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
  3. ^ Singer, Christopher (November 2, 2005). "Fundraising clicks for black-run stations - With a little help, 11-watt WHPR-FM and cable TV Channel 33 dial up some needed dollars". The Detroit News. p. 6S.
  4. ^ "A new television station in Detroit". Michigan Chronicle. June 3, 1998. p. 1-D. ProQuest 390200523.
  5. ^ "'The Box' is major success in Detroit". Michigan Chronicle. December 17, 1999. p. D12. ProQuest 390224674.

Aiden Pearce edit

Aiden Pearce (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)

Unfortunately, after doing WP:BEFORE; I don't see any SIGCOV for this character at all and it mostly relies on game reviews at reception. Detailed issue has been shared at the article's talk page alreadyby other user. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: There is news sources showing wider coverage, some of which have been provided on the talk page and are in the process of being incorporated into the article. This is by no means the least notable of it's kind so a deletion discussion so soon seems like a rash decision. This can be, at worst, made into a characters of Watch Dogs article like Jclemens has already suggested.
TheBritinator (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who brought those sources to the talk page, and those aren't WP:SIGCOV, but I understand that you're still quite new to WP:VG's notability. This is not like other fictional characters; when there are reliable sources, it does not mean they are automatically notable, unless the character was really discussed by multiple reliable sources. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Not seeing any significant coverage here, and the article is primarily sourced entirely to reviews. Not showing independent notability from the subject. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Azim Badakhshi edit

AfDs for this article:
Abdul Azim Badakhshi (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)

The first nomination was withdrawn and not properly discussed. I am not convinced the subject meets the criteria for "Sport personality" according to WP:SPORTSPERSON which states that "A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has won a significant honor." which he didn't. "Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability", the subject still needs to pass GNG guidelines. I would like to discuss it further as the subject is not even close to meeting WP:NMMA criteria. Having fought in ACB, AFC, Brave FC, is not enough and the subject has never been ranked in the world top 10 as per WP:NMMA. Lekkha Moun (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claggy (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Greetings, Your concern is understandable. But He clearly meet WP:SPORTSPERSON and Wp:Bio , Despite of being a athlete, He has become a national symbol in Afghanistan, with support from the Millions of Afghans including former President, ministers, and other officials who recognize his achievements. His journey is completely motivator for new generation in Afghanistan and India. Besides his sports career, he is a successful motivator, investor, and human rights activist, I hope this satisfies your concerns.Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Martial arts, Afghanistan, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I removed some of WP:NONRS references, He clearly meet WP:SPORTSPERSON. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First of all, I would like to ask Parwiz ahmadi What is your connection with the said article subject? You seem to have so much interest in him and you have been pleading with editors to help you save the article. You were pleading with Liz for her cooperation and telling her to close the AFD discussion immediately which the reference can be found here. You were also pleading with a user named Untamed1910 in assisting you to also help you save the article which the references can be found here. There is no Wikipedia article you have ever submitted for WP:AFCREVIEW that has been accepted. All were decline. 99% of the ones you have created and move to main space are already deleted except Din Mohammad Jurat which still doesn't also seem to meet WP:GNG. The only news was that he was fired. How does that now makes him suitable for wikipedia without meeting WP:GNG. From what I have reviewed so far I definitely support Lekkha Moun. The article should be deleted because I don't see how it meets WP:GNG either. This is a English Wikipedia, so I don't see how the sources above help.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 18:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Sir@Gabriel601
    I must say that yes, I requested Ms. @User:Liz to close the AFD according to Wikipedia's policies since seven days have passed since the AFD started. As the Wikipedia rules state, the AFD should be closed if possible. However, I did not use the word "immediately." It would be better if you speak the truth.
    Secondly, my entire interest in preserving this article is due to the several days of effort I have put into it, and I am fully aware and confident that this article meets WP:SPORTSPERSON criteria. He is one of the most famous athletes in Afghanistan and is considered a national figure in Afghanistan. Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You told Liz to Please keep this article and close the nomination which sounds like an immediate task. Secondly effort you put about writing articles you never submitted for review doesn't matter here especially when it has now been nominated for AFD. It is a process that has to be passed since you fail to follow the right way as a newbie. Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear @Gabriel601 ,This matter does not concern you regarding what I have written on Ms. Liz's talk page.
    Please write your own personal opinion and that’s it. you are not Ms. Liz's representative or Advisor,
    In my opinion, your manner of speaking is inappropriate and offensive. I request the respected admin to take this point into consideration.
    Your reaction is very unusual and aggressive. Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just remembered also you don't have the right to tell an admin the final decision to take on an AFD discussion. He or she can still relist the AFD if the consensus debate is still not clear. My statement might be aggressive to you but they mean no harm than to coach you. Stop moving article directly to main space without submitting them for review to avoid AFD next time. A question was asked by @Bbb23 on your user talk page but you never responded. @Whpq has also warned you regarding your edits. So nothing seems to be new. Gabriel (talk to me ) 20:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have the right to ask Liz to undelete your drafts? Here is an example of what you wrote:
    Undeletion Draft Requests Hello Liz, I hope you are doing great. I visited your talk page because you deleted the draft articles Draft
    Mayweather, Draft
    (restaurant), Draft
    Darlington, Draft
    Maksumov, Draft
    So, do you have the right to request Liz to undelete seven or eight of your articles? Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have the right to request because they were draft that was untouched after six months and deleted by Liz as per deletion of old drafts. You seem to be a stubborn newbie. Who know if that was why @Bbb23 was requesting for your previous account username. Your edit needs to be checked. If you can be moving articles to main space without review and non of your article submitted has been approved ( All declined ) on this current account. Then how would your old account then look like. I am done communicating with you. I leave the rest to other of the editors on wikipedia to check your works. Gabriel (talk to me ) 21:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gabriel601 This is a English Wikipedia, so I don't see how the sources above help. Non-english sources are perfectly acceptable if they are WP:RS. See WP:RSUEC. And user conduct issues should be taken elsewhere. It doesn't particularly help or concern the afd. — hako9 (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Since I have come up as a subject in this AFD discussion, I feel "involved" and will leave the closure to another administrator. Secondly, I don't remember seeing any User talk page messages but I have been very remiss/behind on replying to talk page messages as I'm caring for a bedbound relative and find responding to talk page messages more taxing than other kinds of editing/admin work. So, I don't believe I've been influenced but will decline to close to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Finally, unless there was problematic content (copyright violations, BLP violations, etc.) I will restore a deleted article to Draft space as long as the editor knows they have to submit the draft for review to AFC so that request is not that unusual. Liz Read! Talk! 21:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like a great decision. Wishing you a greater strength as you undergo your caring for a bedbound relative. Gabriel (talk to me ) 22:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't understand what is happening with this article, but it's definitely the weirdest AFD I have been involved. There is drama, and I counted 6 different users (now blocked) that tried to close prematurely the discussion as "no consensus". To me it seems like some people may have a vested interest in the subject. Potentiel COI? PAID? Vanity page? I'm not sure, however 6 reverted "close" is very unusual. Lekkha Moun (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The attempted closes are from a long term abuse vandal, and should not reflect on those supporting keeping this article. PhilKnight (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All 6 of them? Lekkha Moun (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just one person. PhilKnight (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This article (Abdul azim badakhshi meets WP:SPORTSPERSON criteria due to extensive coverage in reliable sources such as BBC, The independent and ESPN. His recognition as a national figure in Afghanistan and his multi-faceted contributions confirm his notability. شریف الله منصوری (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest of Hadoti edit

Conquest of Hadoti (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)

Another "Conquest of X" article with 2-3 lines of passing mention: "In the battle that took place at Maholi many Hadas were killed and their families were brought to Mandu. The fort was handed over to Qadam Khan." Clearly it fails SIGCOV, not enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 10:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I found this, which has a whole page dedicated to the subject at page 122. Also search on Google Scholar locates "Sharma, R.K., 1985. MILITARY SYSTEM OF THE KOTA STATE (C-1250 to 1947 AD). Скорина и скориниана, 13, p.65." I can't view the second one so I can't get any comment on how much content is devoted to the subject. TarnishedPathtalk 11:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TarnishedPath that is the whole different event around 1436. The whole page except the last para deals with the conquest of Hadoti by Rana Kumbha, It's the only last para of 4 lines which covers relevant content:
    The political situation soon changed, when Mahmud Khilji came to throne in Malwa, He had undertaken several expeditions to bring Hadoti under his sphere of influence. Kumbha adopted a successful policy to give sufficient support to the Hadas against the invasions of the Sultan of Malwa. And that too doesn't describe the outcome. As I said it fails SIGCOV and it's just a meagre part of a different event. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 13:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're making an argument for updating the article, not deleting it. TarnishedPathtalk 13:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No I'm not. What I meant is that the given source is completely unrelated to this event which happened in 1459 not 1436 per above given source. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 15:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete, It is clearly a POV article focusing on establishing the dominance of the Malwa Sultanate over the Kingdom of Mewar. The article does not have proper detail of events, and the WP:RS does not have enough mentioning of events like how the seige went and how the fort was conquered. Rawn3012 (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, concerns that don't raise to the level of HOAX but seriously concerning stuff in regards to notability, NPOV, and wikipuffery that mean this article is not encyclopedic. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 20:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Kurakin edit

Dmitri Kurakin (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:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed without explanation. Not to be confused with Dmitry Kurakin, sociology professor at Yale University. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98: multiple Estonian champion at senior-level championships, see [34] Estopedist1 (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn‎. All it took was a simple revert. See below for why. (non-admin closure) thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 01:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson the Volleyball edit

AfDs for this article:
Wilson the Volleyball (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)

Cites no sources, no indication of notability or importance, confusing layout thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 01:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I'd speedy this for a hoax. This is unsourced, and while I know of the ball, this was never seen before the Tom Hanks movie. Some strange OR/hoax article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b Someone else has restored the page to its proper form. I will be withdrawing. For future reference to those who are seeing this later, the page was confusing, unsourced, un-notable/important nonsense full of OR/hoax nonsense. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 01:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect. No issues then. Oaktree b (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Abby Cunnane edit

Abby Cunnane (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:AUTHOR and WP:BIO. A mere 5 google news hits, none are in-depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ecom Express edit

AfDs for this article:
Ecom Express (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 company page fails to meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, as most of its citations focus on trivial coverage according to WP:ORGTRIV. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:47, 27 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! 21:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails CORPDEPTH. The WP:THREE provided by Akshithmanya are PR/puff pieces.-KH-1 (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any additional thoughts on the sources provided by Akshithmanya or other sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources provided by Akshithmanya are "Independent Content". This from BII] is written and published by one of their investors. This in Forbes is a standard puff profile that Forbes does on hundreds of companies, relying entirely on "interviews" with the execs/founders. Finally this in Business Outreach is a marketing journal, self-described as "a leading platform for CXOs across India to share their views with their peers", and the "article" is another puff profile. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 13:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cos (X + Z) 17:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Barwara (1757) edit

Siege of Barwara (1757) (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)

The whole article relies on WP:RAJ and out dated sources (WP:AGE MATTERS) and there is no mention of “Siege of Barwara (1757)” in the sources. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 09:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAJ is not a policy or guideline. It is an essay on the quality of sources on the Indian caste system and those written by Britons or Briton diplomats and administrators or under the guidance and review of Briton administrators like Lepel Griffin, Michael MacAuliffe, Sir John Withers McQueen. Indian historians like Sarkar's sources are used because historians today depend on their secondary work. Sarkar is an eminent historian and is perfectly reliable. Source still needs to be reviewed and verified. RangersRus (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if WP:RAJ doesn't applies here it is still not a reliable source as per WP:AGE MATTERS and this is the only source used in the article thus it fails WP:GNG too. Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. RangersRus (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If old sources have become obsolete due to coverage in new sources then AGE matters and it does not apply here. Multiple sources are expected but there is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage. RangersRus (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just found it at RSN. Hope this helps to evaluate the reliability of Jadunath Sarkar. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 16:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, it clearly fails WP:GNG & there is only one sourced used in this article (Fall of the Mughal Empire by Jadunath Sarkar) which is not a reliable source as per WP:AGE MATTERS. Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. RangersRus (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I had to wait to be able to find the source on the page for verification. Source by Sarkar has enough coverage from page 191 to 193 on the siege. The name of location is Barwada not Barwara (spelling error?). Page passes general notability guidelines. RangersRus (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Nom & it fails WP:GNG Chauthcollector (talk) 12:29, 28 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! 21:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There was indeed a siege of Barwara in 1757, and there are multiple good sources. I see no reason to delete an article about a verified historical event. My impression is that we don't have enough coverage of the global south, not an overabundance that requires aggressive pruning. With that said, the article should probably be renamed, per @RangersRus, unless there are other sources that say "Barwara". Pecopteris (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Johnstone edit

Russell Johnstone (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:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. The supplied sources are all primary. LibStar (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourabh Chowdhury edit

Sourabh Chowdhury (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 GNG and reliable sources for inclusion. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Parlevliet edit

Jennifer Parlevliet (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:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. She did not even complete the individual event. LibStar (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Basil High School for Superiors edit

Al Basil High School for Superiors (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 notability. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Bassel High School for Outstanding Students Quick-ease2020 (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files edit

File:National Anthem of North Korea Instrumental.mp3 edit

File:National Anthem of North Korea Instrumental.mp3 (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Noctawny (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No evidence of PD per Public_domain_in_the_United_States#Sound_recordings. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Manggahan High School4.jpg edit

File:Manggahan High School4.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Valenzuela400 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

English Wikipedia is not an indefinite file storage of unencyclopedic subjects as per WP:NOTFILESTORAGE. Not worth it to be transferred to Commons because this may be out of c:COM:Project scope. Commons has many images of publicity adverts of public infrastructure projects by Philippine government agencies and instrumentalities like File:Ubihan farm-to-market road and steel bridge 49.jpg, File:0024jfConstruction Arterial Road BypassTambubong Caingin San Rafael Bulacanfvf 20.jpg, and File:9915Balagtas Municipal Hall Bulacan 04.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pasig Rainforest Park7.jpg edit

File:Pasig Rainforest Park7.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Valenzuela400 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

May be a derivative work of a character or c:COM:TOYS. For sure, the owner, the Pasig City government, is not the license holder of the underlying copyright of the depicted train (toy/character); in accordance with c:COM:Philippines#Government works. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mother boxart.png edit

File:Mother boxart.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Parrothead1983 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#1 due to File:MOTHER 1989 Boxart (Nintendo).png. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have my doubts that the one on Commons is in the public domain. The uploader of the Commons image is indeffed here for being a sock. SWinxy (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Twitter example share icon.png edit

File:Twitter example share icon.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Crookesmoor (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#1: no free equivalent. There are plenty of tweets on Commons, and it's possible to use the icon SVG alone. SWinxy (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Facebook share icon example.png edit

File:Facebook share icon example.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Crookesmoor (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#1: no free equivalent. This can be replaced with a freely-licensed image on Commons that has the share icon, or replace it with an SVG of the icon itself. SWinxy (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories edit

NEW NOMINATIONS edit

Middle Ages by country edit

Nominator's rationale: rename. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 25#Early modern period, where we decided to rename all categories to Early modern history of Fooland. Renaming could avoid a lot of anachronisms about modern countries that did not yet exist as such, or not with their modern-day borders, or at least not under their modern names, in the Middle Ages. It's also a lot like how we are currently reframing battles in (former country/region) to military history of (current country/region). There may also be a need to harmonise the categories further according to either one of the following options:
I will add targets to the nomination when the preferred target name becomes a bit more clear in the discussion. NLeeuw (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to participants of previous discussion: @Marcocapelle, Smasongarrison, Ham II, Omnis Scientia, and HouseBlaster: for your consideration. NLeeuw (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for this big nomination and elaborate rationale. Option 3 is clearly a no-go for reasons already outlined. Initially I thought I'd have a clear preference for option 1 but at second thought I no longer see a good reason why, they each have their own pros. So either option 1 or 2. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles involving Germanic peoples edit

Nominator's rationale: rename and purge, this is follow-up on many earlier renames, and there is e.g. parent Category:Early Germanic warfare. Ancient Germanic peoples is a commonly used grouping in the Roman era but not so much in the middle ages. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former synagogues Nebraska edit

Nominator's rationale: Category should be renamed to match others in Category:Former synagogues in the United States by state Pretzelles (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename WP:C2C. NLeeuw (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per WP:C2C. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former synagogues Wisconsin edit

Nominator's rationale: Category should be renamed to match others in Category:Former synagogues in the United States by state Pretzelles (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename WP:C2C. NLeeuw (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per WP:C2C Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bond (string quartet) edit

Nominator's rationale: With subcategories only for the quartet's albums and their covers, the eponymous category is unnecessary per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles involving the Nizari Ismaili state edit

Nominator's rationale: 1 P. WP:MFN. Can't find other battles, so merging to wars seems the best option. NLeeuw (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete, the latter because the article seems to imply that the Nizari Ismaili state was not really involved. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Central March edit

Nominator's rationale: 1 P. Just delete, not useful for navigation. Main article Central March is already in both parents, and the only article Wadih al-Siqlabi is a biography that fits neither parent. NLeeuw (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. In addition, governor of the Central March seems to be a relatively minor position, not contributing much to the notability of the subject of the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vassal rulers of the Umayyad Caliphate edit

Nominator's rationale: 2 P. WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Just delete. Whether someone was a "vassal" or not can be quite arbitrary, and neither of the parent cats really applies: these princes of Armenia were not "people from the Umayyad Caliphate" or part of its government. At most, they were part of its foreign relations. As the catdesc indicates, these were not 'caliphal-appointed governors', and therefore not part of the internal governance. NLeeuw (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Vassal rulers are easily distinguished by the fact that they bore princely rather than gubernatorial titles and were usually hereditary and at least somewhat autonomous. They are also clearly designated as such by modern scholarship. Armenia was very much part of the Umayyad Caliphate, just as much as the Khanate of Khiva was of the Russian Empire or the various Indian princes were of the British Raj. Constantine ✍ 16:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, princes aren't necessarily vassals and it is not very clear from these articles that the subjects were in fact vassals. The articles are already in appropriate Armenian and monarchs categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Government of the Ayyubid Sultanate edit

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Both child cats area already in Category:People from the Ayyubid Sultanate, and both articles could easily be put in parent Category:Ayyubid Sultanate (5 P, 2 of which are redirects). NLeeuw (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The category is part of a wider category family on governments of historical states. What exactly is the gain of deleting it and upmerging, that is enough to counterbalance the loss in categorization? There are likely even more articles already on WP that can be added there, and certainly still more that can be written, as the topic is under-represented. Constantine ✍ 16:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Easy navigation. NLeeuw (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The two articles aren't really about government of the Ayyubid Sultanate, they are about the outskirts of it. If anything, they are about social geography rather than about government, but having them simply in the main category is even better. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good points. NLeeuw (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Government of the Samanid Empire edit

Nominator's rationale: 1 P, 1 C. Just delete as a redundant layer, while manually moving Ispahsalar (only article) to Category:Samanid Empire; only child is already in Category:People from the Samanid Empire. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 2#Category:Government of the Seljuk Empire (also Timurid, Ghaznavid, Aq Qoyunlu govts). NLeeuw (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly move the article to Category:Samanid Empire but that is not even very necessary because the article is not specifically about the Samanid Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah it's not even necessary to move the article, but I wouldn't object to it. NLeeuw (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ambassadors of the Republic of Venice to the Kingdom of Sardinia edit

Nominator's rationale: 1 P, 0 C. WP:MFN. There are many, many underpopulated (1 to 4 P) ambassador cats like this created in February–May 2024 by the same person. Others were created longer ago. NLeeuw (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The category is not arbitrary and has clearly room of expansion, as the Republic of Venice and the Kingdom of Sardinia overlapped by several centuries. If the category exists, articles will be added to it. If it is deleted, they won't; not many WP members are actively engaged in categorization. If a reader, like myself, is interested in the bilateral relations between Venice and specific other states, why should they go hunting in more generic categories? This equally applies to the other 'underpopulated categories' mentioned in the nomination. I really don't understand what the project gains from deletions like this. Constantine ✍ 16:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of categories is easy navigation between articles. Categories in categories in categories which contain only 1 article do not ease navigation. NLeeuw (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per nom. One may be interested in this intersection, sure, but if there aren't any other articles then the most closely related articles are in the more general categories and merging helps navigation to them. Of course, no objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. There categories are indeed extremely underpopulated, and often isolated from where readers expect to see them (somewhere in the modern country category typically). Mason (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:SaarLorLux Open edit

Nominator's rationale: Per the current article name Solidest (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, rename. --Florentyna (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Government of the Almohad Caliphate edit

Nominator's rationale: Redundant layers. Category:Officials of the Almohad Caliphate is already in the target category, and Category:Almohad caliphs should also be, but isn't yet. Category:Governors of the Almohad Caliphate is the only subcat of Category:Officials of the Almohad Caliphate, and apart from Ibn Tufayl, it has no contents, so "Officials" is also a redundant layer. (I was able to populate Category:Governors of the Almohad Caliphate from 2 to 6 p, so no reason to upmerge that one yet). Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 2#Category:Government of the Seljuk Empire (also Timurid, Ghaznavid, Aq Qoyunlu govts). NLeeuw (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. There isn't any topic article about government and biography subcats are perfectly fine under people. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Government of the Khwarazmian Empire edit

Nominator's rationale: Just delete as a redundant layer; only child is already in Category:People from the Khwarazmian Empire. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 2#Category:Government of the Seljuk Empire (also Timurid, Ghaznavid, Aq Qoyunlu govts). NLeeuw (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. There isn't any topic article about government and the biography subcat is perfectly fine under people. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by ethnic descent edit

Nominator's rationale: These categories are for people of different ethnic descents. There is nothing here specific to any particular continent. Additionally, the names might wrongly imply that this is the person's own ethnicity when, in reality, it refers to their ancestors' ethnicity. Aldij (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auto racing teams edit

Extended content
Nominator's rationale: Most of these categories were speedily renamed to their current names in May 2023. Discussions at the Formula One WikiProject and the Motorsport WikiProject resolved that these speedy renames should be reversed because, unlike many other sporting teams, auto racing teams may compete all over the world and their national identity is defined by their racing licence and is not necessarily related to the location of their base of operations. Consider the current Formula One World Champions: Red Bull Racing - they are universally recognised as an Austrian team (they use an Austrian racing licence and when they win a race, the Austrian national anthem is played) but their base of operations is in England. The category rename in May 2023 moved the article from the accurate Category:Austrian auto racing teams to the inaccurate Category:Auto racing teams in Austria. DH85868993 (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gilgit-Baltistan stubs edit

Nominator's rationale: delete or merge, poorly populated stub category and we do not have any similar Pakistani province stub categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ancient tribes in Ukraine edit

Nominator's rationale: 2 P, 0 C. WP:MFN Upmerge for now without prejudice. NLeeuw (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gilgit-Baltistan history stubs edit

Nominator's rationale: merge, poorly populated stub categories and we usually do not have stub history categories by Pakistani province. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Events at the Amway Center edit

Nominator's rationale: I don't believe Wikipedia categorizes events by venue? Gjs238 (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikipedia does, in fact, categorize events by venue. Abhiramakella (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Galician films edit

Nominator's rationale: Appears to be redundant? Gjs238 (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Irish films" is not the same as "Irish (or Gaelic) language films" and that's why there are several different categories (Category:Irish films by language). For the same reason, "Galician films" (or "Galician animated films") are not the same as "Galician language films". Gasparoff (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete, articles are already in Category:Galician-language films if applicable, but it is not always applicable. Some of these films are Spanish-speaking. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete insofar there seems to be no intent to connect category to cogent production criteria pertaining the Galician regional film industry (possibly not easy for most Wikipedia users to crack at the subnational level anyways), but to a moot "Galician context", category is not really useful pursuant to the current existence of Category:Galician-language films and Category:Films set in Galicia (Spain).--Asqueladd (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. Take Midsummer Dream it's a Galician film in English and Spanish (not to mention the fact that some films in Galician are not Galician films, just like many films in English are not English films or films in Tamil are not all made in Tamil Nadu). See Category:Catalan films, a very similar category, that exists and does not only contain films in Catalan. (But the category needs cleanup).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I do not have an opinion on whether we should have categories for films by autonomous community of Spain, but assuming we will keep them, it is desirable that we make these catnames less ambiguous. The comparison with Catalan and Catalan-language films also shows this.
We could develop a new convention like Films in Fooian (see the recent Songs in Fooian precedents) versus Films from Fooland (see the recent People from Fooland precedents), but such a decision would have broad implications for our current category structures. Nevertheless, given how often ambiguous adjectives like "Galician" lead to confusion, and recent precedents have developed solutions to avoid such confusion, this seems the best way forward. NLeeuw (talk) 10:22, 11 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on FL's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per Fayenatic london. As said, pages should mostly be directly in a country stub category. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Circassia edit

Nominator's rationale: This newly created uncategorized category seems redundant with Category:Circassians. Gjs238 (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on renaming?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:This TV affiliates edit

Nominator's rationale: Network is now defunct Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if Mvcg66b3r can provide reliable sources for this claim. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep. But why delete. Being defunct isn't a reason to delete. We'd have to delete Category:Roman Empire, using that logic. Mason (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Smasongarrison: Category:Roman Empire is an encyclopedically relevant topic for historians, Category:This TV affiliates is not comparable in that sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was the OP's argument was not compelling by itself because that would mean that anything defunct would be worth deleting. (I picked the Roman Empire because it was obviously worth keeping, but would fail using op's argument) Mason (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean keep Main article This TV does not say anywhere explicitly that the network is defunct, just that its website went down in May 2024. Secondly, this category has a main article, List of This TV affiliates, implying that this subject qualifies for a stand-alone page. Personally, I think that article is poorly sourced, and perhaps it should be AfD'd, which would open the way for a deletion of this category. But until that happens, I don't see a compelling reason to delete the category just yet. NLeeuw (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles involving ancient peoples edit

Nominator's rationale: merge, no clear distinction versus its parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wesley L. McDonald Distinguished Statesman and Stateswoman of Aviation Award edit

Nominator's rationale: Not even sure if this meets the criteria for a defining characteristic. Gjs238 (talk) 19:08, 3 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/they) 00:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting this?
It discourages people from contributing to Wikipedia when you delete for absolutely no reason. Nayyn (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects edit

Rich young man edit

This phrase is rather generic, and is at least ambiguous with the concept of the Trust Fund Baby. BD2412 T 13:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm a little surprised at myself on this one, but a simple search (I know, not the best indicator, but still) gave me pages and pages of nothing but the bible thing, although often as "rich young ruler" instead of "man". I'm not convinced that anyone looking for Trust fund baby is likely to use this particular phrase, as that's a pretty stock term itself. Maybe Richie Rich instead, but that's reaching :). (Side note, it looks like even that doesn't exist, but that the all caps version was originally a redirect to a boy band that recorded a song of this name, and not probably especially useful otherwise.) 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with hatnote: Rich young man redirects here. See also Trust Fund Baby. or something like that. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's kind of neither here nor there for this particular discussion, but I'd oppose a hatnote per my reasoning above. Not only that, but I think Trust Fund Baby should be G6ed in favor of Trust Fund Baby (song), making the hatnote moot anyway (leave a hatnote there for the law article if you want). Especially in light of WP:DIFFCAPS, and given that it's hard to imagine anyone would use this term looking for the other. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Keep with hatnote: I made this redirect as I had often heard that passage referred to that way (without "Jesus and the"), and I figured some others would have the same. I think I was searching on Wikipedia and was surprised no page for this person existed. I have only really heard the term "Rich Young Man" used for the story of Jesus (off-Wikipedia, I am a Theology professor, so my experience may not be universal). User:Lunamann's suggestion of a hatnote seems fine in case someone became confused searching for "Trust Fund Baby" using "Rich Young Man." >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 21:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trust Fund Baby is just a handy stand-in redirect at the moment. There are many rich young men, whether by inheritance or other means (e.g., Justin Bieber types, or even child actor). I would not be averse to a hatnote, but I feel like there must be a better solution for pointing readers to other kinds of people who are young, wealthy, and male. BD2412 T 23:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but with hatnote pointing to Trust Fund Baby per above --Lenticel (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even though consensus for keeping has formed, it's still not entirely clear if a hatnote should be added to the current target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 United Kingdom general election edit

Redirect was originally set up as a redirect to Next United Kingdom general election at a time when it could have been held in either 2024 or 2025. Now that it has been announced that the next election will be held in 2024 and with the United Kingdom having five year terms, it is very unlikely there will be a 2025 election. Propose deleting. Broanetar (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. 2025 is not 2024. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Wikishovel (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of United Kingdom general elections#21st century. There was much speculation in reliable sources that the election would be in 2025, so it's not an implausible search term. However there isn't any real discussion of this in the article so that isn't a good target. If we take people to the list of elections then they can find whichever one it is that they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. Cremastra (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget agree with Thryduulf, not unreasonable to assume people will search for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwinnspeed (talk • contribs) 06:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf, deleting it doesn't really make sense, anyone ending up there either made a typo or is looking for the 2024 general election. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The current target discusses that the date was potentially to be in 2025. Oppose retarget to List of United Kingdom general elections#21st century, that list does not contain any information about a 2025 general election. Is there any actual confusion with another election? The table ends at 2024... -- Tavix (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toyotathon edit

Not mentioned in the target. Mia Mahey (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:REDLINK. From what I can tell, this is some sort of annual year-end sales event from the company. Sources can be found as to its existence (including Forbes); that being said, we don't currently have any information concerning this event in our Toyota article; nor has there been information on it since the June 2007 creation of this redirect. The fact that the name "Toyotathon" contains the name "Toyota" severely cuts the plausibility of someone searching "Toyotathon" and being happy with information on Toyota at large-- if they wanted information on Toyota at large, they'd search for Toyota. No, if they search "Toyotathon", they want information about that event, info we don't have. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnotable marketing WP:SEO. Steel1943 (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lunamann. It is definitely marketing but I have no opinion whether it's notable or non-notable, but while we have no information on it the redirect is misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Evacuation Day edit

Not mentioned at target article. Only appears in the article for June 11 which is not a date listed anywhere in the target article. DrowssapSMM 20:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created this redirect as a replacement for the piped link [[Public holidays in Libya|American Evacuation Day]] in June 11.However, if there's no evidence that this day exists as a public holiday, I'm happy for it to be deleted. (And if so, the link in July 11 should be removed too.) Colonies Chris (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are lots of sites that list "American Evacuation Day" as a public holiday on 11 June, but nothing that stands out as definitely reliable and independent of Wikipedia. This Indian Express article could be used to verify that it is (or at least was) a public holiday but doesn't give a date. It isn't listed at [41] but it's unclear whether that is a complete list or just ones of relevance to the Aviation authority. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Stand Off edit

This is not mentioned in the target article. Third party searches are not really helping matters to identify what subject these redirects are meant to refer either. On one hand, searching "The Stand Off Netflix" on some third party search engines returns results for miniseries Waco: American Apocalypse; however, I was not able to find any information stating that miniseries was known previously as "The Stand Off". In addition, there is also the subject at Standoff (film), made in 2016 ... but, there is also a different film which we apparently do not have an article for, which was also made in 2016, called "The Standoff" [42] starring Olivia Holt. Probably best to delete these unless a strong connection can be made between these redirects and at least one of the aforementioned subjects (or one that has yet to be created.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further research, seems the subject of these redirects is not the miniseries Waco: American Apocalypse. According to an article written a few years back [43], apparently, the subject is about a screenplay (probably intended to become a film) written by Mark Heyman, but in that article, there is no mention of a subject by the name of the nominated redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to the dab at Standoff where two films are listed. "Stand off" is obviously a very plausible search term for most things listed at the dab page, "Stand Off" equally so for at least the media productions and the Canadian community. Similarly "The Stand Off" and "The Standoff" are both completely plausible search terms for the other, but what about for things without the definite article? My gut feeling is that it's not impossible for someone to misremember the name of the media productions, but I'm not familiar with any of them hence the "weak". Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mika Model (film) edit

Yet another potentially failed WP:CRYSTAL. Per third party search engines, seems as though Netflix bought the rights to produce a film based on the short story Mika Model around 2019, but then after that news ... nothing else really since on third party search engines. In addition, Mika Model is currently a redirects towards Paolo Bacigalupi, the author of the short story; However, the only mention of "Mika Model" on Paolo Bacigalupi is mentioning the short story exists, not even identifying what the short story is about, and there is no mention of a film by the name "Mika Model" there either. Steel1943 (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi from Rio (film) edit

Delete per result of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Mimi from Rio. (Unfortunately, I just noticed the existence of this redirect; if I had noticed it back then, I would have bundled with the previous discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Business edit

Besides the target section not existing, this does not seem like a plausible synonymous phrase for the target article's subject. Elsewhere on Wikipedia, there seems to be a mention of a television series named Lady Business which ran in either 2012 or 2013, a fanzine named Lady Business, an episode of Nurses (Canadian TV series), and reversing the words results in a band named Business Lady; however, the TV series and the fanzine do not have articles, and the band's name is the words reversed. Steel1943 (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It also sounds like it should be a euphemism for something, but I'm not sure what! Thryduulf (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just realised that it's Emily Howard (Little Britain) I was thinking of in relation to my final sentence. This wouldn't make a good redirect there though. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryland Adams edit

Following the relevant AfD discussion that was closed with a decision to Delete the Ryland Adams article, and rejecting the motion to create a Merge or Redirect link instead, a Redirect was nonetheless created, in direct violation of the decision. The Gnome (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reading the discussion, while the ultimate result was outright deletion, nobody really made any headway towards actually refuting the idea of merging, and nobody brought up the idea of turning it into a redirect to existing material whatsoever. Either way, once such a deletion takes place, there's really nothing stopping someone from making a new article or redirect unless the thing gets salted, and equally, nothing but page protection can stop someone from grabbing text that used to be on a deleted page and adding it to another article as a posthumous "merge" (besides, well, how easy it is to GET said info)-- and not only should we only reach for the protection tools if a pattern develops of disruptive editing at a specific title/article, but also, said protection tools don't ever guarantee that something is locked in stone for all eternity, as someone can still always argue for a change somewhere.
As for the actual redirect itself, it redirects to the current place on Wikipedia that we have information on the subject. I'd say it's a good redirect. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are essentially re-judgint a discussion closed with an explicit reasoning. The closer did not bother with any alternative suggestions made, and they did not have to. A closure that does not address any and all suggestions made does not mean that contributors can use that as an excuse to bypass the decision. We might as well ignore all decisions outright. As to what might happen if the decision remains implemented, we cannot proceed under criteria of fear. We have adequate measures in place to address and confront miscreants. As to "arguments," we can only say, bring them on, by all means. -The Gnome (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I... what!?!?
  • re-judging a discussion closed with an explicit reasoning
user:Liz closed this with simply "The result was Delete." There was no followup comment whatsoever-- no "We should also salt this", no "Don't make a redirect/merge", no "Don't recreate the article even if you find good sources", nothing. This can, and should, simply be interpreted as, "The article in its current state should not be on Wikipedia. If someone would like to take the resulting WP:REDLINK and do something else with it, feel free." That is a normal, valid method of interpreting an AfD result like this.
  • We might as well ignore all decisions outright.
Oh no, feel free to do that. Decisions should never be flat ignored. However, that doesn't mean that they should be given more weight than necessary. The article as it stood was deleted. It's not here anymore. The "article" currently in its place is just a redirect.
  • As to what might happen if the decision remains implemented,...
...that's why we're here, this is a redirect in RFD--
  • ...we cannot proceed under criteria of fear. We have adequate measures in place to address and confront miscreants.
--And here's where you lose me entirely. Fear!? Miscreants?!?! Who the heck is holding a gun up to your head!?? This is just a redirect! ( 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Note that the connection to the Target Article is simply a personal relationship between the two individuals one decidedly non-notable; a tenuous reason for keeping a name extant in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The AfD discussion did not "reject the motion to create a merge or redirect" it concluded to delete without any significant discussion of either - indeed the only comment that mentioned either option was supportive. There was a consensus that there should be a standalone article about this person, but we can and do have content about him on another article so we and readers gain by making it easy for that to find. Thryduulf (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where was this consensus to have a stand-alone article on "Ryland Adams"? And since when suggestions in an AfD have independent importance after they have been implicitly yet clearly rejected? We witness every day AfD's whereby the decision favors a minority of suggestions, due to their quality and/or policy-based arguments. We completely ignore the implicitly rejected suggestions. A closer is not obliged to go through every suggestion, lest they otherwise gain in substance. -The Gnome (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kahru edit

article about Iran village (not a city like said!) called Gahru even doesn't mention "Kahru". And Kahru to be reserved to Estonian village Kahru, Rõuge Parish Estopedist1 (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valinor Hills Station edit

There's no indication that this is referred to as a "station", either officially or unofficially, by anyone. I'm not sure whether or not a plain "Valinor Hills" redirect would be more suitable. It doesn't seem very useful, but it would make more sense at least. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - As OA of the Valinor Hills Station WP:Redirect - this Redirect was made to support the listing of the final location of the Mars Ingenuity (helicopter) on the planet Mars as indicated at Ingenuity (helicopter)#End of mission, and on the "Mars Memorial Sites" template ({{Features and memorials on Mars}}) (and see below) - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note -- I removed the (unsigned) template transclusion as clutter; anyone can click on the link themselves to see it. I know MOS:OL is about article content and not talk pages, but holy crap, please take it to heart, because it's really hard to find the one important link among your sea of useless ones (why in the world did you feel the need to link "wp:redirect"? Please put some thought into what you write). More to the point, none of what you said addresses my concern that "Station" specifically is unwarranted. If someone added it inappropriately to a template, the proper course would be to remove it from the template, not to add an erroneous redirect. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Phone Operating System edit

Listing this separately from #Apple Internet Phone Operating System as beside similar issues with this being an unlikely search term, lacking a specific brand makes it more likely to cause confusion. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 12:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No clear target. The creator may have been under the impression that the "i" in iPhone is short for "internet", which it isn't - and from searching it doesn't look like this is a common mistake. Could arguably be retargeted to Mobile operating system, but that article isn't strictly related to the internet - there are mobile operating systems that don't have internet connectivity. BugGhost🪲👻 13:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Mobile operating system. While it's true that not everything there relates to the internet, everything that this plausible search term could relate to is listed there (i.e. it's a redirect from a narrower term to a broader article) . Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as per Thryduulf. He's right in that that's the best target we have (the only "internet phones" that can possibly have an operating system would have said operating systems listed there), and the fact that it's one less word than the one that starts with Apple helps a bit with my ability to believe its plausibility. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Internet Phone Operating System edit

Implausible search term, this exact term has not been used in sources. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 12:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Unambiguous and plausible search term for someone who doesn't remember the actual name. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep. May be potentially implausible, but the redirect is not ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - the terms unabiguously indicate the user is trying to find iOS, but I doubt anyone will ever actually type it BugGhost🪲👻 17:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely weak keep bordering on ambivalent. Steel, BugGhost, and Thryduulf are correct in that it is very unambiguous-- there's no world where this redirect goes anywhere other than IOS, and there's a WP:CHEAP based argument that that's enough to keep. That said, internet phone redirects to VoIP, not to smartphone or iPhone, and I don't think that should change-- I've never heard anyone refer to the iPhone as the "Apple Internet Phone", and given the iPhone's name is ultimately based on the name of the iMac, I'm not sure Apple had "Internet" in mind. (Although I will note that our article for iMac does note that one of the intended meanings for the "i-" is Internet, so... I'm not sure what to think anymore x3) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Derangement Syndrom edit

The redirect pages Bush Derangement Syndrome and Bush derangement syndrome already exist, though when I type "Bush derangement" into the search bar, only the redirect with the misspelt title is listed, and I have to finish typing "syndrome" into the search bar in order for either of the correctly-spelt redirects to appear. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I added {{R from misspelling}} so if it is kept, it'll be categorized better. (I'm leaning weak keep since in general off-by-one misspellings can be useful although omitting trailing letters matter a bit less in general.) Skynxnex (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drake LaRoche edit

Redirects to an article where there is no mention of him. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hendrik Sal-Saller edit

has SIGCOV, hence we need a red link to show that standalone article is missing in enwiki Estopedist1 (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian Taska edit

has SIGCOV, hence we need a red link to show that standalone article is missing in enwiki Estopedist1 (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blagger edit

This was flagged up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Searching for "Blagger" currently redirects to a page with no mention of the word. by user:Oathed with the comment seems weird that it doesn't link or disambig to Blagger (video game). Not sure how to mark a page for "Disambig page needed". At the very least this does need a hatnote to the video game, but I'm not acutally sure the video game isn't the primary target. Neither the present target nor Pretexting (linked as the main article) use the term. The only other uses I'm finding (Blaggers ITA (formerly known as The Blaggers) and The Blaggers Guide would be at most see-alsos on a dab page.
The video game article was created at this title but moved in March 2018 by Zxcvbnm with the summary "Merge, in order to disambiguate" but they just changed the redirect target and added a hatnote. The hatnote was removed without explanation by an IP in 2020, but the mention of "blagging" had been removed in July 2018 as part of a cull of unreferenced information by Michaelgt123. None of "blag", "blagging" or "blagger" has ever been included in the Pretext article. Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect made at least some sense at the time it was created. The article Pretext, as it appeared at the time, was about the general well-understood meaning of a "pretext"; a reason given in justification of a course of action that is not the real reason. It had only a single paragraph describing the social engineering trick.
Meanwhile, the article Social engineering (security), as it appeared at the time, in the section Pretexting, said "Pretexting..., also known in the UK as blagging". So that made at least some sense as a target (although even then, I think the video game article would have been a more appropriate target).
The video game seems pretty clearly to be the primary use for "Blagger"; if the "blagging" text is re-added to the Social engineering (security) article (as it probably should, there seems to be sufficient documentation of that, e.g., [44] at the BBC), it can be dealt with by ordinary disambiguation (hatnote or a Blagger (disambiguation) page, as appropriate). TJRC (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page mover / redirect creator Zxcvbnm was notified in the nomination, however I have just notified at the talk page as well. Jay 💬 11:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate "Blagging" is another term for social engineering (see here and here). If that isn't the primary topic, then it should be disambiguated between social engineering (security) and the game, not have the game moved back here. That would be the height of folly when it could simply be re-added with a single sentence referenced to a reliable source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should the page Blagger be a disambiguation page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ca talk to me! 08:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, move Blagger (video game) to it, then add a hatnote. "Blagging" is an informal term in UK that has similarities to social engineering, but it's not quite the same thing - it's just a phrase that sort of means "bullshitter", someone who can make up lies quickly - social engineers will blag, but not all blaggers are social engineers. For example most improv comedians are good blaggers, but that doesn't mean they are doing anything nefarious. Seeing as Blagger (video game) exists, it should be the primary topic. BugGhost🪲👻 13:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Big One (earthquake) edit

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Previously discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 28#The Big One (earthquake). However, multiple sources prove that "The Big One" does not only refer to the anticipated mega-quake in Los Angeles, but also refers to a similar feared one that can devastate Metro Manila, the Philippines. Here are some of the reliable sources that prove "The Big One" is not just a U.S. thing: from Rizal Medical Center, from DOST, from Inquirer.net, from Manila Bulletin, from a World Bank blog, from Philippine Star, and from Manila Standard Today. This redirect should be made as a disambiguation page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate: Agree with nomination. Not everything is about the US and if there are WP:RS demonstrating the terms usage in reference to other occurrences then this redirect should be made as a disambiguation page. TarnishedPathtalk 10:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on creating a dab at this title?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Anyone feel like drafting a disambiguation page? It seems' nobody's willing to do it, hence delete by default. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery: why would/should delete be the "default" choice? It's not a "disambiguation or delete" binary, there's a strong case to make that the San Andreas Fault is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this term regardless of other uses. -- Tavix (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At the time I made that comment there was a consensus to disambiguate. If nobody is willing to write a disambiguation page then the closest way of implementing that agreement would be to delete and let search results perform the role of disambiguation. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without prejudice to disambiguation. I can't find any mentions of this term being used on Wikipedia to refer to anywhere other than California. If that changes then we can disambiguate but until then keeping is best. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf the sources at Marikina Valley Fault System use the term, but for some reason the "Big One" is not mentioned in the article itself. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That lack of mention in that article (and other articles) is exactly why I made the recommendation I did. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "The Big One" is discussed at the current article but not in other articles. If there is discussion elsewhere, then we can consider other targets. -- Tavix (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chhota Bheem 1 edit

The redirects doesn't make any sense. M S Hassan (talk) 07:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@M S Hassan: I made these redirects (when I was going through the list of Indian film series), as a chronological search aid for theatrical films in order of release for the series.
These, 1 and 5, should be targetted to the relevant articles (for the 2012 and 2024 film) respectively. Cheers. Gotitbro (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Sonsio Grand Prix at the Indiapolis Motor Speedway edit

Delete - Unplausible search target/cleanup after target article was initially created here (due to a newer editor being unaware they could overwrite the old redirect at the target). ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Accurate and harmless, deletion wouldn't bring any benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused already-merged Bio_coatrack et al edit

Merged into {{coatrack}} since [45]. Their names falsely imply that they will still display a more biology-related notice. In reality, they are just unused redirects. Only mentions are basically Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template_redirects and other lists. 184.146.170.127 (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This should be completely uncontroversial, but from a purely clerical standpoint template redirects should be at RfD and not TfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, though I'll chime in here in favor of delete in case it's not moved/reopened as an RfD. We don't need weird redirects lingering around that are not in actual use.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need weird redirects lingering around that are not in actual use if only that would actually happen more here :) Gonnym (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the above from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 June 10#Unused already-merged Bio_coatrack et al as the correct venue. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The template does not give any "bio" (biography? biology?) specific details. Gonnym (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gonnym (the history says biography, but biology is equally plausible). Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Ohio abortion of a 10-year old edit

Two errors: 1) the abortion took place in Indiana, not Ohio. 2) The abortion was of a fetus, not a 10-year old. -- Tavix (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: Why is Keep per Jax something to endorse? Jax 0677 always defends his redirects with the exact same boilerplate argument that doesn't say anything specific about the redirect in question. Yes, all redirects are cheap—everyone here knows that. But "keep per WP:CHEAP" could then apply to any redirect (which is illogical, many redirects should be deleted regardless if they're "cheap"), so we need more information. Finally, per WP:INAPPNOTE, pinging a couple of editors whose opinion matches your own in a similar discussion is inappropriate votestacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions. -- Tavix (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While most redirects are cheap, others have problems that outweigh that. This one does not.
Re the pings, not my intention to vote stack but to attribute. I'll ping the other participants who haven't already commented here in that discussion as hopeful balance: @TNstingray, BD2412, Utopes, DrowssapSMM, TarnishedPath, StreetcarEnjoyer, Frank Anchor, Bwrs, and Pppery: (I've omitted Okmrman who has been blocked for disrupting XfDs and then socking) Thryduulf (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:CHEAP doesn't say that most redirects are cheap, it's a blanket statement on redirects that they are cheap. It therefore adds nothing to this discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as partial / short for similar redirects 2022 Ohio abortion, 2022 Ohio girl abortion case, 2022 Ohio child rape abortion case, 2022 abortion of a 10-year old from Ohio, etc. 2) is not an argument per common sense. Jay 💬 09:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A plausible interpretation is that the abortion was performed on the 10-year-old, whose fetus was aborted. The title is grammatically awkward but not incomprehensible. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments raised in the related previous discussions. When this also closes with strong consensus to keep, how about we impose a moratorium on RfDs for redirects to this title if the rationale is that they're "incorrect"? WP:RFD#K5 applies to technically erroneous titles that redirect readers to the right content, if there are not better reasons to delete (and an ideology that readers of an encyclopedia should have memorized all of the fine details of a subject before we let them find it is not a good reason, nor is expecting readers to be "educated" by this process). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ivanvector: I would strongly oppose such a moratorium. Yes, there are cases for an {{R from incorrect name}}, but only when they are common misnomers. The more errors that are in a term, the less plausible they become. This one has two errors in it, and I would argue that the errors make this redirect too implausible to keep. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, one that strives to get things correct. We can overcome that when it is clear people will use that vehicle to get there, but I can't see the rationale for it here. Can you find sources that use this phrasing? Has there been reporting that show the abortion in Ohio? If sources don't use this, why would Wikipedia searchers use it? And even if in the off-chance someone does use it, the number of keywords here makes it super easy for the correct article to show up in the search results. -- Tavix (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      People's search terms not confined those that appear in sources indexed by Google. The goal is to help people find the content they are looking for using the search terms they actually use, not just the ones we happen to approve of. I only had a vague recollection of this event (and only from seeing the RfDs) and couldn't have told you whether the travel was to or from Ohio. Our goal is not to be correct (c.f. WP:VNT), but to educate people. We don't educate people by making it harder to find the content they are looking for based on slightly misremembered and/or imprecise details. I would support Ivanvector's proposed moratorium on redirects to this target based solely on the rationale that the redirect is incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Your argument falls apart because of your false assumption that deleting this redirect would make it harder for people to find the article in question. It would do no such thing. -- Tavix (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It would mean someone using this title would have to navigate via search results which, depending on multiple factors, might be several clicks/taps away and are not guaranteed to list the desired article. That is unambiguously harder than going to the article directly. It would also reduce (by an unknowable amount) the likelihood of similar search terms returning the desired article in both internal and external search engines. Thryduulf (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Someone using this title won't be happening, but in case it does I have already shown the correct article appears first in search results. The search results will either directly appear or be one click away depending on how it's searched (not "several" as you claim). So no, it's not as big of a deal as you're making it out to be. -- Tavix (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Search results can be more than one click/tap away. I can't remember ottomh what specific method it is, but there is a case where one reaches a page that is two clicks/taps away from search results, which means that it is a minimum of three clicks before the person reaches the content they are looking for. So unless you are saying that two or three (or more) clicks/taps is not a significantly inferior user experience to zero clicks/taps then, yes this is a big deal.
      Despite your claims, it is impossible to guarantee what appears first in search results, especially as those search results are influenced by the existence of this redirect.
      Finally, you haven't explained what benefits to Wikipedia or its readers will arise from deleting the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comment in the previous discussion. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That the abortion didn't happen in Ohio is completely irrelevant to this redirect. The previous discussion was of a different redirect that did state "in Ohio" but even then it was not a justification for deletion as explained by multiple other commenters. Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is relevant because it makes the redirect incorrect. It's an important consideration because incorrect redirects can be harmful for those who use it and assume it's the correct information. They therefore require a bigger bar to justify keeping them over 'correct' redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If people assuming incorrect redirects to correct articles was a thing that justified the deletion of redirects then we would be deleting all redirects from titles are are incorrect. Redirects from incorrect terms to correct articles educates people that they are wrong and what the correct is. In this case the redirect isn't even incorrect - it just states that the abortion is relevant to Ohio (which it was), but as has been explained multiple times we do not require readers to know the details of an article before being allowed to read the article. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you're actually comprehending my arguments, that's not a logical jump to make from what I said. You haven't explained what benefits to Wikipedia or its readers will arise from deleting the redirect all but confirms it. -- Tavix (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I haven't understood your arguments then you need to try to explain them differently because I can't parse anything different from what you've said. You argue that incorrect redirects can be harmful for those who use it and assume it's the correct information. but present no evidence for this stance that directly contradicts the reason for keeping any incorrect redirects: people who follow them learn from what they read that they are wrong and what is correct. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and what did I say both before and after the part that you quoted? It's an important consideration and that they require a bigger bar to justify keeping them. That is nowhere close to the leap you made to deleting all redirects from titles are are incorrect. You either did not comprehend my argument, selectively parsed in your mind to suit your needs, or decided to construct a strawman to attack. To be clear: redirects from incorrect names are useful when they are common misnomers, and I would support keeping those. This redirect is, in my opinion, far below the threshold of plausibility to overcome the inherent harm that is present from it being incorrect. -- Tavix (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep. I generally agree that "Ohio" and "10-year old" are key details of the case as a whole for which a reader might search, and since there is no other article that might be ambiguous with this one, this is not preventing readers from finding what they almost certainly intend if they search for this specific title. The phrase "abortion of a 10-year old", while grammatically imperfect, seems very plausibly understood as referring to the age of the abortion recipient. BD2412 T 14:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirects are supposed to be plausible search terms, not statements of The Truth™. This is a plausible search term. Also, while grammar issues always interest me, this one isn't absolute. "A ten year old's abortion" = "Abortion of a ten year old". We could also complain that the hyphenation is wrong. (This form should not be hyphenated at all; if a noun followed it, there should be two hyphens, e.g., a ten-year-old rape victim.) But the main point is that this redirect will get readers to the right place, which is literally all we need from a redirect. I wouldn't have created it, but since it already exists, I don't think that deleting it is the right choice.
    Tavix, I encourage you to stop nominating redirects related this subject for deletion. It doesn't feel like it's helping either our content or our community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: This is the only the second redirect to this target I have nominated for deletion. The first one ended in "no consensus", and I feel this one is even worse with (in my opinion) more errors and more implausibility than the other one. I am not at all out of line to nominate two redirects I find harmful for further discussion. If there is another redirect to the same target that I feel is harmful and that I think consensus exists to delete, I absolutely will nominate it. Our content and our community are better off with implausible errors deleted, which mitigates any possibilities of our readers walking away misled. Not everyone reads through the articles, it's possible for someone to stumble across the redirect and assume it's correct without delving further. -- Tavix (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virgini edit

Would Virginia really be the primary topic of this misspelling? It's a phonetic misspelling of Virginie, and Virginis, Virginio and Virginity are also possibilities. -- Tavix (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Based on googling, when this is a typo or misspelling it is (almost) always intended to be Virginia, but it is not always a mistake. In addition to being the Italian for "virgins" and the Latin dative singular for "maid, maiden, virgin" and similar meanings, it is a name of several people (most prominently Simone Virgini, an illustrator) and a shop in Majorca. Also prominent in search results are minni di virgini, a traditional Sicilian pastry (although as a partial title match I'm not advocating a retarget). Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with the above BugGhost🪲👻 14:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Virgin (disambiguation). Not wholly implausible as a type, at least. BD2412 T 14:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notcoin edit

not mentioned at target. ltbdl (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore this version and send to AfD. I had tagged the article as G4, since it was deleted at a prior AfD, but it turns out that the current article differs greatly from the deleted version. Regardless, it should be restored and taken to AfD once more to decide whether it should stay or not. CycloneYoris talk! 07:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD per CycloneYoris. --Lenticel (talk) 08:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD per CycloneYoris. Thryduulf (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules edit

Template:WikiProject Aviation/bchecklistcats edit

Unused sub page that was removed in this edit. Gonnym (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Summer Paralympics by year category navigation edit

Until these were created, {{Category series navigation}} was used on these categories and did the same thing. The addition of more links isn't needed as using if you really want all links, just use the parent category. Gonnym (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment These templates were just created but right now seem to be unused. Liz Read! Talk! 19:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kajang line mapframe edit

Unused route map template. Gonnym (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:K Line (Los Angeles Metro)/detailed edit

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kolkata Metro route diagram edit

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kingston Branch edit

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LRT Line 2 (Jabodebek LRT) edit

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lecco–Brescia railway diagram edit

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest episode air date edit

Unused television template. Seems to be broken based on the example. Gonnym (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest preview software release/ELinks edit

Unused software release version template after this edit. Gonnym (talk) 09:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/k-IRC edit

Unused software release version template. Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/fIRC edit

Unused software release version template. Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/Simple IRC edit

Unused software release version template. Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/AndroidChat edit

Unused software release version templates for pages that have been deleted (AndroidChat, Virca, WLIrc, Yaaic, JmIrc, Comparison of mobile Internet Relay Chat clients, ZsIRC). Gonnym (talk) 09:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NavigationFinnishChampionsFigureSkatingPairs edit

Totally gross sea of redlinks; ergo, an unhelpful template. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This has 7 blue links so it can be useful. Just remove all red links. Or this can be merged without red links to Template:Finnish Figure Skating Championships as it duplicates the event years already anyways. Gonnym (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I left the other three discipline templates (men, women, ice dance) alone, because those were predominately blue links. There is little chance that the red links on this template will ever be developed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bugmenot edit

An ancient template on ancient user pages that is just about guaranteed to have no use whatsoever any longer. And we block/lock compromised accounts these days. Izno (talk) 05:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rfta top edit

Template for a failed proposed process. Izno (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany edit

Deletion review edit

#invoke:Navbox

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