Deletion discussions
Deletion today Undeletion Deletion review Deletion log Request a copy of a deleted article
Articles
today all (sorted) closing log
Templates and modules
today all closing holding
Files
today all closing
Categories
today all closing speedy
Redirects
today all closing log
Miscellany
today all closing
Speedy deletion
candidates
Proposed deletion
all (sorted) BLPs
Policy Process Guide Administrator guidelines
v t e

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]

Articles[edit]

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday June 19 (Wed) June 18 (Tue) June 17 (Mon) More...

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< June 20	June 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Manx Aviation and Military Museum

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge Fails to meet WP:GNG. Should be included in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castletown,_Isle_of_Man#Places_of_interest Wikilover3509 (talk) 09:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Castletown,_Isle_of_Man#Places_of_interest as a viable AtD. Star Mississippi 15:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, requests for article mergers should not be started at AfDs. A proposed merger nomination should've been the correct way to nominate this article since you are asking for a merge. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are some press references [1] [2] [3] and books [4] etc. There's too much content here, with the prospect of adding more, to merit the proposed merge elsewhere where this museum would then overly dominate the other article, in my opinion. Plus it's inclusion in Template:British Aviation Museums seems reasonable and would be less well achieved following a merge. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a museum run by volunteers, with scope over a self-governing territory, therefore we can assume WP:NONPROFIT applies. With the secondary sourcing both in the article and identified by @UkPaolo, I agree meets notability guidelines. Keep. ResonantDis_tortion 10:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No new comments since last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is notable. What's missing here is a lead paragraph to inform us how this got established, and what the museum's focus is. There's several categories of military museums around the world. Improve, don't delete. — Maile (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 02:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Castletown, Isle of Man#Places of interest as an alternative to deletion. Most sources referring to the article do not talk about the museum in depth, there is a lack of secondary sources as most sources are primary sources, and the linked book does not talk enough about the subject. So all in all, the sources do not justify the subject's notability. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Arguments divided between Merge and Keep, no support for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romy Tiongco

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not meet the notability guidelines of WP:POLITICIAN TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Politics. TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, Philippines, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the two programmes on the BBC all about him and the first of these and its report his on him were what led me to start this page and think him notable enough - perhaps via general notability rather than as a politician per se. A political activist, NGO worker and then politician (Msrasnw (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment - maybe you should find more sources, only 2 out of the 7 sources work.
TheNuggeteer (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are 2 "working" sources, that should be enough for WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources is a video source which does not work anymore, is one source okay? TheNuggeteer (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our "policy" on this is WP:LINKROT, and it being dead should not be taken against the article, more so if the reference is more than a decade old.

So no, your premise of this article having just one source doesn't hold. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a WP:BEFORE search outside of the sources in the article and can't find anything which suggests to me that the article passes WP:GNG. The non-working links do not necessarily suggest there was secondary coverage of him, either - the magazine just has a wordpress site and the BBC radio bit is an interview, which are not secondary. SportingFlyer T·C 17:30, 8 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) 14:26, 14 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!} 21:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social policies of Phyllis Schlafly

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Majority of article comes from WP:PRIMARY sources. Relevant info can be merged into Phyllis_Schlafly#Viewpoints but there isn't enough to justify its own article. मल्ल (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Politics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no independent reliable sources for the subject. - Altenmann >talk 19:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see a number of books listed as references, Feminism and the New Right and such. These are all primary sources? I wouldn't think that the political policies of one activist would merit an article separate from the article about that person, but if people have seen fit to write this much about them... It looks like the issue is notability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She herself is clearly notable and significant, but this page does not meet Wiki requirements for the additional focus on policies. Go4thProsper (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge This is an appropriate subarticle of Phyllis_Schlafly#Viewpoints. While primary sources are not prohibited from this type of page, there are also independent sources for appropriate coverage. If a standalone article is not appropriate, the main article should be expanded with some of this. Reywas92^Talk 15:21, 19 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!} 21:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Renewal Initiative – New Democracy Student Movement

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge to New Democracy (Greece). On its own it fails WP:NORG, as the student wing of New Democracy it adds value to that article. Disputed draftification 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Greece. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author note:

I will try to find some time to expand the article over the following days. For the time being, I would just like to mention that there has been a seperate article about it in the Greek wikipedia for years: https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%94%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%BF%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE_%CE%91%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%B5%CF%89%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE_%CE%A0%CF%81%CF%89%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B1_-_%CE%9D%CE%AD%CE%B1_%CE%94%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%BF%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE_%CE%A6%CE%BF%CE%B9%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE_%CE%9A%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B7 .

As a new wikipedia member, I am not very familiar with criteria and processes. However, since there is a seperate page for it in the Greek wikipedia (it has not been merged with the New Democracy party greek page), I think that there should also be a seperate equivalent page in the English wikipedia. In my opinion, expanding the article is the way to go, not merging it.

(So I would vote for KEEP, while expanding it at the same time.)

ArchidamusIII (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ArchidamusIII I would have moved it to Draft, but see WP:DRAFTIFY which says I cannot. I do not feel that drafification is appropriate, or would have suggested it. The Greek language Wikipedia has different standards. The English language version has the most stringent. Existence of an article in one is no guarantee that is suitable for the other or another, not is any precedent set between language versions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Thanks for the information!

I just added 15 cases-events that attracted media attention (in table form). By media I mean media that are reputable in Greece. In all honesty, I think that Democratic Renewal Initiative – New Democracy Student Movement should definitely meet the notability criteria. A quick google search with δαπ νδφκ as keywords (its Greek abbreviation) yields numerous results.

I will try to expand the article more over the following days. There is a lot of material available, so it is hard for me to cover everything. My original goal was to establish a short article and then let others slowly add details.

ArchidamusIII (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - per nominator.

TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - national student wing of one of main parties in Greece, had major role in national student body elections (which is a very important event in Greek politics). Whilst the article might need some editing, its not a candidate for Draftify. --Soman (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:33, 14 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!} 21:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Layle Delo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced South African rugby union player. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carreg yr Halen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough significant coverage - I could only find this article; everything else is trivial mentions when discussing Menai Bridge. While its location is sourced, that doesn't make it notable, and the rest of the information in the article is unsourced and I can't find it anywhere else, so is probably original research. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 18:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wales and Islands. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 18:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a number of local sources exist and are quoted. The island marked one of the important ferry crossimg location of the Menai Strait before the suspension bridge was constructed. Meets the standard of WP:GEONATURAL. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:NATFEAT. - Altenmann >talk 19:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Menai Strait: seems to be the best idea... For the dozen or so lines of text now in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Menai Bridge. This little outcrop of rock clearly has more significance to the town than to the body of water, but that significance doesn't become notability because of WP:INHERITED. Claims of being an important crossing point would meet the mark if there was any verifiable sigcov of this fact, but I don't believe there has been. Doesn't meet GEOLAND, is a tiny tidal island in the middle of nowhere, insufficient content to be its own article. BrigadierG (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete It's not clear that the claims of the article are true. The cite for the ferry fails verification, and really I have to doubt the utility of a tiny, bare island in such a service. If we have to have something I would to go with the strait, but don't see a merger of a likely inaccurate article. Mangoe (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet and two different Merge target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fermor (Russian nobility)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonnotable RUssuan family tagged since 2019. BAsically unreferenced. - Altenmann >talk 19:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 14 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!} 21:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Bern

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating this article for deletion because of persistent issues that have not been addressed despite discussions on the talk page. The main concerns include: - **POV (Point of View) Issues**: The article heavily reflects the claims and views of the biographed person without sufficient neutral coverage. - **Lack of Reliable Sources**: The content relies predominantly on sources that do not meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. - **Notability Concerns**: The subject does not meet the general notability guideline as the article lacks significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. - **Content Focus**: The article focuses more on claims made by the person rather than providing a balanced biographical account, which is a core requirement for biographical articles on Wikipedia. These issues combined lead to the conclusion that the article may not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form.

Looking into the bibliography at least four of them seems to be self-published, or published on "print-on-demand" publishing companys."Recito":

"Recito is an innovative publisher specializing in small print runs and making the publishing world accessible to authors. We work closely with our authors to create wonderful books, and because we are experts in small print runs, we can test the market with each book without having to predict the future or risk mistakenly rejecting a manuscript." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franke1281 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 18 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 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alhaqeqa Aldawlia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Satellite TV channel based in Jordan that fails WP:NCORP. No independent secondary sourcing at all that I can find; the sources in the article are either database sources (Lyngsat, Jordanian government databases) excluded for notability by WP:ORGCRIT or fail verification entirely. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The editor who created this article has declared a conflict of interest with this subject so we must be especially vigilant to validate notability here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Jordan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:50, 7 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, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pandolfini Italian Culinary Academy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Schools, and Italy. SL93 (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. It's actually a WP:A7 candidate - any importance of the palace is a case of WP:NOTINHERITED, and there's no claim to notability as a (private culinary) school, noting the application of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES to schools of significant size but not sizable significance. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bitter Dawn

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Bitter Dawn (2nd nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has zero references since 2007, and unable to find comprehensive, in-depth coverage of this specific film. Article was created on 23 September 2007; Prod on 12 October 2007; then first AfD on 28 August 2010 here along with a group of additional articles. JoeNMLC (talk) 20:23, 21 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 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Muqtadir

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are trivial (included in a list of other youtubers) and non-independent. One significant coverage is about his investigation by the police. No other significant independent secondary source covering his popularity as a content creator. - AlbeitPK (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Internet, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources cover the police investigating him. That is not enough to satisfy WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given previous AFDs, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Have any sources mentioned in previous discussions been examined?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article that doesn't meet WP:ENT for inclusion on Wikipedia. While I couldn't find any clue in the former AFDs that I still hold deep breath of how it had survived two–three discussions. I am not going to base in any past whatsoever but here is the source analysis and final conclusion. source 1 is a primary source but it verifies the content as used in most of the articles like that per WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Source 2 is good for sourcing but doesn't support the 'wife marriage'. source 3 is an obvious advert and interview making me suspect the credibility/reliability of source 2. Source 4 is unreliable, and source 5 looks like an advertorial unverifiable publication. Source 6, source 7, and source 8 contributes to a non notable controversy and I call it WP:BLP1E because the said event is not notable for a standalone article. [5] and [6] supports a non notable film and book, hence doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NAUTHOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable person Md Joni Hossain (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Previously I nominated this article for Afd and my view still same. There is no WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been improved and more reliable sources are added, such as The Daily Star or Prothom Alo. Popular national reliable newspapers claim that Salman Muqtadir is a popular YouTuber and actor and there are a bunch of sources about him from reliable sites. Although some news are about his marriage or other things but they are published independently about him and declared him as YouTuber, influencer or actor. Therefore GNG has been able to establish. Ontor22 (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily star tag link you showed popped paid/sponsored articles [7], [8], [9], and [10]. They doesn't credibly means this article won't met notability later. See WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and know there isn't any amount of sources you add to a non notable person to be notable. On the aspect scene of YouTube, famous people are celebrities bur that doesn't mean try are notable. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
News from The Daily Star are not paid or sponsored articles at all. Other news channels including Daily Star use disclaimers on sponsored articles but these are not. His marriage news appeared in multiple news channels.

See his marriage news from Prothom alo, Dhaka Tribune, The Business Standard.

Older articles about him also show his prominence.

See these article from Prothom Alo 1 2, Bangla Tribune, The Business Standard, Jagonews24

Salman Muktadir is not only YouTuber but also worked in various entertainment fields including television, stage performance which established his notability based on WP:ENT. Ontor22 (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He is notable on YouTube as an influencer & content creator. but doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:ENT for inclusion on Wikipedia.--DelwarHossain (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is notable person. I agree with Ontor22. Yubrajhn (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD. There's close to a consensus to delete here, but not something I'm comfortable closing as myself given the promises I made to stay out of using my admin tools for tricky content issues.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL Network Exclusive Game Series results (2006–present)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a failure of WP:SALAT as these games aren't covered as a group elsewhere. Let'srun (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and American football. Let'srun (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen Large

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. Joeykai (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A very easy keep. This biography clears GNG and NSPORTS by more than a lot of sports bios I've seen here. There is WP:SIGCOV in The Province, Baseball America, and Sportsnet, all of which are WP:SIRS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Sportsnet is owned by Rogers Communications, which also owns the Toronto Blue Jays, the organization that had Large at the time that article was written. Let'srun (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject meets WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV from multiple reliable sources. JTtheOG (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I created this article as a redirect to Toronto Blue Jays minor league players, but I don't think Large is notable enough for a standalone article. The Baseball America reference is a general stat page that all minor league prospects have. In my opinion we only have 2 refs contributing towards notability in terms of SIGCOV (The Province & Sportsnet). If more SIGCOV is found I do think that the article should probably be kept. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Baseball America link is an article, not a stats page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This subject meets the WP:GNG because of independent WP:SIGCOV from Baseball America and The Province, which each provides in-depth coverage of the subject. Let'srun (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never made the majors, coverage is sparse and routine. Non-notable minor league baseball player. SportingFlyer T·C 02:52, 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!} 00:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Down-ball

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Searches for a reliable WP:RS fail. The term is absent in Google Scholar and Books, on the Web used to describe particular situation in handball and the Four square game, but never in this context. The description on the site of Melbourne University [11] appears to be a typo: the detailed rules (under "At School 05") do not describe any wall use (it seems that the previous short text is a result of a mix-up, the game with a wall is described elsewhere: "Wall ball"). The other source [12] clearly states that down ball is Four square on p. 40 Викидим (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD was objected to by Rockycape. See his objections on User talk:Rockycape#Proposed deletion of Down-ball. Викидим (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Roy Krug

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looking at the criteria listed at WP:NPRODUCER (and performing WP:BEFORE pre-requisite searches) I think this individual's article fails to meet the criteria. I suggest deletion at this time. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 19:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, Switzerland, and United States of America. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 19:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dwaram Bhavanarayana Rao

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to be a case of WP:INHERITED notability, given people largely talk about him in relation to his father. I can't check two of the sources here (and one is a WP:NOBITS) but the one I could find, as well as my searches of the internet returned no new sources for WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Music. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet phenomena in Pakistan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SYNTH - Fails GNG. Those suggesting to keep this article must substantiate with evidence from RS that these listed "phenomena" are indeed are "Internet phenomena in Pakistan." Also delete per @Arms & Hearts, who stated here given the existence of List of Internet phenomena and the fact that the internet, by its very nature, isn't affected by national boundaries, this seems unnecessary. Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation of Serbian Students Abroad

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All right, I'm calling it here, this article seems to fail WP:NORG. It has little more than 2 articles (thus failing WP:GNG) covering the society and even these seem hardly more than rehashes of routine meetings and press releases. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nosurahu

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Struggling to find 3 sources not some WMF project or copying off it, not 1 source of in-depth coverage at all. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Estonia. Shellwood (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swadhin Axom

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, India, and Assam. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Repurpose @Flyingphoenixchips, moving the discussion here in the appropriate discussion channel. The movement for an independent Assam might pass WP:GNG and be worth an article. However, it should be an article about the movement, not a proposed state- and it needs to be supported by sources that talk about "Swadhin Axom" as an idea specifically rather than as an alternative name for Assam used by those who want independence. If you believe there are many sources in Google, then WP:DOIT and fix this article. We don't do original research on wikipedia. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks, the sources I mentioned do support it as an idea, and not as an alternative name. All sources are listed in the reference page. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In no way was the article I have written am original research. Additionally many such articles on proposed states exist, and a separate category in wikipedia exists as well. Will those pages be deleted or just this, since its against a particular POV Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swadhin Axom was never used as an alternate name for assam. Swadhin means Independent and the proposed independent state is just refered to as Assam or Axom- both are the same literals. Swadhin axom is used by academics to describe this proposed state. Ref: Prafulla Mohonto, Proposal for Independence. Would suggest you to read it Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To maintain neutrality, would suggest editing existing articles based on your arguments, using credible sources, instead of plain WP:I just don't like it. Wikipedia should never become a battleground of political ideologues. If you read the article its neutral, you can add additional pointers in the article, if you have sources for the same. Thanks Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Makelim

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough independent coverage of this rugby league player to meet WP:GNG. There are a couple of interviews available (1, 2), but nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, Australia, and United States of America. JTtheOG (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CJ Cortalano

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough independent coverage of this rugby league player to meet WP:GNG. The most I found was coverage of his high school wrestling days. JTtheOG (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and New York. JTtheOG (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elnur Aslanov

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete' being a department manager cannot make a person directly encyclopedic.--Correspondentman (talk) 10:41, 7 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 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Politics, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has many sources, enough for Wikipedia:GNG, even searching for him unloads possible sources.

TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I somehow didn't catch when I first sorted this that ((subst:afd2)) does not appear to have been implemented here, leaving the AfD header incomplete. I have fixed this. (No opinion or further comment at this time.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of references. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Sepiol

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No real indication of notability, only sources are routine 'match reports' on poker news sites and a stats database. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Games, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep World Championship win + bracelet win should merit inclusion. Now satisfactory backed up. PsychoticIncall (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PsychoticIncall: As I've asked in other AFDs, please read and understand WP:SIRS and then list WP:THREE references you feel are SIRS. WP:BURDEN is on you to prove notability, not just assert it through non-policy means (which is what you are attempting). - UtherSRG (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And again - the sources are all there backing up the main statement probably even more obvious than ever before (Las Vegas Review Journal isn't just providing routine match reports). PsychoticIncall (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sardar Khan Niazi

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The BLP clearly falls short of meeting the GNG as well NJOURNALIST - It was previously nominated for deletion back in 2017, but it survived due to insufficient participation. The only participant who voted to keep it was a sock account who provided no strong sourcing based on GNG. The sockpuppet also claimed that the subject had received one award. However, per WP:NBIO, receiving a single award does not automatically guarantee that a subject should get a WP BLP. Saqib (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:ANYBIO#2 - he has received Tamgha-i-Imtiaz for his work. Editor-in-chief of a number of licensed newspapers, founder of a PEMRA-licensed TV station is enough to show his notability. 2400:ADC7:5101:2500:B17C:9657:E301:EFD4 (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the last nomination, @Lourdes: shared a good rationale to keep this article. 2400:ADC7:5101:2500:B17C:9657:E301:EFD4 (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sachi Baat SK Niazi k Sath should be a redirect to this article. 2400:ADC7:5101:2500:B17C:9657:E301:EFD4 (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP - I guess I pointed out that per WP:NBIO, receiving a single award does not automatically guarantee that a subject should get a WP BLP. Similarly, positions such as "Editor-in-chief of a number of licensed newspapers, founder of a PEMRA-licensed TV station" do not inherently establish WP:N or automatically justify a WP BLP. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Failed WP:GNG. No in-depth coverage. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wesean Student Federation

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Asia, and India. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wesea (Western SouthEast Asia)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, Asia, India, and Manipur. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify The sources here don't really talk about ""Wesea"". For example, the page uses a lot of content broadly about Zomia, which passes WP:GNG. I can assume good faith on some of the paper sources, but I know a few of them don't mention "Wesea" at all. There needs to be a lot more work to make a page about the idea of Wesea using reliable sources and this article just isn't ready for wikipedia mainspace yet. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If kept, it should be moved to Wesea, as the base title does not exist and the current title misuses the parenthetical for an acronym. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_21#Category:Wesean_National_Leaders is related to this AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Shamil Orloff

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous draftified by Wikishovel and I — returned to mainspace without any improvements that show notability. Essentially a WP:MILL business person. No SNGs apply here and there is no independent, significant coverage in reliable sources. A Google search only returns his Linkedin and a Google News search returns nothing at all. I've manged to find one 2008 NYT article (referenced in the article) which trivially mentions his name once in a quote/interview and that's it. C F A 💬 17:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdirahman Ali

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject doesn't meet the notability criteria for an article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Som Production (SP). Ae245 (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Somalia. Ae245 (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, WP:MILL business person - no significant independent coverage C F A 💬 17:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG, In the article the only secondary source is Somali Inside News, both articles from that source look like paid placement, and neither has WP:SIGCOV of the subject anyway. No GNG compliant sources apparent from searches either. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:44A3:EFF3:245F:594D (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loch Lomond (Illinois)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Small reservoir without significant, independent coverage to justify an article. SeymourHolcomb (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, Geography, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of JavaScript-based source code editors

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was dePRODed in 2010 for being a "possibly valid combination article" -- however, this article consists of original research (in particular, it features a user's feature testing), and cleaning that up would amount to blanking the page. I'm not sure if this topic is notable, but even if it is, we'd need to WP: STARTOVER here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Owen× ☎ 16:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a muddle.

When you say "it features a user's feature testing" which user do you mean, and how did you determine the content was original research and not simply awaiting a supporting citation? Relevant diffs would be helpful.
The latest substantive addition ([13]) appears to be sourced. Is it not? How so?
The only editor you notified hasn't edited in over a decade. More productive I'd think to notify active editors who you say introduced WP:OR into the article, since that's your basis for your claim that the only alternative to deletion is blanking the page. If they disagree I'd like to know why.
You're "not sure this topic is notable"? Please explain then which of the other 13 reasons for deletion are germaine to this discussion, and how. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Safe Superintelligence Inc.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional B.S.; no evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ilya Sutskever; while there are other co-founders the press coverage is clear that he is the primary instigator (CNBC, AP). And there is nothing other than that press release to be the topic of an article. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ilya Sutskever: (and merge) WP:TOOSOON, essentially just WP:MILL press releases - no evidence of independent notability right now C F A 💬 17:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As of now, even a redirect is premature. Announcements made a couple of days ago regarding future plans for a company that has done nothing yet belong in press releases, not encyclopaedias. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Buckwald

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Eight months since the last AFD, and he's still a non-notable CEO of a notable company. Article is nearly identical to the previous version, apart from the new Time magazine reference, which is the only SIGCOV I can find in a WP:BEFORE search. The rest is still just coverage of him in the context of his company, passing mentions, and interviews. G4 contested by SPA anon editor, likely the logged-out article creator. Strong aroma of UPE. Wikishovel (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, California, Florida, and Washington, D.C.. Wikishovel (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fairly obvious WP:REFBOMB with largely worthless non-WP:GNG compliant sources like [14] and [15]. Looking at the new sources since the last AFD not addressed by the nom [16] there is no WP:SIGCOV of the subject. I suppose every so often the UPEs will try again when they have new paid placements or references with passing mentions that can be added to game G4 but it is what it is. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:44A3:EFF3:245F:594D (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Šimon Kupec

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With only primary sources listed, the article of this men's footballer clearly fails WP:GNG. My Google searches are limited to database, match reports, and brief mentions in squad list. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination, I could not find anything outside of the aforementioned sources. Wiiformii (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dana KCM

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Charitable foundation that doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG. Created 10 years ago by an account that did nothing else on Wikipedia, no content edits or inbound links have been made since. The references are two old, deleted newspaper articles simply repeating the foundation's press release. It really doesn't seem like the sort of coverage we'd need to write a decent article on this subject. Searching for other sources I just get social media hits suggesting this foundation might not have been active past 2015. Here2rewrite (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be one book reference, but I just deleted it because it didn't actually say what the article said that it did (it was just the authors of a study thanking the foundation for a grant in 1 sentence, and non-significant) Mrfoogles (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've conducted a search in books and news sources and couldn't find anything of value to justify inclusion per WP:NORG. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcello Bertinetti (fencer born 1952)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. There is not enough coverage for this person in the article. Attempted to search for sources but did not come across any relevant. Normanhunter2 (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sports biographies are subject to a heightened sourcing standard. See WP:SPORTBASIC prong 5: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." This one-sentence stub does not meet the standard. Cbl62 (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the profile on Olympedia gives the WP:SIGCOV required. He was Italian champion and won a bronze medal at the 1973 Summer Universiade, see results. Broc (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here [17] coverage of him on the national press La Stampa about becoming Italian épée champion. Some passing coverage: [18] [19] [20]

Sources from 1976 are hard to find, that doesn't mean they don't exist... Broc (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Normanhunter2 did you look in Italian-language sources? Broc (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fleur Revell

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's not much significant coverage of Fleur Revell published in multiple secondary and reliable sources. None of the conditions outlined in the notability guideline for creative professionals apply in her case. There are many articles that mention her in the context of her affair but it isn't significant coverage. She has supposedly won 3 Qantas awards yet there is no evidence of that online and the claim is unreferenced. There might be proof in print and not online since she probably received them in the 90's. If that cannot be proved, there is not much to base her notability on. Certainly not the affair. Ynsfial (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Television, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Independent reliable sources with significant coverage exist but they are largely off-line publications from 1990s. I have added several such off-line citations.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough significant coverage EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You don’t win three Qantas Media Awards without getting some attention. That happened at a time for which we have few online sources, though. Schwede 66 19:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, some of the sourcing amounts to OR. Interviews don't establish notability. Only source that can establish notability is this article: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/no-idea-what-next-for-fleur/NHVADVZ4KX5NZRLJFUHGB3PUBA/ The rest of the sources being not about her, interviews, or non-independent PR releases, and I fail to see GNG being met. I'd even argue the Qantas Media Awards fail GNG too, don't really see any independent coverage of that either. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is some relatively negative reporting around her relationship with Paul Holmes in a couple of national newspapers and her departure from New Idea is also covered. I think more work needs to be done researching her and agree with Swede's view that her attaining three Qantas Media awards, in itsself, is sufficient to meet notability. I accept that a reference to properly establish this is necessary but that will take some time and research as the papers of the time are not online. NealeWellington (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia Gallegos

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced rhythmic gymnast. I could not find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Chile. JTtheOG (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:NGYMNAST criteria and fails WP:NSPORTS without independent coverage. Sources in article are limited to competition results and a profile in her alma mater's publication (thus non-independent). Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Taylor (singer-songwriter)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:SINGER. Most references from same minor blog, some other interview on Google but all promotional. Orange sticker (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Orange sticker (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: This [21] and this [22] cover this individual. Not the best sourcing, but should be fine. Oaktree b (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

INFINITT Healthcare

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub created by a paid account, seemingly no notability whatsoever. ahmetlii ^✉ _{(Please ping me on a reply!)} 08:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Technology, and South Korea. ahmetlii ^✉ _{(Please ping me on a reply!)} 08:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Karamaryan

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Article previously soft-deleted, however no evidence of improvement. I share the concerns of the previous AfD as well, which stated "Article fails both WP:RELIABILITY and WP:VERIFY."Mdann52 (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mdann52 (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Someone with good Russian might want to have a look into this document (I am assuming the language is Russian). Just to make sure we are not deleting an article about a battle that already happened just because the page creator did not bother to include references. Also have a look to the references at Military History Fandom. Bizarrely the page indicate that the "articles incorporating text from Wikipedia"! anyway the licence is good for Wikipedia but attribution is missing. FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FuzzyMagma: Fandom copied the article from us prior to deletion, and it was copied back across from there when the article was recreated. Took me a while to work that one out! Mdann52 (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and speedy close I've checked the logs of the article and I have found it was initially created by a blocked account who is also a sockpuppet [23]. I have opened a SPI case [24]. Regardless of all of this, the article should be deleted because it was recreated by a non-WP:XC account so it does not comply with the restriction for this topic, WP:GS/AA. Vanezi (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Azerbaijan, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spartans Futsal Club

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Unable to locate independent reliable sources which discuss the subject in detail. C 679 07:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. C 679 07:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Square

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. WP:FAILN - organizations local to a city, town or country maybe added to respective article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London#Leisure_and_entertainment Wikilover3509 (talk) 7:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:02, 14 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!} 07:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Village communities

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created [25] as a copy of a 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article and the Who Wrote That? tool shows that 89.1% of the current text is the same as 1911. What initially struck me as odd was the article's complete and total focus on Europe. The 1911 encyclopedia's explanation for why it was "sufficient to confine the present inquiry ... to nations of Aryan race" was "principally because the Aryan race in its history has gone through all sorts of experiences" (it also said that it "might also be reasonably urged" that the Aryan race was most important, yikes). The section explaining the Aryan focus was removed from the article in 2008, [26] and since then the total focus on Europe has been unexplained. So there are the content issues, and now here is why I think the best path forward is deletion. I thought about merging Village communities into Village but I do not consider any of the info in Village communities to be worthy of inclusion. I'm disconcerted by phrases like "we hear that" and "a good clue to the subject is provided by a Serb proverb" that suggest a tenuous relationship to verifiable fact. The 1911 Britannica might be a reliable source in articles like University court or Castle-guard, which deal with old European history, but I don't think it's a reliable source here. Plus even if I were to improve it, the content would overlap with the village article. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: ? I guess... This exists [27], [28] or [29]. Simply copying the text from an 100 yr old encyclopedia is a no-no. Two of these sources are older than the Britannica, one more recent. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like the Theory of Village Communities was part of the study of the history of economics in the second half of the nineteenth century - this article by Denman Waldo Ross is an 1880 review describing various sources (not all in English, and many looking at non-European cultures, albeit from a colonial perspective). Maybe we should have an article about the theory, but it'd need to be more critical and better-sourced than the current article. Adam Sampson (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, Social science, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While an article on the study of village communities may be suitable, this article on the study of village communities is not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:DEL-CONTENT importantly notes that when editing can address the reasons for deletion, we should edit the article to make it better instead of deleting it. This discussion has turned up adequate sourcing to write some article about village communities (or the economic theory thereof), and the article should of course be improved. But deletion here seems unwise. So too does draftification, as the article was uploaded here in 2006, and sending this to the draft heap as a backdoor to deletion seems ill-advised in light of relevant policies and guidelines. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 07:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 Oregon Battle of the Books controversy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly fails WP:EVENT. Local incident that had no lasting or widespread impact. The competition involved in this controversy (Oregon Battle of the Books) also appears to be non-notable. However, the incident is worthy of a short mention at Melissa (novel), so relevant information should be merged there. Astaire (talk) 04:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Oregon and Literature. Astaire (talk) 05:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Melissa (novel)#Reception, which seems to already have a subsection about this very controversy. I don't see independent notability in the controversy, and even if it were marginally notable I'd think it better to cover this article's subject in the context of a broader article where more context can be provided. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:35, 21 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!} 05:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Melissa (novel) per above. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Thomas Fishback

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

'Soft' deleted back in May, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Fishback.

No new developments as far as I can tell, still likely to fail WP:NBIO KH-1 (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still not seeing notability, sourcing is PR items or non-RS. I don't find any other sources we can use, SALT so this doesn't come back in a month. Oaktree b (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:RUNOFTHEMILL business person. No indication of notability. He's done one interview with Fox News but there is no independent, significant coverage at all. C F A 💬 16:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of This TV affiliates

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced list; suggested by User:NLeeuw. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United States of America. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It will help to have a much more detailed rationale. This TV has evidently ceased to exist as of about May 31, 2024, in a very low-key discontinuation. The only way people realized something was up was when it started disappearing and being replaced with other diginets by affiliates across the country. Their affiliate list was already out of date, and they had abandoned all social media in late 2023. The closest parallel is that we delete categories for defunct TV networks by affiliate, e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 23#Category:Twist (TV network) affiliates). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though the closing has yet to be sourced outside the few that follow such closings on YouTube and Twitter (there's not even any proper news or even a note from an affiliate noting the channel's owners are no longer programming it and what they air now), for all intents and purposes this list isn't really needed any longer and was long better handled by the category system. Nate • (chatter) 18:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Category:This TV affiliates was listed at CFD [30], but closed as no consensus. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly, I can see why, I would wait for confirmation of closing from somewhere before nominating a category; the last thing we ever want to do is remove something that is still a going concern even if it's confirmed it isn't. Nate • (chatter) 20:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Education Channel

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Education, and Florida. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MSPoweruser

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NWEB; written like an advertisement Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, per searches. This newly create page claims it is a publication of Reflector media, which is not itself a notable company, but does exist and has a website. Even Reflector media's website does not list this title - see the "our brands" section here [31] which lists a couple of titles but not this one. If even the publisher doesn't see this as worth a mention, it is clearly not notable for a page of its own. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per user above, not notable to be on this project. Normanhunter2 (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Technology, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Party of Canada (2018)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fails WP:NORG all sources primary, or simply statistical in nature there is no indication this was ever notable and they sure aren't now since being deregistered. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is this the same party as mentioned here 1 2 3 re-registered, or is this yet another United Party of Canada? Cortador (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cortador Different iteration there is a draft currently on this new version that hasn’t demonstrated notability yet either. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Party of Canada (2009)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fails WP:NORG all sources primary, statistical in nature, or records of legal proceedings against the party which would not lead to this party being notable. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brower Youth Awards

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Environment, and North America. Longhornsg (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expert on this process but it seems that even a quick online search yields entire news articles about the awards and winners. Just a few I found in 5 minutes:

What's the process where it's like this article just needs more citations demonstrating WP:SIGCOV?

208.58.205.67 (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prestige Communications

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and Illinois. Let'srun (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Regional Media-Virden Broadcasting, as this appears to be the successor corporation. I agree that Prestige Communications is likely non-notable, but some of the content might be useful in building a history section in the proposed merge target. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foot in Mouth (EP)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Mdann52 (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stnh1206 (talk) 07:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green Day discography#Extended plays: None of the coverage in the article is from reliable sources, and I found no reliable coverage. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Japanese title is Bakuhatsu Live! +5 and charted at number 45 on the Oricon Albums Chart. I wasn't able to find much in the way of reviews, but I admittedly only made a surface-level check (爆発ライブ!+5, if anyone wants to search further for sources). IanTEB (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this info it helps me out. i will add this to the page Stnh1206 (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has found a oricon article on this EP where it shows to have charted. number 8 on the reference page Stnh1206 (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Except it's not an EP, it's the same length and a longer track listing than the bands debut album. If it's redirected it should be to live albums, but if it's charted it shouldn't be redirected, just retitled.Hoponpop69 (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is tune in Tokyo is 33 minutes and it says it is a live ep Stnh1206 (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia Arrascaeta

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Draftify as I am unable to find enough coverage of this rhythmic gymnast to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Argentina. JTtheOG (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: I agree that this article should be draftified. More coverage needs to be sourced from independent, reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG requirements. AstridMitch (talk) 4:40, 19 June 2024

Delete – All coverage to my eye is either not independent of the subject, or is a WP:TRIVIAL mention. Fails GNG on this basis. My search was unable to turn up sources to prove notability, however they may exist in non-English languages. I am not opposed to incubating should there exist interest in improving the article in that namespace and demonstrating notability either via GNG or WP:NATHLETE. Bgv. (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noble Cause Foundation, Bangalore

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage. Non-notable organization. SL93 (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. SL93 (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Marchi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was marked in 2013 as requiring better citation, and has not progressed with citations nor with clear information about activity in the field. Nothing exists in native language wiki for the person and would appear to have been deleted on multiple occasions. One should seriously question the notability in a case like this. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medical professional misconduct scandals in Nova Scotia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another referral from WP:BLPN. This article is a product of original research and synthesis. As titled, this concept or topic is not a phenomenon covered as such within multiple reliable sources. This is an agglomeration of scandals of merely topical relation (to a non-notable topic). As an additional consideration, the WP:BLP-applicable contents have been and stand to remain consistently problematic. A list article would stand a better chance, but most of the scandals covered here are not independently notable. JFHJr (㊟) 01:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and Canada. JFHJr (㊟) 01:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are scandals that involve serious breaches of public trust on multiple occasions (e.g. Dalhousie Dentistry scandal, multiple privacy breaches) and 6-7 figure lawsuit payouts not notable? One of the bullying scandals even led the victim to making a TEDx talk about workplace bullying:

https://www.ted.com/talks/gabrielle_horne_how_a_doctor_used_medical_research_tools_to_survive_workplace_bullying?language=en

If the title needs to be changed, that's one thing. Or making it a "list article", whatever that means. But I don't agree that the scandals are not independently notable. And they are related - several of them raise that there are systemic issues that recur, for example:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/dalhousie-medical-school-mistreatment-harassment-bullying-1.6712113

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/medical-resident-mistreatment-study-dalhousie-1.7058488

And others as referenced. Feel free to read the original news articles in detail, if I perhaps did not summarize them well, but I definitely see them pointing to systemic issues repeatedly - the articles themselves, not me as doing "original research and synthesis".

As a new editor on Wikipedia, getting excited about making an article about all the medical scandals in our province and the toxic workplace issues that we all hear about the medical system all the time, and being shut down quite harshly repeatedly instead of welcomed and kindly shown how to refine things, I am so demoralized that I'm frankly just done with editing. No point if this is what this community is like.

MrHaligonian (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hello MrHaligonian, and welcome. You, me and everyone else are compelled by the rules of the project. Some of these scandals may be notable in and of themselves, but creating an article listing them all under a common banner is a form of synthesis called original research, which is disallowed. Draken Bowser (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and per Fram. Draken Bowser (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Split into two My knee-jerk reaction is that this is probably notable enough to keep. Now to read with care... Okay, the main complaint is OR, right? The first two sources cited look RS at first blush, but they do not actually state the information they're cited to support. The source has to say the thing! Continuing... Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC) Okay, I did a source sampler on the article talk page. I propose that we Refocus the article to "Medical professional scandals at Dalhousie University": 1) The article's sources are mostly RS, but I did not see any that said "We're talking about the specific concept of medical professional scandals in Nova Scotia." The claims made in the lede that NS has a pervasive culture of harassment need to be backed up by sources that say exactly that or almost exactly that, and the sources just don't say that. 2) A big chunk of the article focuses on scandals that happened at Dalhousie University specifically and almost all of the statements made by sources do support what happened there. A few explore why in good detail. The case can be made for notability. I say we snip off that section at the bottom about the health service and repurpose these editors' hard work as a DU article. I didn't go into as much depth on the sources covering the Health Authority, but if the sources are of the same quality, then we could WP:CONTENTSPLIT the article in two. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gee-Haw Stables

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Cooper

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'd originally PROD'ed this, that was removed. Bringing it to AfD as I still don't think the sources support notability. I was and am unable to find sourcing about this individual, only things they've written. Unsure if this would pass academic notability or notability for business people. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, California, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This scholar of international affairs has a good GS record that passes WP:Prof#C1 and has published notable books. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I don't find anything independent about him. In terms of publications, if you do a scholar search on "Zack Cooper" you get high hits but it is someone else - someone who writes about hospitals. If you add "Japan" to the search you get cites in the single to very low double digits. There's the same confusion in WorldCat books, but this Zack Cooper's books are found again in the single digits. (In VIAF he's "Cooper, Zack‏ ‎‡c (Researcher in security studies)‏". With the 2 keep !votes above I wonder if this name confusion wasn't noticed. Lamona (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the scholar link above which differentiates between the two Zack Coopers. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, I overlooked that. I still don't think he meets NPROF. His H-index is not high, in almost all of his publications he's one of 3 or 4 authors. I see no indication that meets: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I don't see awards. For AUTH we have " is known for originating a significant new concept," "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". Just being an author or co-author of articles is not enough. I don't see that he is someone known for furthering a body of knowledge. Lamona (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly a borderline case. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 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!} 23:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a guideline like NPROF there has to be a sub-heading under which he is said to qualify. With respect to @Xxanthippe I don't see how this person passes under #1 -- the article makes no assertion he's recognized for significant impact by others in his discipline. No other heading seems to apply - he's not been a named chair professor or top academic institution leader, there's no assertion his publications have had significant impact, no evidence of impact outside of academia (meeting with a foreign official is a good start, but just a start), etc. Oblivy (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the scholar link, which I admit does not indicate outstanding citations. What do you think of it? I think that this BLP is borderline and might be argued to be a case of [WP:Too soon]]. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I don't see a google scholar link. Can you provide links, or just explain what you think demonstrates notability? Note that WP:TOOSOON is grounds for deletion, such as for a recent news story or someone who has received what could be temporary notability. Oblivy (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On my screen the scholar link is 6.3 inches above this text. It will work if you click it. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

So you just wanted want me to click on the google scholar link on the nomination template and do my own searches? I do that anyway before voting -- it seems he's written a number of papers with a low citation count which is pretty close to irrelevant for notability IMHO. Oblivy (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per WP:NPROF#1. clearly a borderline case in a field (international relations) that does have a decent number of citations. Per GS he has 3 papers with 100+ citations which is generally enough to pass the bar even in biomedicine so I feel we should apply equal criteria here. Per his books, they all seem to be as editor which does not generally count for much and only one has a single review [32] so WP:NAUTHOR doesnt apply here. --hroest 10:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... I have been taking a look at the publication record of Cooper (via Google Scholar), as this is one of the main elements of contention. The first listed publication (2015 with Lim in Security Studies) could be labeled ‘significant’ or ‘influential’, I believe, and it should be attributed equally to Lim and Cooper. Publications with Green and Hicks most likely took place while Cooper was a fellow at CSIS and should not be used to attribute notability to Cooper’s publication record. The publication with Yarhi-Milo (2016 in International Security) should, in my opinion, be largely attributed to Yarhi-Milo as first author and a senior scientist. Below these in the list one gets into teens of citations rather than 100 or more, and none really standout as particularly impactful at casual glance. With respect to those where Cooper is first or only author:

with Poling, 2019 Foreign Policy, the citation pattern suggest this is a time-bound article with limited long term significance
with Shearer, 2017 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the citation pattern is indicative of continuing interest, but the number of citations is low.
2018 Center for Strategic and International Studies, this is a CSIS report and likely only internally peer reviewed before publication.

...and so on. My thinking is that Cooper is too early in his career to have become ‘notable’ in the sense we use here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion as to whether this individual passes WP:NPROF's subject-specific criteria would be helpful in achieving a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per this diff and presented by user Ceyockey. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sin Tae-song

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Kwang-jun

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Chang-ha

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'''Delete''': per nomination, references are information about the player and includes little notability Wiiformii (talk) 02:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Tae-yong

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Numberguy6 (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Student Union Building (IUPUI Campus)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A search of sources including historical newspapers has not uncovered anything that might assist this subject to meet WP:GNG. Assertions of historical significance that might contribute to WP:NBUILDING are sourced to a student newspaper, which per WP:RSSM cannot contribute to notability. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Indiana. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, though I'm not opposed to a redirect to Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files[edit]

File:Bamboozled OST.jpg

Already one piece of non-free media on this article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elton John - Elderberry Wine.jpg

This image came from a booklet page of the album Don't Shoot Me I'm Only the Piano Player: discogs, 45worlds, ebay. None of single releases use the image that also contains lyrics, which are hard to see in very small size. George Ho (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Basic-math-screenshot.jpg

File should be under the threshold of originality. It is solely composed of simple text. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per a discussion at a previously deleted screen shot, here, I would be hesitant to include this on commons per the discussion of simple graphics and a court case Atari won through Breakout. This can be read here. Not sure if this applies, but something to consider before uploading screenshots, even of simple graphics. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The court case seems to be about calling the video game as a whole copyrightable, not just a screenshot. The DR seems to be about it not being used on-wiki (obviously not a problem here) and the screenshot being not from the actual game (which I am presuming this one is). (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it seems to apply similar logic as we have for it not being within copyright. This is a weird grey area as I've said so I'm not saying its not the case here, Its just sort of a muddy area to be able to upload it here with confidence. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remain as non-free – If a similar screenshot was deleted on Commons, then ineligibility for Commons transfer is assumed. Furthermore, the brown background has shades all over the edges and/or corners, making it original enough for copyright. --George Ho (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Major League Baseball Triple Crown winners

Propose deleting Category:Major League Baseball Triple Crown winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:American League Hitting Triple Crown winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:American League Pitching Triple Crown winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:National League Hitting Triple Crown winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:National League Pitching Triple Crown winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Its not an award that can be won, its an achievement which is earned. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Universidad Del Pacífico – Ecuador alumni

Propose deleting Category:Universidad Del Pacífico – Ecuador alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category lacks the requisite sourcing and the main article for the category has been deleted. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Roads in South Africa

Propose renaming Category:National Roads in South Africa to Category:National routes in South Africa

Nominator's rationale: In South Africa, a National Road is a road that is the responsibility of SANRAL while a National Route is a road that has the letter N in its designation, as stated in the National routes (South Africa) article. Looking at what the main article for the category is, I propose a change (simply change Roads to routes). GeographicAccountant (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crime action films

Propose deleting Category:Crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Hybrid genre term that is not in common usage (unlike lets say, action comedy or even action thriller). Searching for it on google, gives one imdb list, then several lists for one genre or the other. Per the action film article, "Action films often interface with other genres. Yvonne Tasker wrote that films are often labelled action thrillers, action-fantasy and action-adventure films with different nuances." Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'd include the sub-categories within this general category again, but I suppose that is implied in this process. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas: it is not implied in this process, i.e. the bot that processes deletions only does its job for categories that are properly listed and for category pages that are properly tagged. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the best approach with this to have them all tagged @Marcocapelle? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andrzejbanas: after you listed all categories here and after you tagged one subcategory (including section title) you can ask for help at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks to have the tag copied to the other subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following:

Category:Crime action films by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Crime action films by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Crime action films by decade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:1930s crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:1940s crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:1960s crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:1970s crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:1980s crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:1990s crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:2000s crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:2010s crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:2020s crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:2020 crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:2021 crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:2022 crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:2023 crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:2024 crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Bangladeshi crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:British crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Canadian crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Chinese crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Danish crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Egyptian crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Finnish crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:French crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:German crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Hong Kong crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Indian crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Italian crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Japanese crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Pakistani crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Philippine crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Russian crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:South African crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:South Korean crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Soviet crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Spanish crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Taiwanese crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Turkish crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Does this do the job @Marcocapelle:? Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - large enough and common-enough to be kept. Netflix has a "Crime Action & Adventure Movies" category. Amazon has a "Best Sellers in Crime Action Fiction" category. The category structure is well-maintained & populated: ~400 pages, all of which contain crime.action|action.crime. Also, it sounds like nom might want to rename to "action-crime", which, if there's consensus for, would be preferable to deletion. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An anonymous sorting algorithm on netflix is not really a way to seriously categorize genre, same for the Amazon section which also appears to be sorting novels, not films. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest reading Action film#Hybrid genres before responding if possible. From academic points of view, categorizing genres by hybrids is not really useful on understanding what they are about and when they are applied by fans, journalists, historians etc., the terms are used vaguely and with various connotations to what the genre means. This is why having them categorized like this is not helpful. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I would suggest reading Action film#Hybrid genres": you mean the part you added 3 hours before basing this CfD off of it? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was a section added months ago, i've re-vised it on reading the source in question, which was selectively using what was sourced. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Action films are synonymous with violence, and crime films are not complete without that. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support, I can't really imagine crime films without action. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As said above, we don't really need a hybrid form of this per Crime action film. There is no set definition of hybrid genres and trying to view films as these hybrids is basically a fools errand. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is often the case that film genres are crossed over as catgeories that are not actually reflective of legitimate and verifiable sub-genres (such as "romantic comedy" or "horror comedy", for example). So is that the case here? I randomly plucked out some of the films in the category and the genre of "crime action" doesn't appear defining for any of them. The genre for Heat (1995 film) is sourced to Rotten Tomatoes which lists the genre as "crime, drama". The "crime action" genre for The Batman (film) is not supported by sources, and whilst Allmovie lists several genres (include crime and action) it does not list the sub-genre of "crime action", unlike Pretty Woman which lists Romance, Comedy and the combination "Romantic Comedy". The genre for The Girl in the Spider's Web (film) is also sourced to Allmovie (inaccurately I might add), and whilst it does not list "crime action" it does list "crime thriller". In these cases the presence of the article in the category appears to be the product of editorial synthesis, unsupported by sources i.e. it may be possible to source "action" or "crime" but "crime action" or "action crime" is not in itself sourced. Are any supporters of the category able to provide reliable source evidence for the films in this category belonging a sub-genre of "crime-action"? It may be possible to locate sources that substantiate the existence of the genre, but membership of a category also needs to satisfy WP:CATDEF too.

Betty Logan (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Existing genre that deserves a category. I completely disagree with the idea that crime films should always include action! Just because a film contains a murder does not make it an action film (nor a crime action film, for that matter). See:

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199587261.001.0001/acref-9780199587261-e-0165#:~:text=An%20extremely%20wide%2Dranging%20group,central%20element%20of%20their%20plots.

As for films defined as CA or C-A films, at random:

https://www.michigandaily.com/arts/film/the-roundup-a-womanless-riskless-ruthless-rush/

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/art/2024/06/398_356945.html

https://oxfordre.com/criminology/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264079-e-195 (mentioning Rush Hour as a c-a franchise), for example. A GB search shows various results for crime/action, which sometimes indicate it's a new genre: The hybrid nature – and commercial success – of the Bourne films is characteristic of a new style of crime film, the crime/action^[1] but plenty with either "crime action films"(or film/movie) or "crime-action films". A note defining the genre as an hybrid could be added on the category page. (Have a look at the category in other languages).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term is without a doubt used in common place, but there is no solid definition for it, as the case for most hybrid genres. Why bother separating them? What does it add? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I can google the term and find people using it, but reading the actual article on action films it states very clearly that these types of terms are used with different values and meaning. There is no solid definition of these hybrid genres. Your Sarah Casey sources only emphasizes that yes, hybrid genres exist, but reading the wiki article, most films past the 90s are hybrids and there is no common meaning with this. As there are none, it fails WP:CATDEF. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ Benyahia, Sarah Casey (2012-02-27). Crime. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-58182-3.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a distinctive genre in its own right. Dimadick (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone keeps saying this but nobody has offered any proof outside brief mentions of it. Why vote keep if nobody can describe these elements outside vague hybrids? Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notifying WP:ORN for feedback...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poor rationale provided by keep votes and poor definition of category.

Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles involving the Qarmatians

Propose renaming Category:Battles involving the Qarmatians to Category:Battles involving the Qarmatian state of Bahrayn or Category:Battles involving the Qarmatians of Bahrayn.

Nominator's rationale: These battles concern a specific subgroup of Qarmatians, namely those of the Qarmatian 'republic' of Bahrayn under the al-Jannabi family. This was the main Qarmatian group, but by no means the only one, and at any rate it should be distinguished. Other "Qarmatian" battles, like the Battle of Hama (even though the Qarmatian label is debatable here), are not included. Constantine ✍ 07:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor question: why Bahrayn instead of Bahrain? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Because that is the most common transliteration in the literature. It also does not refer to the modern state of Bahrain, but the whole region of Eastern Arabia (historical Bahrayn/Bahrain). Constantine ✍ 14:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nom just created parent Category:Qarmatian state of Bahrayn 4 minutes before proposing to rename this child category. But the grandparent is Category:Qarmatians, and the main article is Qarmatians. Google-Booksing "Qarmatian state of Bahrayn" yields only 5 results. "Bahrain" is evidently the WP:COMMONNAME, there is no apparent need for this renaming, nor for the redundant new layer Category:Qarmatian state of Bahrayn created by nom. I suggest reverting to the situation of 3 June 2024. NLeeuw (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Nom has actually worked on this topic and may be suggesting this move because of this knowledge, not just because of a flight of fancy. Qarmatianism is a broader phenomenon than the Qarmatian state of Bahrayn, hence the two should be kept separate, with the Qarmatians remaining as the overarching parent category/article. There ideally should be a different, dedicated parent article for the state, like ru:Карматское государство, but one thing at a time. Constantine ✍ 07:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are there "Battles involving the Qarmatians" that DON'T involve Bahrayn? Because if there aren't, I'm not sure this change is necessary. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Main article Qarmatians has an Infobox former country and an Infobox war faction, both of which provide exactly the same beginning and end dates of 899–1077.
It also claims that it all started with Bahrain and ended with Bahrain (or Bahrayn if you will):
- Start: Eventually, from Qatar, he captured Bahrain's capital Hajr and al-Hasa in 899, which he made the capital of his state...
- End: According to the maritime historian Dionisius A. Agius, the Qarmatians finally disappeared in 1067, after they lost their fleet at Bahrain Island and were expelled from Hasa near the Arabian coast by the chief of Banu, Murra ibn Amir.
1067 may be a typo, as the rest of the article insists on 1077, referring to Overthrow of the Qarmatians, which is dated to 1058–1077.

Finally, the example of Battle of Hama is so ambiguous as to what the "Qarmatians" have to do with it (which is discussed at length in the article itself, with good sources), that it cannot count as evidence for non-Bahraini "Qarmatians".

In short, there seems to be no difference. NLeeuw (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the Battle of Hama is counted as a Qarmatian battle by primary sources, and will be found as such even in some modern literature. And no, the Qarmatians != Bahrayn, no matter what the article currently claims. Bahrayn was the only successful Qarmatian state, but Qarmatianism is broader than that, with adherents across the Middle East, of lesser prominence due to the lack of state power, but still following their own doctrines and with their own histories. Constantine ✍ 16:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As said, the Battle of Hama is questionable, as other primary sources contradict it, and many modern scholars do not think it involved Qarmatians (read Battle of Hama#Background). Have you got examples of battles other than Hama that supposedly involved non-Bahraini Qarmatians? NLeeuw (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: (Sorry, wrong CfD)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wesean National Leaders

Propose deleting Category:Wesean National Leaders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This counts as a WP:HOAX. Nothing called "Wesea" actually exists. It is an aspiration for certain separatist political movements. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G3. Category has been emptied by an unknown person. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wesea (Western SouthEast Asia). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was emptied by the nominator. There are scripts that can show you who has added or removed articles or categories from a category. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Legendary creatures

Propose merging Category:Legendary creatures to Category:Folklore creatures

Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, largely overlapping categories. I will tag both categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. "Legendary" supposes that there might be some truth to it, but all contents here seem to fall outside of the realm of serious modern biology. NLeeuw (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At the moment, "Legendary" sits above "Folklore" and "Mythological creatures" - rather a lot of the contents of the first two should probably be moved to the last. As a matter of English meaning, I don't think "Legendary" supposes that there might be some truth to it" is at all true. "legendary" suggests to me a literary source(s) somewhere quite early on, & I think there is a distinction, if a rather vague one. Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment "legendary" sits above, but the hierarchy could just as well be reversed because there isn't a clear distinction. The fact that the above two editors disagree on what Legendary means illustrates the confusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not necessarily opposed to merging related folklore/legend/mythology categories together, I don't know which goes where. AHI-3000 (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I assume a redirect would be needed after merging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect certainly seems helpful, especially if we agree a merger is a good idea, but are in doubt about the best target. One way or the other, readers and editors will thus find their way. NLeeuw (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Legends are a distinct type of folklore, and place their narratives within human history. Dimadick (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge Per nom so that the original single category for this is restored, for the most part the contents of the category have nothing to do with being from folklore, and it's an WP:OVERLAPCAT anyway with folklore falling under the purview of legends. The article itself is Legendary creature. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Romans from Africa

Propose renaming Category:Romans from Africa to Category:Roman-era African people
Propose renaming Category:Ancient Romans by province to Category:Roman-era people by province

Nominator's rationale: rename, many of these people were not Romans. Aligning this with e.g. Category:Roman-era people by ethnicity. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question By "(Ancient) Romans", do we mean "Roman citizens", or is it just anyone who is culturally / ethnolinguistically Roman or Romanised? As far as I can tell, Category:Ancient Romans is not in the Category:People by nationality tree, but through Category:Italic peoples it is in the Category:People by ethnicity tree. Main article Roman Africans defines them as the ancient populations of Roman North Africa that had a Romanized culture, some of whom spoke their own variety of Latin as a result. If there are non-Romans in this category, that means they should either be Purged, or we should Split this category into Roman Africans and Roman-era non-Roman Africans or something. NLeeuw (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: By analogy to Category:Arabs in the Roman Empire, we could have Category:Africans in the Roman Empire, and Roman Africans and non-Roman Africans would be the two subsets of that. Basically, everyone who was an African but not a Roman could be put directly into that category, and everyone who was a "Roman African" could be put in the "Roman Africans" subcategory. NLeeuw (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Africans in the Roman Empire is also a good rename target. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I like the rename target! Mason (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Nederlandse Leeuw and Smasongarrison: at second thought the name might be confusing after all, because it seems to exclude African people from the Roman Republic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Fair point. I was worried about that already. This presumably isn't a problem for Category:Arabs in the Roman Empire then? The Nabataean Kingdom and Roman Judea were annexed after 27 BCE, but I'm not sure about the demographics of Coele-Syria (Roman province) (annexed in 64 BCE). Perhaps other scholars could correct me on this, but by my knowledge, Coele-Syria in the 1st century BCE was populated by a mixture of Greeks and Hellenised Aramaeans, Syriacs, and Jews / Samaritans, and Romans. I'm not sure there was a substantial population of "Arabs" there at a time (though no doubt the occasional Arabian merchant would pass through the region). If Arabs didn't form a significant population within the Roman Republic, perhaps this category doesn't have the same scope issues as our Roman-era Africans. NLeeuw (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some more explicit support/opposition to various potential names for the categories would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 01:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Africans in the Roman Empire appears to be more problematic than I initially thought, so I stand by the original nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would there be any objection to simply rename to Category:Roman Africans per WP:C2D Roman Africans, and perhaps purge some people who weren't "Roman" enough? NLeeuw (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- How much is "enough"? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Violence in the Palestinian territories

Propose merging Category:Violence in the Palestinian territories to Category:Violence in the State of Palestine

Nominator's rationale: merge, all four articles in the category are about events after the establishment of the State of Palestine. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom.

NLeeuw (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@Marcocapelle: Do you think no category is needed for the broader Palestinian territories and the events before the state establishment? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. Which articles are you thinking of in particular? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No special case at the moment, but there should be cases of violence ocurring in the Palestinian territories before the state establishment? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. The State of Palestine didn't exist until 1988, while Palestinian territories have existed since 1967 (or 1949), depending on definition.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 09:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me when you found some articles because then we do not need to merge. Until that happens the merge can go ahead, we do not keep empty categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: For the time being: 1956 Rafah massacre, Qibya massacre, and Khan Yunis massacre. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein and Nederlandse Leeuw: shouldn't these articles be in Category:Gaza Strip and Category:West Bank Governorate? I don't think the concept of a unified Palestinian territories consisting of Gaza and the West Bank existed before 1967? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good question. I had always assumed that whatever area of the former British mandate of Palestine was not incorporated into the State of Israel after the war of 1948 was known as "Palestinian territories", but I would have to consult the historiography on this. NLeeuw (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 01:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian commercial artists

Propose merging Category:Australian commercial artists to Category:Australian artists

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining type of artist. Notably there is not a parent category of commercial artists as far as I can find. Mason (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Commercial artists create their art for mass duplication: advertising, souvenirs etc. Not like portraitists etc. Doug butler (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, it is almost impossible to differentiate notable artists by "commercial" as so many made a living out of it. If not merged, better rename it to something related to the kind of art. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian flour millers and merchants

Propose splitting Category:Australian flour millers and merchants to Category:Australian merchants and Category:Australian food industry businesspeople

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. There's no parent category, and for the most part merchants aren't defined by whether they sold flour or not. Mason (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In Australia millers commonly purchase the grain, mill it, and sell the flour, adding value. So they're millers by trade, not merchants. Doug butler (talk) 03:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly rename to Category:Australian flour millers and move people to the parent categories who do not qualify as a miller. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mayoralties of municipalities in the United States

Propose renaming Category:Mayoralties of municipalities in the United States to Category:Individual mayoralties in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Category whose name is a bit confusing and not accurately descriptive of its contents. The contents here are subpages where a political figure (usually a person who went on from the mayoralty to hold much more prominent national offices, and thus has a very, very long biographical article that needed to have stuff chunked out from it for size management) has had a "Mayoralty of [Person]" article created as a spinoff from their base biography -- but that means that the defining characteristic here is "mayoralties of individual people", not "mayoralties of municipalities" (which could be too easily confused with a redundant duplication of Category:Mayors of places in the United States, and thus potentially have stuff misfiled in it by editors who weren't paying attention to the actual contents of the categories.)
So it should likely be renamed to make its intentions clearer. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Symplectic topology

Propose merging Category:Symplectic topology to Category:Symplectic geometry

Nominator's rationale: In mathematics, "symplectic geometry" and "symplectic topology" are often (though not universally) understood to be two terms meaning the same thing, usually depending on the author's preference and feelings about how "geometric" the subject is. For examples of this usage, see this SE answer and the fact that Symplectic topology is a redirect to Symplectic geometry. The category Category:Symplectic topology seems to be a duplicate of Category:Symplectic geometry. The latter page claims that there is a difference, as "Topological aspects are often categorized as Category:Symplectic topology". However, I don't think this is how most people use the word. Indeed, looking at the pages, it is hard to believe there is much, if any, adherence to this (very subjective) rule! For example, it seems hard to believe that Symplectic basis and Darboux's theorem are "geometric" but Gromov–Witten invariant and Symplectomorphism are "topological". And most things in both categories seem like they could just as well go into either one! The relevant policies are WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:OVERLAPCAT. I propose merging these categories under the more common term "symplectic geometry" and having the category page for "symplectic topology" be a redirect. This is my first time using CfD, so please forgive any mistakes I make. I am not sure if I am supposed to add the subst:Cfm template to the category that is being merged to as well as the category being merged from.

Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The topological aspects are so important in this field that the main articles are the same. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organisations based in Northeast India

Propose deleting Category:Organisations based in Northeast India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category:Organisations based in India not subcategorized this way. Gjs238 (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Saadi Shirazi

Propose deleting Category:Saadi Shirazi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. Only the writer and work of theirs in the category. Unhelpful for navigation when there are only two pages like this Mason (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fox Sports 1 people

Propose renaming Category:Fox Sports 1 people to Category:Fox Sports people

Nominator's rationale: These personalities are known for appearing on Fox Sports properties more generally, not necessarily Fox Sports 1. Let'srun (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know about others but I only tried to include people who appear on FS1 shows in the category. Expanding this to include all Fox Sports people is fine but you'd need to go through all the Fox Sports content that isn't on FS1 (such as NFL on Fox, WWE SmackDown, Soccer on Fox Sports, etc.) Soulbust (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said that to say that maybe both categories can exist? As Fox Sports has quite a lot of properties, and the FS1 list wouldn't be small either if it only included individuals who are FS1 personnel - for example Nick Wright or Colin Cowherd. It appears Erin Andrews is in the FS1 category currently, though she would be in the Fox Sports category only, along with anyone else from NFL on Fox (and of course Fox Sports' other shows). Meanwhile, someone like Joel Klatt could fit in both. Soulbust (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Meitei goddesses

Propose merging Category:Abundance goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Agricultural goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Animal goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Arts goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Beauty goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Commerce goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Crafts goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Creator goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Dance goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Death goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Domestic and hearth goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Fertility goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Food goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Fortune goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Harvest goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Health goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Justice goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Knowledge goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Life-death-rebirth goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Liminal goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Love and lust goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Magic goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Marriage goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Mother goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Mountain goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Music and singing goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Nature goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Pastoral goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Peace goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Savior goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Sky and weather goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Time and fate goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Trickster goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Tutelary goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Underworld goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Virgin goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:War goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Water goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses
Propose merging Category:Wisdom goddesses in Meitei mythology to Category:Meitei goddesses

Nominator's rationale: I haven't listed all of the child categories of this, but the problem is not the parent category. The problem is that the parent category contains a massive 39 largely-overlapping categories for just 24 actual articles. I suggest that every child of this category should be merged back to the parent. PepperBeast (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pepperbeast: I listed them all. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! PepperBeast (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support There is an evident large overlap in the roles of deities in Meitei mythology. For example, Kounu appears in 24 of the 39 categories. Also merge to respective deities by type, such as Category:Abundance goddesses. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hie, Creator of many of the Categories here. To explain why so many categories were created. I actually created all the "in Meitei mythology" to basically UNCLOUT other categories. Apparently ALL the deities of Meitei mythology are Deities of Everything-and-Its-Neighbour and one of the creator of pages put each and every one (or close to it) in dozens of categories for basically almost every god and goddess. I don't know anything about Meitei Mythology, so I can't tell which god really belong in a category or not (apparently basically all goddesses or close to it are Goddess of Abundance, Beauty, Arts, Fertility, Love and lust, Peace, Magic, among other things...) Though some divinities in each Pantheon can have lots of domains (like Apollo in greek mythology, Sucellos in the celt one), and I can't tell which really belong in each category or not. Still, I note that most don't have anything in the description or a reference that would justify many of the various categories listed (I think one of the rational seems to be that if a goddess is beautiful then she's deemed a goddess of Beauty, Fertility as well as Love and lust, any divinity that is not a warrior is automatically pushed into God/Goddess of Peace and basically all divinities are Fortune ones just by existing, unless linked to something unfortunate...) This caused a bit of a strange situation in the various categories, as for exemple if you went to Category:Abundance goddesses to have a look at the goddesses of this domain, half the goddesses (17 out of 34) were the Meitei Goddesses alone, the other half for ALL the other Pantheons in the world put together... Same with the other categories, 20 out of the 44 pages in Category:Beauty goddesses were the Meitei goddesses, 19 out of the 47 pages of Category:Fortune goddesses, etc. Though when so many categories in a pagebelongs to just one other pantheon, usually creating a child page is preferable. --Zeynel (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The consequence of this is that a lot of purging is needed. That can happen simultaneously with the merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dual merge per LaundryPizza03. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dual merge per LaundryPizza03. NLeeuw (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No merging. Merging back in each category (like merging Category:Abundance goddesses in Meitei mythology into Category:Abundance goddesses) would turn many of those categories into a "Meitei-goddesses-plus-some" categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeynel (talk • contribs)
Comment Many of these categories have been prematurely emptied by the nominator, Pepperbeast. I'm not sure why they couldn't wait until this had a formal closure before taking action. That's a task for the closer, not the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "prematurely empty" anything. I did my best to remove excessive categories from articles, which I would do regardless of outcome. PepperBeast (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You emptied multiple categories that are currently up for discussion! Why did this action happen now, during this discussion period? It upends any decision made here by the participants and renders this discussion moot. Couldn't you have done this emptying before or after the nomination? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second Liz. Categories should not be emptied out of process. NLeeuw (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, why didn't the OP nominate all the subcategories of Category:Meitei gods as well? AHI-3000 (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category contents were changed without clear explanation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:12th-century Almohad caliphs

Propose merging Category:12th-century Almohad caliphs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Almohad caliphs, Category:12th-century caliphs, and Category:12th-century monarchs in Africa
Propose merging Category:13th-century Almohad caliphs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Almohad caliphs, Category:13th-century caliphs, and Category:13th-century monarchs in Africa

Nominator's rationale: Recommended by Nederlandse Leeuw (talk · contribs) in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_11#Category:Government_of_the_Almohad_Caliphate:

Category:12th-century Almohad caliphs‎ (4 P) and Category:13th-century Almohad caliphs‎ (10 P) are probably best upmerged to Category:Almohad caliphs, and to Category:12th-century caliphs + Category:12th-century monarchs in Africa & Category:13th-century caliphs + Category:13th-century monarchs in Africa, respectively. A subdivision by century for a dynasty that lasted just under one century and a half tends not to aid navigation very much. But I suggest that for a follow-up.

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Triple merge per my reasoning above. Thanks LP! NLeeuw (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian newspaper proprietors

Propose merging Category:Australian newspaper proprietors to Category:Australian newspaper publishers (people)

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. Mason (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Three functions: Owner, publisher and editor. Often separated, for instance politicians may be newspaper owners but not publisher or editor. Influence without responsibility. Pastoralists may inherit a loss-making paper and subsidise its continued operation. Doug butler (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no other categories in this tree that make that distinction. Further, I'm pretty sure that there's a cfd that closed on similar newpaper owners, if I'm recalling. Mason (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, in many articles in both categories it is unclear whether they are about proprietors or about publishers without ownership. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of Hearts ^talk 05:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auto racing teams

Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Argentina to Category:Argentine auto racing teams

Extended content
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Australia to Category:Australian auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Austria to Category:Austrian auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Bahrain to Category:Bahraini auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Belgium to Category:Belgian auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Brazil to Category:Brazilian auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Canada to Category:Canadian auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in China to Category:Chinese auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Croatia to Category:Croatian auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Denmark to Category:Danish auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Estonia to Category:Estonian auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Finland to Category:Finnish auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in France to Category:French auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Germany to Category:German auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Hong Kong to Category:Hong Kong auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Hungary to Category:Hungarian auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in India to Category:Indian auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Ireland to Category:Irish auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Italy to Category:Italian auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Japan to Category:Japanese auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Lithuania to Category:Lithuanian auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Luxembourg to Category:Luxembourgian auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Macau to Category:Macau auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Malaysia to Category:Malaysian auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Mexico to Category:Mexican auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Monaco to Category:Monegasque auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in New Zealand to Category:New Zealand auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Portugal to Category:Portuguese auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Qatar to Category:Qatari auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Russia to Category:Russian auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Saudi Arabia to Category:Saudi Arabian auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Serbia to Category:Serbian auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in South Africa to Category:South African auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Spain to Category:Spanish auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Sweden to Category:Swedish auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Switzerland to Category:Swiss auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Thailand to Category:Thai auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in the Czech Republic to Category:Czech auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in the Netherlands to Category:Dutch auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in the Philippines to Category:Filipino auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in the United Arab Emirates to Category:United Arab Emirates auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in the United Kingdom to Category:British auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in the United States to Category:American auto racing teams Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Turkey to Category:Turkish auto racing teams

Extended content

Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Australia to Category:Australian auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Austria to Category:Austrian auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Bahrain to Category:Bahraini auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Belgium to Category:Belgian auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Brazil to Category:Brazilian auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Canada to Category:Canadian auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in China to Category:Chinese auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Croatia to Category:Croatian auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Denmark to Category:Danish auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Estonia to Category:Estonian auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Finland to Category:Finnish auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in France to Category:French auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Germany to Category:German auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Hong Kong to Category:Hong Kong auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Hungary to Category:Hungarian auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in India to Category:Indian auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Ireland to Category:Irish auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Italy to Category:Italian auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Japan to Category:Japanese auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Lithuania to Category:Lithuanian auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Luxembourg to Category:Luxembourgian auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Macau to Category:Macau auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Malaysia to Category:Malaysian auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Mexico to Category:Mexican auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Monaco to Category:Monegasque auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in New Zealand to Category:New Zealand auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Portugal to Category:Portuguese auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Qatar to Category:Qatari auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Russia to Category:Russian auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Saudi Arabia to Category:Saudi Arabian auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Serbia to Category:Serbian auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in South Africa to Category:South African auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Spain to Category:Spanish auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Sweden to Category:Swedish auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Switzerland to Category:Swiss auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Thailand to Category:Thai auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in the Czech Republic to Category:Czech auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in the Netherlands to Category:Dutch auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in the Philippines to Category:Filipino auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in the United Arab Emirates to Category:United Arab Emirates auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in the United Kingdom to Category:British auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in the United States to Category:American auto racing teams
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing teams in Turkey to Category:Turkish auto racing teams

Nominator's rationale: Most of these categories were speedily renamed to their current names from the proposed 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: because I don't want to close a 44-category CfD as "unopposed".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of Hearts ^talk 04:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, because at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport there is apparent consensus for it. Nominator already linked to that discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nominator's rationale. SSSB (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vassal rulers of the Umayyad Caliphate

Propose deleting Category:Vassal rulers of the Umayyad Caliphate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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]
- Precisely, princes are not necessarily vassals; which means that they need to be distinguished when they are not, in fact, sovereign rulers, but rule at the mercy of an imperial power. Constantine ✍ 16:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of Hearts ^talk 04:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: rule of the Umayyad Caliphate in Armenia was not firmly established in this period and Ashot II Bagratuni is mostly notable for fighting against the Umayyad Caliphate. I really don't think you can call them vassals. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian universalists by nationality

Propose rescheming Category:Christian universalists by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per this conversation, "Universalism" is not a denomination. I am bringing this to CfD per Smasongarrison's suggestion to confirm that others agree that this revision by Neddyseagoon is inappropriate and should be undone. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my request was to get feedback on whether universalism should be parented by denomination or placed in the main category as a philosophy/theory. I never said that the revision from 2016 was inappropriate, I said that was a stable edit. I don't have a strong opinion, on the parent category, but I did want others to weigh in about how it should be categorized. Mason (talk) 04:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I misrepresented you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert the re-parenting per nom. Universalism is a theological concept with advocates and opponents but it is not a denomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sixteen Kingdoms Buddhist monks

Propose merging Category:Former Qin Buddhist monks‎ (2 P) to Category:Sixteen Kingdoms Buddhist monks and Category:Former Qin Buddhists‎
Propose merging Category:Later Liang (Sixteen Kingdoms) Buddhist monks‎ (1 P) to Category:Sixteen Kingdoms Buddhist monks and Category:Later Liang (Sixteen Kingdoms) Buddhists
Propose merging Category:Later Qin Buddhist monks‎ (2 P) to Category:Sixteen Kingdoms Buddhist monks and Category:Later Qin Buddhists‎
Propose merging Category:Later Zhao Buddhist monks‎ (3 P) to Category:Sixteen Kingdoms Buddhist monks and Category:Later Zhao Buddhists‎

Nominator's rationale: merge, the Sixteen Kingdoms contains partially parallel and mostly very short-living kingdoms, typically a few decades. No need to categorize Buddhist monks by each of them separately. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Mason (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scottish women embroiderers

Propose splitting Category:Scottish women embroiderers to Category:Scottish women artists and Category:British embroiderers

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. This is a non-defining intersection between the type of textile artist and gender. Mason (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pretenders to the Mexican throne

Propose deleting Category:Pretenders to the Mexican throne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:OR WP:NPOV WP:BLP (Maximilian von Götzen-Iturbide states: Götzen does not pursue any claim to the throne...Despite Götzen not actively pursuing any claim himself, social media users claiming to be Mexican monarchists have posted their support of his claim., therefore also WP:NONDEFINING). Follow-up to recent deletion of main article Pretenders to the Mexican throne, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretenders to the throne of Mexico. See also User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Pretenders#NLeeuw category list.

Some deceased people in this category also appear to be inappropriately labelled pretenders:

Agustín de Iturbide y Green: When he came of age, Iturbide, who had graduated from Georgetown University, renounced his claim to the throne and title and returned to Mexico. So as soon as he was legally capable, he renounced his claim.
María Josepha Sophia de Iturbide: [She inhered] the Habsburg claim on the throne. Maria Josepha was a very traditional Lady, and a devout Roman Catholic, and stayed as far away from politics as she could. Doesn't seem to have actively pursued her claim either; seems more like other people expect(ed) her to pursue it for purely genealogical reasons (but WP:NOTGENEALOGY).
Carlos Felipe de Habsburgo isn't even in this category, but still included in Template:Pretenders to the Mexican throne (apparently also only purely for genealogical reasons), so I think I'm gonna nominate that for deletion as well. NLeeuw (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra: courtesy ping for follow-up of previous discussion. NLeeuw (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 June 12#Template:Pretenders to the Mexican throne has also been nominated for deletion. NLeeuw (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Associated TfD was closed as delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We would not want to have Category:People who are claimed to have claimed the Mexican throne but who did not really claim it. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Marco. (Lol, I hope no one ever makes that category, but I do love vibe the name gives) Mason (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haha Marco wins the Internet today! NLeeuw (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI the result of the template discussion was Delete as well: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 June 12#Template:Pretenders to the Mexican throne. NLeeuw (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Whitewashing in film

Propose deleting Category:Whitewashing in film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Populated by tangentially related films and not articles from the main topic. Gotitbro (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as I am not sure what you mean by “tangential” as all of the categorised films has an element of whitewashing that is discussed in Whitewashing in film article or mentioned in the film page itself using reliable sources. Take the film Khartoum (film), with blackface white actors which is discussed in the “Reception” section. It does not get more direct than that.

FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps should have worded that nomination better. What I meant was with categories such as these, the expectation is that there will be articles dedicated to the topic not articles mostly about films which only contain an element of the said cat.

I am coming at this from a recent discussion about a similar topic: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Subcategories of Category:Film controversies by country. Gotitbro (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but that is not the policy you have cited and the example you have cited is irrelevant as I said, these instances of whitewashing are discussed using reliable sources.

This is more like your personal preference and expectations which is not supported by policies. A Cat need to be a characteristic of the subject as described in reliable sources see WP:CATDEF. FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing tangential about this, this is a major topic of discussion in available sources. Dimadick (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, rename to Category:Films about whitewashing in order to ensure that articles are only placed in here if the topic is a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not about whitewashing. It’s about films where whitewashing occurred. These are two different things. FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is not about whitewashing the article should be purged per WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Discussed above with examples. To reiterate, It’s a defining characteristic. Start with Whitewashing in film, the image at the beginning should be enough to define which films are defined from reliable sources as “whitewashed” films. Or read The Guardian article about Whitewashing in Ghost in the Shell. more Here is some articles from The Guardian, Rutger University, The Independent, etc FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcocapelle, are you suggesting a category that would include only documentaries on the topic of whitewashing? Dimadick (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purge articles that do not currently mention whitewashing in film, but keep as a valid and useful subcat of Category:Casting controversies in film. I checked a few members, and they each had a paragraph that specifically covered this topic. However, I removed Argo (2012 film) where there had been a consensus on the talk page to remove such a paragraph, but the categories had been left on the article until now. – Fayenatic London 09:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as the articles mention whitewashing. Race-related controversies in film and Casting controversies in film are similar and don't appear to have been contested. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct Catholic schools in Louisville, Kentucky

Propose splitting Category:Defunct Catholic schools in Louisville, Kentucky to Category:Defunct schools in Louisville, Kentucky and Category:Catholic schools in Louisville, Kentucky

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. There's only one page in here, and no other city (or state) level categories in Defunct Catholic schools in the United States Mason (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split as proposed. This seems eminently reasonable, and I have no idea why I saw the necessity for this category nearly 18 years ago. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 02:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait, there probably used to be more entries at some point that ended up being deleted. That's my guess. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 02:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably what happened. There's definitely been changes to how notability for schools should be handled, so its totally reasonable that it made sense at the time. Mason (talk) 04:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

Ofcommunist

Ofcommunist → Ofcom (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No explanation why this redirect should exist. The phrase "Ofcommunist" does not appear in the Ofcom article. Suspect this is a PoV redirect. — Czello ^(music) 19:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's an insult slung at Ofcom by Dan Wootton after he was found guilty of breaking Ofcom's broadcasting rules and lost his job at GB News. BBC article I found mentioning it.

I'd say delete-- it's clearly not reached common use, Google is convinced that it's either a typo of "communist" or simply an attempt to type "of communist", and it's also a very clear portmanteau of "Ofcom" and "communist", made with the intent of perjoratively conflating the two concepts. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motorscooterxxx

Motorscooterxxx → Scooter (motorcycle) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Implausible title because of the three x's. Most of the edit history consists of a brief edit war, with the content being virtually identical to a previous version of the article. Note that the redirect itself was moved from the original title "Motorscooter". It seems that the user Scooteristi wanted for the main article to be at that title, and made a rather disruptive copy-paste onto the redirect. The situation here is similar to the "Pkiro Wrokestling" redirect (RfD). Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i can understand the reasoning. x is a really cool letter, so adding more x's to things makes them cooler. still, delete as missing a space (and also as an implausible spelling, i guess) cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, what, is this an imcomplete WP:ROUNDROBIN? Move Motorscooter to Motorscooterxxx, move Scooter (motorcycle) to Motorscooter, then move Motorscooterxxx to Scooter (motorcycle), all without leaving redirects behind? Because if that was the goal, that's not what user:Scooteristi did-- they left a redirect behind when moving Motorscooter, then repaired the Motorscooter redirect to point at Scooter (motorcycle), meanwhile, not moving Scooter (motorcycle) anywhere. Also interesting is that before they moved Motorscooter to Motorscooterxxx, they blanked the page-- another editor (user:Tedder, who two years prior had BLAR'd the page; page before that point had been a fork? of Scooter (motorcycle) created by... Scooteristi, interestingly enough) then went back and restored the redirect that was there (perhaps not noticing that the page was now Motorscooterxxx).

In any case, whatever nonsensical reasoning behind this, there's nothing of value in the 2009-era fork that's in the edit history. Delete. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, this is from 2009. Definitely just speedy delete this stupid fork/redirect and move on. tedder (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After some more investigation, this wasn't a fork-- Scooteristi had copy-pasted the Scooter article in its entirety over to Motorscooter, then BLAR'd the Scooter article, only for Tedder to fix it. Which means that everything notable in this article's edit history was already in the edit history of Scooter. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D-ring

D-ring → Glossary of underwater diving terminology: A–C (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
D ring → Glossary of underwater diving terminology: A–C (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
D Ring → Rings of Saturn#D Ring (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I'm not convinced that either of these targets (or even Glossary of underwater diving terminology: D–G) are the primary topic, nor that they should target different articles. The whatlinkshere for D-ring are mostly unrelated to diving and just expect an article about the generic bit of hardware - there is an unsourced stub in the history of that page about that, but I'm not sure what scope there is for expansion? Thryduulf (talk)

Since there are at least two meanings for "D-ring"/"D ring", make into a disambiguation page, and make the hardware meaning point to a page that is about the correct item. D-rings are generic hardware that are not specific to diving. — The Anome (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note PamD has retargetted D-ring (but not D ring) to Glossary of underwater diving terminology: D–G. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, I did that on noticing that it was clearly wrongly-targetted, but hadn't noticed the other one also wrong (and it's also hard to spot them in the D-G list as they are filed letter-by-letter where I expected word-by-word!) ... then looked further into D-rings and despaired of a sensible solution. The Wiktionary definition is specific to diving, but it appears from googling that "D-ring" is a very widely-used term for, well, literally a D-shaped ring, used in hanging pictures, anchoring webbing, and many other fields. As we don't have a List of useful miscellaneous bits of hardware, it's hard to see where it should go. I've now retargetted D ring so at least it's consistent and makes some sort of sense ... even if possibly wrong.

Perhaps we need to edit Wiktionary to remove diving's hijacking of a generic term, then we could have a dab page for diving and Saturn, with a Wiktionary link. PamD 16:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, change to a disambiguation page. — Lentower (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None of these terms are clearly the most prevalent, so none should be singled out at the top of the new disambig page. — Lentower (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some of these pages, e.g. D ring binder should be on the new page. (I haven't read the guidelines here, so am not feel qualified make the decision).

Search for "D ring" on Wikipedia.

Search for "D-ring" on Wikipedia.

- I suggest all six of these templates be in the See also section on the new page. — Lentower (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Avocado Dispute

Mexican Avocado Dispute → Avocado#Avocado-related international trade issues (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

there isn't anything in the article about a dispute and the section to which this links no longer exists. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this deleted, the link at Dispute settlement in the World Trade Organization#See also should be removed. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The relevant portion of the target was removed in this February 2021 edit by Zefr with the rationale "trim outdated trade issues section", but the follow-up sections (including all the citations) that were present at the time of the redirect creation (this version) had been removed sometime previously. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spirituality & Health Magazine

Spirituality & Health Magazine → American Health (magazine) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No relation to target, not mentioned in target article. Spirituality & Health is a magazine published by Unity Church. Softlavender (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Tate

Tristan Tate → Andrew Tate (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete as misleading. This redirect was created a minute after the second deletion discussion closed, first pointing to the whole article and then to a subsection concerning the Romanian case(s), on what seems to me to be the very good reason that they are different people. During the GA drive this change was reverted. As it stands, the references to Tristan are sprinkled throughout the article, so it's hard to pick a single place to point the redirect at; but they are different people, and the current outcome suggests that to the unwary they aren't. Given the AfD outcome, I would suggest that deletion of the redirect and reliance on how search engines actually work is the best resolution of this so that those looking will get a succinct and accurate answer; failing that, the AfD could be reconsidered, or Andrew Tate's article could be so structured as to give a redirect some place to point to. The current arrangement, though, treats him like Zaphod Beeblebrox's second head. Mangoe (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment New RfD's go below the header, not above it. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re-target to Andrew Tate#In Romania: 2022–present per WP:BLP1E, where is he referenced under "Tate brothers" (that can be amended to "Tate and his brother Tristan" for first usage). 1E was the strong argument for deletion of the article second time around, despite not being mentioned in the closing summary, so redirecting to any other part of the article doesn't make sense based on his notability. Additionally, a redirect that is used 20 times a day does appear useful, but being pointed at Andrew Tate directly can be confusing for readers, even if he is mentioned from the lead onwards. I'm not sure why TheMainLogan changed the redirect back in March. I'm otherwise convinced that this redirect existed long before March and that the page history is missing after the 2nd AfD, but could be wrong. Maybe an admin could clarify. CNC (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won't even lie, I pointed the redirect at Andrew directly because they're basically the same guy. —theMainLogan (t•c) 15:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Restore Tristan Tate Draft I believe the redirect should be deleted, and Tristan Tate is notable enough to have his own page, I suggest the original page be undeleted, and converted into a Draft where further editing can be done to the original page in order to move it into mainspace Mr Vili talk 08:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While this isn't the place to debate notability (the talk page would be better) the source assessment in the 2nd AfD demonstrated only one article with WP:SIGCOV, hence notability was not proven beyond BLP1E. Since this AfD he is now accused in a second investigation in the UK, but per the closing summary of that AfD, WP:PERP is still an issue here. Even if another draft is worked on, the mainspace article still requires a decision on either deleting, keeping or redirecting. CNC (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refine to the section per CommunityNotesContributor. This is without prejudice to the former article content being worked on in draft, but unless and until an article is accepted (and such an article would need to demonstrate notability unrelated to the single incident) readers are better served by the redirect pointing to the content in his brother's article. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules[edit]

Template:NFL starting quarterbacks navbox

Template:NFL starting quarterbacks navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a navbox that changes almost every single week during the NFL season, and is not particularly useful from the end of a season to the beginning of a new one (roughly eight months). For example, at the moment, Trevor Siemian is listed on this template as the starting quarterback for the New York Jets, despite not being on their roster. But as the template is currently structured, he will remain there until September when the Jets start a different quarterback in week 1. Who started at quarterback in the NFL on a week-to-week basis during the season, and who last started in the final week of the season, is not useful here. Template:Current NFL long snappers, Template:Current NFL punters, and Template:Current NFL placekickers were all previously deleted for similar reasons. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fort Worth Cavalry starting quarterback navbox

Template:Fort Worth Cavalry starting quarterback navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox only contains two blue links (excluding the header, which links to the general Fort Worth Cavalry page), not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wesleyan Cardinals quarterback navbox

Template:Wesleyan Cardinals quarterback navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox only contains three blue links (not including the header, which links to the general Wesleyan Cardinals football page), not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. There is also not an article for List of Wesleyan Cardinals starting quarterbacks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Washington & Jefferson Presidents quarterback navbox

Template:Washington & Jefferson Presidents quarterback navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox only contains two blue links (not including the heading, which links to the general Washington & Jefferson Presidents football article), not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spain 2002 WRWC

Template:Spain 2002 WRWC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox with no blue links. DB1729^talk 15:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spain 1998 WRWC

Template:Spain 1998 WRWC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox with one blue link. DB1729^talk 15:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spain 1991 WRWC

Template:Spain 1991 WRWC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox with no blue links. DB1729^talk 15:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pretenders to the Albanian throne

Template:Pretenders to the Albanian throne (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Same as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_12#Category:Pretenders_to_the_Albanian_throne, the linked AfD's, and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_12#Template:Pretenders_to_the_Mexican_throne: WP:OR list of pretenders to a defunct monarchy. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bir Bikrom

Template:Bir Bikrom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Barely-used navbox full of unlinked entries and mistargeted links - not worth it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a navbox-worthy topic, as Bir Bikrom is a military award with 175 recipients to date. Category:Recipients of the Bir Bikrom has 26 articles. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. Hoax. JBW (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alejitao123/sandbox[edit]

Per WP:FAKEARTICLE, falsely claims that Argentina is a communist country and mentions both a "communist cult" and a "Catholic cult," which is incendiary. Otherwise seems to be a minimally modified version of a real article, no value in keeping. Air on White (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it if you want!

I'll make a clean start! Alejitao123 (talk) 18:47, 21 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Draft:Acharya Institutes

Acharya Institute of Technology already exists. This draft was written by an editor now blocked for UPE and relies entirely on primary sources. Nthep (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nthep, I think it's G5-able. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acharya7317. Cabayi (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The block for the originator does not say that it is a sock block, but that it is a UPE block, which would mean that the block was after the page was created. If the originator and the blocked account are not tied together, then the page can be kept, and allowed to die after six months. But a CheckUser says that is is probably G5. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review[edit]

Category:Possible physical damages through anal sex (closed)

Category:Possible physical damages through anal sex – Speedy endorse as a disruptive appeal. Owen× ☎ 17:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Possible physical damages through anal sex (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) https://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-concerns https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324637 https://health.clevelandclinic.org/anal-sex-safety 202.134.11.238 (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] Troll. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Possible physical damages through anal sex – Speedy endorse as a disruptive appeal. Owen× ☎ 17:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

https://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-concerns https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324637 https://health.clevelandclinic.org/anal-sex-safety 202.134.11.238 (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Troll. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creation Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Version 1.0 Editorial Team Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and votings	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Voting is not evil Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates