Wikipedia:XfD today

(Redirected from Wikipedia:DELT)

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

Purge server cache

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

No GNG Kaptain Kebab Heart (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, & 6th sources are his orgs [1] [2] (second one is just homepage) [3] [4] [5], 3rd he is just quoted [6], 7th is a PDF of a powerpoint [7], 8 & 9 are some reports he edited [8] [9], 10th is an award which does not mention him (and is mis-atributed in the article to the US EPA instead of UN) [10], the 11th is about an EPA award that is only mentioned by a WP:NEWSORGINDIA [11], 12 is a link to a newspaper archive page [12], 13 is a conflict of interest form PDF? [13], 14 is a broken link, 15 is a duplicate of 11, 16 is a release by his university [14], 17 he is quoted in just one sentence [15], 18 is a link to the Wikipedia article on the Montreal Protocol, 19 & 20 are links to his website, 21 simply states he was at an event [16], and 22 is a dead link. 🄻🄰 15:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Northrop N-9M crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little or no WP:LASTING effects or coverage; basically a WP:ROTM general aviation crash aside from involving an extremely unique and unusual vintage aircraft. As the article is short and easily summarized, propose merging with Northrop N-9M as its own section. Carguychris (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:PROMO article for a non-notable business membership organization. The sources on the article are limited to:

  • Articles/books written by past and present employees or contractors of the organization and thus not independent: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22].
  • WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS: [23], [24], [25].
  • The organization's own website and videos/transcripts of speeches given at its flagship event, and other material produced directly by the organization ([26], [27]).

I didn't find anything else in my WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I can’t find in depth coverage of this player so it doesn’t look like he’s notable. Mccapra (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not notable (defunct) company; no previous good and reliable media mentions found; Cinder painter (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2025 (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 14:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article contains significant inaccuracies. The term "Hinduism" is not applicable to the time periods of ancient era, as only Brahmanism was present. The article incorrectly categorizes several non-Hindu dynasties as Hindu, spreading misinformation and distorting historical facts. This misrepresentation goes against the core WP:NPOV and WP:V. The article fails to cite WP:RS, and promoting various hoax in terms of factual accuracy in listing. Mr.Hanes   Talk 14:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Business does business things. Non-notable. Fails WP:NORG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Netherlands. UtherSRG (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comment! I totally get that not every business belongs on Wikipedia, but I think Planon is notable enough to warrant an entry. Why?
    Market Leader: Last week, Planon was named the #1 company in its field by Verdantix, an independent research firm (for the fourth time, just added that source to the page as well). That kind of recognition shows it’s not just another random company .
    Strategic Role: Planon’s acquisition by Schneider Electric and its partnership with SAP also proves it’s not just another business but a strategic one in the industry.
    The acquisition by SE also got decent media attention (which was not only about Planon but also highlighted its competitors like Spacewell, MRI and AppFolio, showing where it fits in the industry).
    I’ve also shared more background and sources on the Talk page beforehand if you’d like to check those out. Hope this clears things up a bit—happy to discuss further if you have other concerns! Stella2707 (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
World-2023 ESN Publications and London Organisation of Skills Development Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Gimmick mainly sourced to glorified press releases like this one. No lasting notability. Fram (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This term is not a plausible search term for someone interested in the "etruscan civilization" (first entry), and is not mentioned in the second entry (Jeopardy), making it an invalid disambiguation and a poor redirect to either entry. Fram (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I removed a chunk of copyvio text from the article that had been copied from the first reference [28]. The remainder does not seem to establish notability under any criteria that might apply, e.g. WP:NACTOR, WP:NBUSINESS (as founder of a publishing house), WP:GNG. Although there are many references in the article as it stands, they are all passing mentions rather than WP:SIGCOV. There are no linked articles in other language Wikipedias, and my WP:BEFORE turned up no reliable sources with significant coverage. It is of course possible that there is sufficient coverage in local offline sources, in which case I would happily withdraw my nomination. SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

No evidence of notability, doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC/WP:SIGCOV. I'm unable to verify the chart positions for the singles as germancharts.de and offiziellecharts.de show nothing for this band. Frost 11:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The term "chiefdom of Commane" is not used anywhere it seems[29][30], none of the "notable figures" bear the name Commane. Basically, "Commane" is one of many names originating with the "Ó Comáin" root, but isn't a notable one and not the name of a "chiefdom" apparently either. Simply moving the page to a different title wouldn't solve these WP:OR or WP:V issues, e.g. the first source in the lead, "Sometimes incorrectly 'translated' to Hurley camán a hurly."[31] doesn't seem supported by that source either. Fram (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks utterly unreliable as it is not backed up by the given sources. The Banner talk 10:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're not looking at the correct sources, writing a reply to this now Kellycrak88 (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback on the article. I would like to address the points raised:
Addressing the points raised, at great length
Irish chiefdoms persisted over a long period in Thomond (Co. Clare) during the Middle Ages, partly due to the failure of the Vikings and Anglo-Normans to establish strongholds in the region. As we are discussing the early medieval period, when written records were sparse, scholars have to reconstruct the history through analysis of historical texts, place-names, archaeological excavations and comparative data. The sites of Tulach Commáin and Cahercommaun are physical archaeological locations, which further underline the chiefdom's significance.
The chiefdom of Tulach Commáin, centered on its capital at Cahercommaun, encompassed a territory of considerable importance, possibly spanning three residential sites and the Arran islands. Cahercommaun features a trivallate stone fort, serving as its political and ceremonial centre, a burial and inauguration site for chieftains at Tulach Commáin ('Mound of Commane'), and several associated monastic and ecclesiastical sites, underscoring its religious and administrative prominence in early medieval Ireland.
The primary sources for the Chiefdom of Commane include:
- Gibson, David Blair Ph.D. (1990). Tulach Commain: A view of an Irish chiefdom (500 pages on the subject), which has been referenced in several scholarly works, including Celtic Chiefdom, Celtic State, The Evolution of Complex Social Systems in Prehistoric Europe (1995)
- The Rulers of Tulach Commáin (Chapter Seven), From Chiefdom to State in Early Ireland, Cambridge University Press (2012)
----
1. On the Spelling "Commane":
Notes on Irish Names and Spelling: The reader who is unacquainted with Irish culture, history, and language may experience confusion with Irish names due to their many variations in spelling and different names for the same thing, partly due to linguistic development of the Irish language, so the spelling of words and the names themselves vary greatly between texts, especially in the Middle Ages. The article already acknowledges this challenge, stating:
"The various spellings of Commane and its variants can largely be attributed to the lack of Standard Irish until 1948 and the historical practice of English-speaking officials transcribing Irish names phonetically, often based on how the names were pronounced."
Furthermore, the capital city of the chiefdom Cahercommaun is sometimes locally referred to as Caher Commane, (see: https://www.clarelibrary.ie/eolas/coclare/places/the_burren/cahercommane.htm) demonstrating that "Commane" is a primary anglicised variant by the people in the area of the original chiefdom. The Wikipedia article also cites Gibson's book, noting that it refers to "variant spellings throughout: Comáin, Commáin, Comain, etc (different spellings and names are common in Ireland)." This reflects the historically variable nature of Irish names and the necessity of choosing one variant for clarity in an English-language encyclopedia, consistent with Wikipedia's naming conventions for Irish surnames (e.g., O'Brien vs. Ó Briain).
----
2. Historical Terminology:
While the spelling "chiefdom of Commane" does not explicitly appear in primary sources, it reflects the territorial and political structures documented in historical studies Tulach Commáin and Cahercommaun (same names, different spellings). Scholars such as D. Blair Gibson and James Frost describe Cahercommaun as a political and ceremonial centre in County Clare, serving as the chiefdom and seat of the sept in the 8th–9th centuries. "Commane" serves as the English variant for Commáin, and the usage of the name aligns with the historical anglicisation of Irish surnames.
If necessary, I am open to renaming "chiefdom of Commane" to "chiefdom of Tulach Commáin" to reflect the documented place-name and avoid ambiguity, even though this spelling was proposed by Gibson and he confesses to different spelling variants.
----
3. Notable Figures:
It should also be noted that the person's original name and chief in the original gaelic would have been Comáin or Commáin (anglicised to Commane) as quoted in the article "as hereditary surnames in Ireland only began emerging between the 9th and 11th centuries" so the the sons would have been Mac or Ó "meaning" son of or "descendent".
The lineage does includes notable individuals such as:
  • Saint Commán of Roscommon, Saint and founder of Rosscommon a key figure in Irish ecclesiastical history.
  • Célechair mac Commáin, recorded in the Annals of Ulster and

Annals of Innisfallen, who was of the Eóganacht Uí Cormaic and died in the Battle of Corcmodruadh (704–705 A.D.).

Variants such as "Ó Comáin," "Commáin," and "Comáin" are consistently tied to the same lineage, which historical sources document as playing a significant role in Munster's early medieval socio-political landscape.
In 1052 AD there is a mention of spelling Comman in the Irish annals Part 15 of the Annals of the Four Masters.
In the sourced Early Bearers and Historical Records section it clears shows from the off shoots from Ó Comáin:
  • Laerunce Commane, 1796 in Flaxgrowers List (Ross, Cork);
  • Maurice O Koman, yeoman, and son Rory O Coman, 1573 in Fiants Elizabeth §2251 (Kanturk, Cork); Note spellings
These variations are consistent with historical naming practices, as highlighted in genealogical studies and sources like the Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh's 17th-century genealogical compilation, Leabhar Mór na nGenealach (The Great Book of Irish Genealogies), a key source for tracing Irish lineages.
----
4. Sometimes incorrectly 'translated' to Hurley camán a hurly
Yes, my mistake, I added the wrong source reference to the article for this, which I've now updated.
The words Camán and Comán are linguistically different, none of the Commane variants start with Cam, therefore some sources are incorrectly claim the name is linked to Hurley.
Here is a source to the contrary stating it's a mistranslation.
----
4. Verifiability and Sources:
The article incorporates referenced material from primary and secondary sources, including works by historians like Frost, Gibson, and O'Hart, alongside primary annals. The references also highlight the historical prominence of the Chiefdom of Commane (Tulach Commáin and Cahercommaun).
If further clarity is needed, do let me know. In the meantime I will refine the language or include additional references to bolster the article’s verifiability.
I hope this response clarifies the rationale behind the article's naming and content. Please let me know if there are further adjustments you'd like to see.
----
At the footer of the page other sources are noted:
"Annals of Innisfallen." CELT Project. University College Cork. | "Annals of Ulster." CELT Project. University College Cork. | "The History and Topography of the County of Clare." Frost, James. Internet Archive. | "Corpus Genealogiarum Hiberniae." O'Brien, M. A. Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. | "Irish Kings and High-Kings." Byrne, F. J. Four Courts Press. | "Irish Pedigrees: Or, The Origin and Stem of the Irish Nation." O'Hart, John. M.H. Gill & Son. | "Leabhar Mór na nGenealach." Mac Fhirbhisigh, Dubhaltach. Edited by Nollaig Ó Muraíle. De Búrca Rare Books. | "Cahercommaun Triple Ring Fort." Academia.edu. Academia.edu. | "CELT: The Corpus of Electronic Texts." CELT Project. University College Cork. | "Cahercommaun Triple Ring Fort." Academia.edu. Academia.edu | "Discover Cahercommaun with Archaeologist, Michael Lynch." Burrenbeo. Burrenbeo | "Early Medieval Ireland, AD 400-1100: The Evidence from Archaeological Excavations." Academia.edu. Academia.edu | "Picture Perfect: Using Drone Technology and Photogrammetry Techniques to Map the Western Stone Forts of Ireland." Academia.edu. Academia.edu Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of words to say very little, it seems. No idea why this is at Commane and not at e.g. "Ó Comáin", unless it is because you have some COI with the Commane family you added to Newhall House and Estate or something similar. Nothing you state above contradicts that there is no reliable source about the "Chiefdom of Commane", or that none of the notable persons you listed are called "Commane" (you listed some rather random persons with the name, no one disputes that the name exists). Fram (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fram, I’m honestly just trying my best to address each of your points thoughtfully. To clarify, my "COI" is that I live in Clare and my surname is Hurley, which often gets incorrectly linked to Commane, a widely recognised surname here. The reference to "Commane" was chosen because it’s the most anglicised form of "Ó Comáin," aligning with the context of an English-language encyclopedia. For example, Wikipedia uses "O'Brien" instead of "Ó Briain," consistent with its naming conventions for Irish surnames. While "Ó Comáin" would be more appropriate for the Irish-language version of Wikipedia, it doesn’t mean the history of the name or its variants is unnotable simply because "Ó Comáin" lacks extensive individual articles. I’d really appreciate it if you could take another look at Section 1 of my response, where I’ve outlined the historical and archaeological basis for the "Chiefdom of Commane" and its connection to Clare. That said, I’m open to collaboration and willing to move the article to "Ó Comáin" if there’s a consensus that it’s more appropriate. My main goal here is to preserve the effort I’ve put into the article, as the the sources are valid, and I’d prefer not to see it deleted. If there are specific concerns you feel remain unresolved, I’m happy to discuss them further and make adjustments. I’m just trying to contribute something meaningful here. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you insist on using "Chiefdom of Commane" when not a single reliable source uses this, I have no interest in even looking at what else you state. Your article seems like a coatrack of everything loosely related to the name, from a long section on a clan or chiefdom to a list of non-notable people named Commane or Comman and a list of notable people not named Commane, and so on. "The reference to "Commane" was chosen because it’s the most anglicised form of "Ó Comáin," aligning with the context of an English-language encyclopedia." Not according to "The Oxford Dictionary of Family Names of Ireland", which doesn't even give Commane a separate entry (or even a "see at" reference), but mentions it once under the entry for Cummins[32], which you are well aware off, since you copied the whole section "Early bearers and historical records" literally from that source. Do I really need to restart the proposal at WP:ANI, considering that the previous problems all seem to persist? @Asilvering: has there been any attempt to get the mentoring or feedback which was supposed to happen after that previous discussion? Fram (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a broad range of sources are on the page, like this:[33] Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That source doesn't state that Commane is the standard anglicization either, it seems... Fram (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No communication since, no. -- asilvering (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram, as far as I’m aware, it is not a copyright violation to include a list of names from a source, they help prove root of name. Reporting me (again) unjustly to administrators (whose prior review did not result in any action against me) without fully engaging with my responses is not constructive and only creates unnecessary tension. I have taken the time to address all of your concerns and provide balanced explanations, supported by credible sources. However, your unwillingness to read my response and now your presentation of a false narrative is both unfair and unproductive. I remain committed to improving this article collaboratively. However, given your history of targeting me, I believe it would be more constructive for a third party or another editor to engage with me on this matter instead of yourself. Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram I’d also like to kindly ask you to carefully re-read Section 2 of my response, where I state that I am open to renaming "chiefdom of Commane" to "chiefdom of Tulach Commáin." Thank you for your consideration. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram as you've stated you're not reading my responses, Tulach Commáin means in english "The Mound of Commane". I am happy to renaming it to the Gaelic. Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. You are the only one ever to use "The Mound of Commane", in two Wikipedia articles. Reliable sources almost invariably use the Irish name (which is a recent invention anyway), not some translation, and one source uses "The Burial Mound of Commán". Fram (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to buy the 500 page book (available in PDF) and review the source material for yourself:[34] Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This [35] is the much more recent book by that scholar, not his PhD thesis, and that book uses "The Burial Mound of Commán" (once) or the Irish name, not "Commane". The term Commane does not appear in that book. Fram (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the quote you just linked to it says Tulach Comma (The [burial] Mound of Comman) notice "burial" is in brackets meaning optional and it's referred to else where without burial. The whole point of my wikipedia article is variations of the name. The same author uses Comáin, Commáin, Comain, interchangeable variants throughout the book and gives an explanation for why which I tried to do on the wikipedia page, it's the same name, I appreciate that's a strange concept from an English perspective.
I have both this book and the PhD thesis which is way more thorough and academic but yes similar.
In the PhD version he calls Tulach Commáin - the latest book version it's Tulach Comman -- same author and name Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to "Commane" was chosen because it’s the most anglicised form of "Ó Comáin" - really? I'm living in Ireland all of my life, and I have never once heard the name, until today. "Cummins" is the usual translation to English of all of the various forms of the surname listed in the article. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it's predominantly in Muster / Clare (in the area of the original chiefdom) Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you make it sound as original research. The Banner talk 15:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As it stands I wonder if this should perhaps be Draftified. Until some of the sourcing and formatting and WP:OR concerns are addressed. (Certainly, for an article in the mainspace, I was surprised to see a number of relatively small formatting, tagging and tweaking edits that I had made completely reverted. Almost certainly in error. But implying that, perhaps, the title is not yet "fully formed" - to the extent that it's "ready" for the main article namespace.) Guliolopez (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guliolopez I think we may have been editing the article at the same time, my apologies if I inadvertently caused any issues, it certainly wasn't intentional. Since then, it looks like you've made some recent edits, and I hope everything is now in order. On that note, I originally added several notes and quotes in the citations similar to the ones you've included on the page, to help it make more sense but they were removed by another editor. You can see this in the page's edit history. Regarding your comment in the history section, these topics are being discussed on the Talk page, your input would be most welcome there. Thank you! Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly huge amounts of original research, incorrect or poorly-formatted citations, inclusion of barely relevant detail, and much else wrong (if you want examples of all, see the "Variants and distribution" section)—a really very subpar article. Obviously, a hatchet-job is needed even if Kellycrak88 is able to justify notability, but as I cannot see any evidence of significant coverage of the article subject, delete. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly disagree with the assertion that the article contains original research or invalid sources.
    The content draws from reliable publications, especially the works of Dr Gibson, a professor of anthropology with a PhD in Irish chiefdoms. His 500-page dissertation (Tulach Commáin: A View of an Irish Chiefdom) and later book (From Chiefdom to State in Early Ireland) are well-respected and often cited by other scholars.
    Of course, the article could use some improvements, particularly in formatting and trimming less relevant details. I’m more than happy to collaborate further on this, as I’ve already worked with several editors to refine it.
    Given the robust scholarly sources and the historical importance of the subject, I believe the article meets notability standards. I’m open to further feedback and willing to keep working to ensure it adheres to Wikipedia’s guidelines.
    (Tulach Commáin translates to "The Mound of Commán," anglicised to Commane, with Tulach meaning Hill, Mount or Fort.)
    Lastly, I think this is important: the old English spoken and written 500 or 1,000 years ago would be nearly incomprehensible to us today. The same applies to Irish. This chiefdom was in the 8th–9th century, and variations in the spelling of Irish names, later anglicised phonetically by English officials in Ireland, reflect linguistic changes over time. From an English perspective, this might seem like an odd concept, but it’s an integral part of understanding Irish historical and cultural context. Kellycrak88 (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the article isn't about the chiefdom or about the fort (which already has an article, Cahercommaun), it's about the surname. Fram (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Cahercommaun also known as Caher Commane (National library of Ireland and Clare Library.) is an archaeological site and according to Gibson it's the capital of the Chiefdom of Tulach Commáin which is a separate site nearby for burial and inauguration.
      One of the spellings Gibson used was Commán (anglicised to Commane) referring to the 8th-century locally revered chief that was buried there, descendants were "son of" which in modern day Standard Irish form is: Ó Comáin.
      @Fram if your main objection is the anglicised surname Commane, and it's variants (which is obviously connected with the site and in the citations) - what if we change the title to the Irish Gaelic Ó Comáin, at least it can be agreed all the variants share the same root.
      Even though the letter Ó no one will type into a keyboard as this is an English and not Gaelic encyclopedia.
      There are mamy examples of historical Irish names using the anglicised version on Wikipedia.
      Complex example: CLANCY instead of the Iirsh Mac Fhlannchaidh/Mac Fhlannchadha
      Simply example: O'BRIEN instead of the Irish Ó Briain Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • The objection is that you are treating different subjects together, and have taken a rarely used name as the main topic and have twisted every remotely related thing to be about Commane. Even your reply here, I was not commenting on Cahercommaun vs. Cahercommane at all, but you somehow need to add that one is also known by the other name as if that has anything to do with my post. And even then you can't correctly represent the source material or the facts; it is not "Caher Commane" but "Cahercommane". So no, while changing the title would be somewhat better, my preference remains to simply delete this POV coatrack article, and to let others create articles about the chiefdom and if needed disambiguation ones for the name or names (separately), just like we have at Coman already. But an article trying to discuss at the same time a chiefdom, a fort, and naming origins (with OR about the Irish vs Scottish and so on) is a bad idea, and to have all of it shoehorned into a "Commane is the main form" sauce on top makes it a lot worse still. Fram (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn’t put a space between Caher Commane and "Cahercommane” to highlight for the benefit of the reader on this thread. Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it contains original research Kellycrak88. If you disagree, please provide relevant quotations for the "Variants and distribution" section from the books you currently have cited for that section. If you could also cease from using AI-generation in your responses, that would be useful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was curious, so I pasted my response into an AI detector, and it said “0% of text is likely AI-generated.”
    I could go through the citations, but I’m trying to keep my responses short. So in the spirit of collaboration, we can delete that section if it’s causing anguish. However, deleting the entire article feels like overkill.
    Yesterday, I picked up a new book from Clare Library with additional information about the Commane Chiefdom, which could warrant its own article. I’m open to creating a separate page dedicated entirely to the chiefdom. But this article is about on the surname, its variants, and origin, which is the chiefdom and this page only has a small section on the chiefdom, there’s a 500 page dissertation and other sources on the subject. Also there are many other irish name pages that have an origin story or history in this style, I’ll get some links to show if required.
    Let me know if you’d like further changes. Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this needs input by people who have not commented before. Please avoid WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion to death by replying to everything at length.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disputed draftification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT prevents unilateral redraftification., Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not enough sources to establish notability, and coverage from reliable sources appears to be lacking. Therefore, I'm not sure if article satisfies WP:NACADEMIC. Author also seems eager to remove maintenance templates for no reason, which is quite suspicious and suggests a possible COI. CycloneYoris talk! 09:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Bangladesh. CycloneYoris talk! 09:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can't find any secondary coverage, so I think WP:NPROF is the only path to notability. The citation count definitely isn't enough to meet WP:NPROF#C1, and the journal that he is Associate Editor in Chief of doesn't seem prominent enough to meet WP:NPROF#C8. But I think he probably meets WP:NPROF#C6 as the Vice-Chancellor of East Delta University. It seems to be a relatively small private university, but is accredited as far as I can tell, meaning that I think he probably meets C6 as someone who has held the post of president or chancellor (or vice-chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university. MCE89 (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also just linking this AfD that was referenced in this recent discussion on the NPROF talk page, which addresses a similar question of whether the vice-chancellor of a relatively new and small but accredited university is notable under C6. MCE89 (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I must admit I'm worried; EDU is a rather small private university, and our article about it is rather promotional, sourced mostly to the university itself, and written by the same person who wrote the the article on Mohammed Nazim Uddin. This reeks of COI editing. There is a slightly shady line where traditional academic institutions blend into commercial organisations selling education (and seeking to advertise themselves), and I'm not sure on which side of the line EDU and Mohammed Nazim Uddin fall. I would like to see some independent sourcing. Elemimele (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is very fair, I do have the same concern. From what I found it's definitely a small and relatively new university, but I don't think we're in degree mill/fake institution territory. It's a non-profit, accredited institution and the faculty seem to be actual publishing academics from the ones I've checked. The promotional editing is concerning and it's definitely not a particularly prominent university, but it doesn't seem to cross the line into being outright shady as far as I can tell. I did find some potentially independent coverage in Bengali under "ইস্ট ডেল্টা বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়", but hard to assess reliability when running things through Google Translate. MCE89 (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't see any pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Timeline of web browsers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article contents is of no encyclopedic value and similar information is presented in a better (and more accessible) way on History of the web browser. YannickFran (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Procedural close‎. This appears to be a malformed request for a discussion about the subject, and not a request for deletion, just like the other one from the same new user. (non-admin closure) cyberdog958Talk 10:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion on whether congestion pricing is effective and if Donald Trump will cancel it when he takes office next week.[1]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Makenna Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ANYBIO, almost all the cited sources are either primary sources or unreliable sources. Has been identified as such since June 2022, without improvement. Dan arndt (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Normally notable ski jumpers have at least competed in the Olympics. The only coverage I could find is from the non independent www.fis-ski.com . Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

All of the sources appear to be WP:NEWSORGINDIA 🄻🄰 14:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

AFD as the article has been draftified before and PROD can be contested. The subject of the article is a concept. The concept itself is well covered in the book, but there are not enough independent sources that refer to this concept. The references include Max Weber's Political Thought, but it is not clear whether the concept of "contextual political analysis" is presented there as well or not.

In short, the concept is not notable enough. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:TNT. I think contextual political analysis is probably a notable enough concept/approach to merit an article in theory, although I think it would be a tricky one to write. But this is clearly an AI-generated essay that would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to be encyclopedic. MCE89 (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Millennium Bank (Greece) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable defunct bank with poor sources Cinder painter (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't see how it passes WP:NCORP. Some pdfs, paid or profile nature references. Cinder painter (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't see how it passes WP:NCORP. Could be redirected to the Nordea page Cinder painter (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The house itself fails WP:GNG. Some of the sources listed in the article isn't even RS, Google News yield none RS sources. Though IDK if Elle or this Yahoo Entertainment article is RS? Nonetheless, it still fails WP:SIGCOV Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've declined a G11 request on this—it clearly isn't spam—but in its current state this is so unsalvageable, it would require a scorched-earth rewrite from scratch if it were to be a viable Wikipedia article.  ‑ Iridescent 07:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I couldn't find any significant coverage of this company, failing WP:NCORP. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 07:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. I also couldn't find any significant coverage, or really much coverage of any kind in reliable sources. It's a bit strange since I would expect a publisher of academic material to be notable, but I don't see how the article's subject passes WP:GNG. Maybe it's just hard to find sources in Google when most of the search results are works published by the company. --Richard Yin (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The publisher's only outputs seem to be a journal that doesn't meet WP:NJOURNALS and a series of academic monographs that probably don't meet WP:NBOOK. If either of their publications were notable there might be an argument to keep and rename, but I don't think that's an option here. And agree that I'm not seeing any sign that they could meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. MCE89 (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Over the Counter (Snoop Doggy Dogg album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There doesn't seem to be any significant coverage by reliable/independent sources for this album. Redirecting might not be appropriate as it's not mentioned in another article. Frost 05:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete. orphan article, not much reliable sources found. brachy08 (chat here lol) 06:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the writer of the article, I can agree that it may not be notable, since it was lost media until 2004, and not many people even knew about the album until way after Snoop Dogg's fame. I would say delete or leave as a stub. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of sources due to the obscurity of the tape is also a problem. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noémie Silberer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level international medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable figure skater. While she did finish in first place at the 2004 Swiss Championships, her score was too low to be awarded the title of Swiss Champion. I found this one article where she was mentioned in passing as now coaching. I'll let the community decide whether that qualifies as "significant coverage". Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Switzerland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, there is no corresponding article on the German Wikipedia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some news articles: [46] ("Kurioses ereignete sich bei den Frauen. Cindy Carquillat belegte zwar Rang 1, der Titel wurde ihr allerdings nicht vergeben, weil sie in den Kür-Noten nicht den erforderlichen Schnitt von 4,8 erreichte. Dies ist bei den Frauen noch nie vorgekommen, seit sie 1931 erstmals am nationalen Championat zugelassen worden waren."), [47] (about her qualifying for the Junior Worlds in 2005).
    Keep. After all, she did finish first in the national championships. Per WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG too. (She competed almost 20 years ago, she definitely had something written about her in the media back then.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be something here → [48], but the site doesn't open for me. (I'm tired of this, many sites seem to block Russian IPs, it's impossible to search like this.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The first source provided has a few sentences, the second one is an article about her, albeit a very short one about her qualifying. The third one that blocked the IP appears to be about changes in the scoring system and is not about her. This SUBJECT appears to be below SIGCOV levels at the moment. In addition I have found a couple of brief mentions in the french media sites la region and arcinfo but well below what is needed to prove GNG. I will have another look later at this one.Canary757 (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      There are 94 hits for her on e-newspaperarchives.ch. Most look minor but may need a french speaker to judge as some appear to be longer.Canary757 (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very far from SIGCOV. Both articles mentioned above are routine event results, from the same news site, and the latter is a couple-sentence announcement about a junior career event so is even further from counting toward GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable figure skater; highest medal placement was silver at the German nationals. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a Keep vote and this article has already been PROD'd.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shrug02 (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Results of the 2023 Alberta general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Results of the 2020 British Columbia general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Results of the 2024 British Columbia general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Results of the 2024 New Brunswick general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Results of the 2021 Nova Scotia general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Results of the 2024 Nova Scotia general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Content forks of unclear necessity. The standard format for Canadian provincial election results is to include the final vote counts in the unified "candidates" tables within the main election article first, and then consider moving that table to a new separate "results" page only if article-size considerations demand that. That is, separate results pages do not always have to exist across the board separately from the main election article: that's a size control option, not a standard requirement. And when a separate results page does exist it's supposed to do so instead of the candidates table being present in the main election article, not alongside that, and it's supposed to consist of the candidates table being moved from the main election article so that the separate page looks like this.
But that's not what's happening here: all of these pages exist alongside, not instead of, the candidates tables still being present in the main election articles, and all of them are transcluding individual "district results" templates instead of using the unified table like they're supposed to.
Additionally, it warrants note that these were all created within the past month by a (non-Canadian, as far as I know) editor who doesn't really contribute on Canadian politics on a regular, ongoing basis, and instead tends to jump in only on election nights to create a hashpile of improperly formatted stubs about the newly elected legislators, which other people inevitably end up having to repair after the fact -- just in October's New Brunswick election alone, I and another editor both had to post to their talk page to tell them they were doing things wrong, and at least in my case it wasn't the first time I had to post to their talk page to tell them they were doing things wrong.
Again, it's an either/or choice between including the candidates table in the main article without a separate results page, or moving the candidates table to a separate results page instead of being in the main article. There's simply no prior precedent or need to duplicate the same information in two different places, and no election ever needs both a candidates table in the main article and a separate results page. It's one or the other, not both, and either way it needs to be formatted via the unified table, not via the transclusion of 50-70 individual district results templates. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to arbitrarily decree that all of the hundreds of Canadian election articles that are doing things the way I described are doing it wrong, or arbitrarily impose a new way of doing them — you would need to establish a consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada that the old way is a problem and that your way fixes it.
The tables are not "difficult" to read in any way, and the templates do not make it "easier". The tables, in fact, offer necessary information that your templates completely fail to provide. Since the tables group districts regionally, for example, it's possible to view variations in regional support — was one party significantly more or less popular in one region than it was in another, etc. — that a strictly alphabetical list fails to reveal. And since the tables have an incumbent column, they offer a way to track whether each incumbent was reelected, defeated or just didn't run again at all, which using the individual riding results templates fails to achieve.
Both of those are necessary information in a compendium of election results, which the existing format fulfills and your new variant format does not. So you would need a consensus that the long-established standard way of doing election results — either in the main article without having a separate results page to repeat the same results, or moving the table to a standalone results page without keeping duplicate data in the main article at all anymore — needs to be changed, and are not entitled to arbitrarily decree that yourself. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not mean to be imposing anything. I noticed that Ontario was the only province with separate pages so I did the same for other provinces. If the formatting is the only issue then that can be solved. The tables are difficult to read particularly on mobile devices, and vote share and candidate names are missing unlike the templates where they are included. As the ridings aren't in alphabetical order it is hard to navigate. Also there are some misconceptions here I do edit Canadian politics on a regular basis and not just election nights. Check my edit history. I recently completed the NB election results for each riding two months after the fact. As for the "hashpile of improperly formatted stubs" I believe they are of better quality now. Also it should be noted that I did not create all of these pages; Results of the 2020 British Columbia general election was created by User:RedBlueGreen93. How would I go about getting a consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada? Moondragon21 (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I think it's worth noting that Ontario has a separate page potentially as it the largest province with 124 seats in their legislature, and there would be article size related constraints to not doing so. Similar to how federal elections in Canada have their own distinct results page see Results of the 2021 Canadian federal election by riding for the 2021 Canadian federal election. Can also be said, that both the Ontario page which is mentioned and the fed. election page follow a different design than the articles in this nomination.
        Given that results in both prov. and fed. elections in Canada vary tremendously by region of a province - or the country - i would make that case that regional groupings (of alphabetical constituencies) for election results makes considerable more sense than alphabetical across the whole province. But I would say that this is a conversation for a different forum other than AfD. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all These appear duplicative to the main articles. I do not see an advantage to list the results in a redundant page just to be able to use Template:Election box, and I don't see how 2020 British Columbia general election#Results by riding is "difficult to read". I think the concise table is much better than having dozens of the election box templates, and we should be moving away from the latter in general for pages that cover multiple elections. Reywas92Talk 16:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't mind that these articles exist, but I do agree with Bearcat that it's nice to have the ridings ordered by region and having an incumbent column, which these articles lack. Though, I do see why having the ridings ordered alphabetically would be useful as well. But, I'm not sure if just having a bunch of result templates by riding is all that useful other than to show the results by riding, alphabetically. They don't show the incumbents, and don't really let the reader compare the results with other ridings like a sortable list might accomplish. -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all articles mentioned in original nom. Articles are redundant (WP:REDUNDANTFORK) to the main page for each election, and don't provide any new valuable information that couldn't be found on each respective constituency/elected officeholder page. Using Ontario as an example doesn't make sense as it's the largest provinces, which may require a stand-alone article - not due to notability or ease - but due to overall article size - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • These would be valid forks if they needed to be (if the election article was long enough), but I agree as currently written they are duplicative, though they do present information in a slightly different format, so I don't think they're redundant. At the end of the day though we only need the results sorted one way. SportingFlyer T·C 01:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe at some point there will need to be a discussion about statistics and table use in Canadian election articles. Essentially, statistical information is repeated (i.e., Three results tables) and reorganized several times (i.e., below this) in Canadian election articles while there is limited substantive encyclopedic content about the election itself. However, addressing this issue, there appears to be three methods to display the statistical results of Canadian elections, they each convey slightly different information in a different manner.
1. Candidate Table: generally a table organized on the axis of electoral district (x) and political party (y) that provides the name of each candidate, as well as the incumbent (if present). Some include the number of votes and percentage of total votes each candidate received. BC 2001 Name and Votes Example, AB 1909 Name, Vote and %. As a note, I have created several of these in the past, but other users have also created these tables.
2. Statistical Table: tables created by @Raellerby that provide statistical information regarding the number of votes and party choice of each electoral district. BC 2001 Statistical Table Example.
3. CanElec Template Lists: tables created by @Moondragon21 that incorporates the individual electoral district's CanElec result template for each district in the election. Note, this is the standard used for pages for individual electoral districts when displaying historical election results.
Personally, it is my opinion that only one of the Candidate Table and Statistical Tables should be the primary method of displaying election results in the article. The Candidate Table effectively lists each candidate that participated in the election, which is desirable because notable individuals may stand in an election but not be elected. The Statistical Table effectively lists important information about vote counts, pluralities, and other similar information in a sortable manner. It is my opinion that only one should appear on the main article because these articles are becoming too long to meaningfully navigate. A results page would take a vast majority of this other statistical content out of the main article (Example almost everything below this). However, shorter provincial election pages may be able to fit both Candidate Table and Statistical Tables on the main article. Once there is sufficient encyclopedic content on a provincial election page, then a specific results page can be created. - Caddyshack01 (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Caddyshack01 has summarized the situation and issues succinctly. I created the Statistical Tables to better align Canadian election articles with those for the UK parliamentary elections, and they have turned out to be much more revealing compared to the Candidate Tables.Raellerby (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do have the results by candidate already in the main election articles. We need either that or these, not both. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Still fails SPORTSCRIT. Courtesy ping Geschichte JayCubby 04:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Some sources are simply the trailers, and nearly all of the cited reviews are listed as generally unreliable on WP:ICTFSOURCES (123telugu, IndiaGlitz, FilmiBeat), or don't provide enough coverage (Telangana Today). No idea about the reliability of the 10tv.in review, but the theprimetalks.com source looks more like a blog. It is entirely possible that I missed some coverage in Telugu, so please ping me if more sources are found. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 04:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @ARandomName123 This is Sazh, and I had the privilege of working with team of Shukra. As noted, the film was released during the COVID-19 period, which significantly impacted its promotional activities due to limitations faced by the PR and digital marketing teams, and my sincere thanks to @Jeraxmoira for identifying the review from NTV. Considering these unique circumstances and the challenges in sourcing comprehensive reviews for the film, I kindly request you to review the provided sources and issue the clearance! Thesazh (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not advisable to create articles in which you have a conflict of interest, nor is it advisable to reveal your identity. The promotional activities by PR and digital marketing teams will likely have no impact on a film's notability because the criteria for inclusion are very different. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeraxmoira I understand the concerns regarding conflict of interest and the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's neutrality and notability guidelines. My intent in mentioning the promotional challenges was to provide context about the film's limited media coverage during its release period, not to justify its inclusion based on PR efforts. Thesazh (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Centerbase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of NCORP or SIGCOV, the references are mostly press releases or other non RSes. I couldn't find much on a BEFORE either. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Idoghor Melody (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, Software, and Texas. WCQuidditch 05:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I too struggled to find decent sources with significant coverage that aren't press releases or simply inclusion in a list of legal apps. The best I could do is: Rowland, Seth G.; Rowland, Samuel (2018). "Legal Apps for the Lawyer on the Go". GPSolo. 35 (3): 46–51. ISSN 1528-638X.. The article has a paragraph describing Centerbase as a "product outlier" in the cloud-based practice management category. I'd not consider that sufficient to establish notability, but maybe it would help if other complementary sources came to light. SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Avayalik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This needs to be redirected to Avayalik Islands, but I think that's a form of soft deletion and am so nominating it. Avayalik-1 is a Dorset archaeological site on the Avayalik Islands. The islands article has some cited content about the site, and the islands are notable primarily for their artifacts. This article seems to be about Avayalik-1, but written before dating established the site as Dorset. It should be redirected rather than deleted, because it's a plausible search term. Rjjiii (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection to Avayalik Islands
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears to be entirely promotional and lacks WP:SUSTAINED notability. Amigao (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the article to include Czech and Slovak sources, in which the company has sustained coverage going back to 2017. Below are examples, which show the company to be notable in the Central European startup and business community. Additionally, a search of Stack Overflow's site shows many pages of developer discussion about Apify, indicating its widespread use.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnookums123 (talkcontribs) 17:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – The subject does not have enough news coverage.

Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even though we suddenly have a week's worth of keep !votes, I question the neutrality of the new accounts that edit as if those contributors are not new (not that I'm saying this applies to all respondents). Additional views by some more of Wikipedia's demonstrably experienced contributors would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, see previous relisting comment. I'd like to hear evaluations from some more experienced AFD regulars. Also, Stack Overflow is not a reliable source.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glokk40Spaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Launchballer 01:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD. not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support out there for Deletion. It would also be nice to get another review of sources recently brought to this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryo Nakamura (footballer, born 1989) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Light years away from meeting WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Geschichte (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, but merge with corrections — this article seems like a duplication of the already-existing Reo Nakamura (footballer, born 1990) and hence a merge into the existing article may be more appropriate, once the errors have been corrected. It seems like the author of the article has made a spelling error, instead of “Reo” (the correct first name) they have put “Ryo” as the name of the subject and (for some reason) changed their DoB from 1990 to 1989.
The article's own source shows the name of the subject as “Reo”, not “Ryo” (as the author has put) and the correct DoB of the subject as 1990, not 1989 (as the author has put). The reason the others (CC: @GiantSnowman, @CommunityNotesContributor, @QEnigma) could not verify/find sources was because the author wrote the incorrect information on the Wikipedia article. The career statistics section, especially, I feel could be merged into the already existing article.
~~~~ Nyxion303💬 Talk 19:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted - but where is the significant coverage of this person? GiantSnowman 19:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For Reo Nakamura (correct name), I was able to find some through this Google search and this one1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 just to name a few.
At the moment, it appears the player plays for Ezra F.C., in the Pepsi Lao League 1.
~~~~ Nyxion303💬 Talk 19:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, your sources consist of match reports, database profiles and primary sources. Nothing come close to significant and independent coverage of the player. Geschichte (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion, would you say the player qualifies as being notable under WP:FOOTYN? Nyxion303💬 Talk 11:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FOOTYN is an essay, not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, and has no relevance in AfD's. The subject must pass WP:GNG with multiple significant sources from publications independent of the subject. Alvaldi (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In any event, "The player section of this notability guidance has been superseded by WP:Notability (sports)". GiantSnowman 21:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte: Of the seven sources, only the fifth one signals significant coverage on Nakamura as it tells about his personal life. However, one SIGCOV is not enough; the whole GNG needs multiple instead. Transfermarkt is obviously unnecessary to be added to Wikipedia articles as it is claimed unreliable. ⋆。˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚。⋆ 14:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there are still any valid arguments to Keep or Merge with another article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look likely as Reo Nakamura is currently at a 5-0 delete Geschichte (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep 5-1 surely? With @Nyxion303‘s keep vote, and 5-2 now… not that this is meant to be a vote I thought 😊 Anyway, as you pointed out @Geschichte, the fifth of Nyxion’s sources was SIGCOV, and I have another couple to add. this[57] and this[58]. For me the three taken together seem like enough. Absurdum4242 (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTAVOTE. GiantSnowman 21:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, that was rather my point. Absurdum4242 (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Absurdum4242 and Nyxion303. I once again request that those nominating and voting delete on Japanese-language articles show evidence of a WP:BEFORE search that includes sources in Japanese and competence to evaluate them before doing so as that clearly indicates that there is significant coverage.
DCsansei (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you reference this significant coverage you talk of please? CNC (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: All the recent !votes are keep, but we've got an almost unanimous delete out of the other AfD. Can we get a source table or something?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This person doesn't seem notable enough to me. I cannot find any news coverage about her. Aŭstriano (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The only "vote" is from an account that was created today. I'd like to hear more opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think she meets WP:CREATIVE #3: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Apart from her other work, she co-wrote and co-executive produced 3 seasons of See Dad Run, and that has been the primary subject of multiple independent reviews. Some of the references from the See Dad Run article could be added here. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per WP:Fancruft. This band does not seem to have received sufficient coverage outside of the Esperanto subculture. The only reference that is not in Esperanto is no longer retrievable. Aŭstriano (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procedural refiling of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thailand at the Big Four beauty pageants * Pppery * it has begun... 01:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hoping for more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Meets neither WP:DAB nor WP:NONENGLISHTITLE requirements. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2,3-Bis(acetylmercaptomethyl)quinoxaline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obscure chemical that I can only find two primary sources for in PubMed,[59][60] both of which are from the 1970s. Google search yields the two aforementioned sources, chemical databases, and Wikipedia. It's an anti-poliovirus drug but obviously doesn't have widespread use for that since polio is near eradication. It's also for herpes but doesn't seem to have any real-world usage in practice since other antivirals are used for that and there would be a lot more written about it if it were used. Velayinosu (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those three are all primary sources from the 1980s and for two of them I can't verify the information. Aren't secondary sources required for biomedical topics to be considered notable? WP:MEDRS is relevant here. Plus, we're talking about something that seemingly has <10 sources, all primary, all from 40+ years ago. Ribavirin's search results on PubMed for comparison.[61] What makes 2,3-Bis(acetylmercaptomethyl)quinoxaline notable? Velayinosu (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG. See Draft:Tamluk Royal Family; draft was repeatedly declined and then finally rejected for notability reasons before being recreated in article space regardless. As far as I can tell -- and I used Google Translate to search the cited Bengali sources for mentions of the word Tamluk in addition to checking Google Books for English sources -- none of the available secondary sources pass WP:SIGCOV. --Richard Yin (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sir check "Mahisya" word too..and it will pass..I have checked..I think we need bengali editors for it... KhasEkadashTili (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/History_Culture_and_Antiquities_of_T%C4%81mr/TCFuAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0&bsq=tamluk%20royal%20family%20mahishya KhasEkadashTili (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Richard Yin (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KhasEkadashTili: Please read WP:Notability, especially the section on significant coverage. It is not enough if a source only mentions the subject. The source needs to spend significant page space talking about the subject in detail, and as far as I can tell all of the books on Google Books only mention the Tamluk royal family once or twice. If you can show a chapter of a book that is about the Tamluk royal family or a news article written about their history or something they have done, that might show that the subject is notable and should have a Wikipedia article. --Richard Yin (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I shall show 117.194.225.93 (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Gupta_Empire/uYXDB2gIYbwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=tamluk+royal+family&pg=PA139&printsec=frontcover from 139 117.194.225.93 (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=RmIOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA64&dq=tamluk%20royal%20family&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwjHrrmGw-aKAxV1VmwGHVrxCogQ6AF6BAgGEAM&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR13h8c4kgWqat_gafWeAFXhuey6d55hz8jVOeo_8yNe4pl546FZaDrW9ls_aem_DBnlnbChSJtaPQ9v0D0VAw#v=onepage&q=tamluk%20royal%20family&f=false KhasEkadashTili (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this Book there is a whole chapter for this royal family..it is in bengali + there is mention of tamluk royal family throughout the book :-- https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.303693/page/n9/mode/2up KhasEkadashTili (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Richard Yin (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://purbamedinipur.gov.in/history/ government document
https://www.news18.com/news/india/ahead-of-bengal-municipal-polls-royal-descendant-dipendra-narayan-roy-visits-voters-4771787.html 117.194.225.93 (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/A_Statistical_Account_of_Bengal/HNgMAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 page 62 https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/History_Culture_and_Antiquities_of_T%C4%81mr/TCFuAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=tamluk%20royal%20family this book is about tamluk and it has mentioned tamluk royal family multiple times 117.194.225.93 (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://amritmahotsav.nic.in/district-reopsitory-detail.htm?26147 KhasEkadashTili (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sir I have added sources...check it!! KhasEkadashTili (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.telegraphindia.com/amp/my-kolkata/places/tamluk-a-port-city-as-old-as-the-mahabharata-yet-lost-in-history/cid/2028906 KhasEkadashTili (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Richard Yin (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
here is a source
[62]https://purbamedinipur.gov.in/history/?fbclid=IwY2xjawHrhzZleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHViXs5fyoJfVjCNxj4Czqq84XtauVUIKkwIVAQO5bDaMbxNzzoShG0o-iA_aem_325afzFF-Rf6zefgYRUqrQ Hamir samanta (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sir here another source page 213
[63]https://books.google.co.in/books?id=DT-i9HWMeNYC&q=tamluk+raja+mahishya&dq=tamluk+raja+mahishya&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwju9vuuyeaKAxXfUGwGHWZeJSg4FBDoAXoECAsQAw&fbclid=IwY2xjawHri8tleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHfwn9WHh0I78VyYVxEq0xu0XwuobnW2CkYMQ8_IGFsjzvMnAZyYDb2GLXw_aem_NpwPv57BqK4RYFDVwYaoHw#tamluk%20raja%20mahishya Hamir samanta (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hamir samanta @KhasEkadashTili: The sources you've listed here go into detail on Tamluk the town, but none of them (that I can read) have more than one sentence about the royal family. I'll see if someone else can check the Bengali sources, but please try to look for sources that provide significant detail about the royal family, not just about the town or the ruined palace. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion here. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Reposted discussion thread here. --Richard Yin (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is very far from a consensus right now and that hasn't been helped by sockpuppetry and iffy sources offered. So, I'm relisting this to get more feedback and, if editors are considering a Merge or Redirection, please offer ONE target article. If you want to rename this article, you'll need to argue to Keep it and then a rename can be considered. AFDs do not close as a rename as that's an editing decision, not a deletion decision.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I started this earlier today, but was informed that translations via Google Translate usually aren't acceptable. The reason I'm AfDing it is because looking back over it, I don't see WP:SIGCOV or WP:NORG being met, and didn't actually check notability prior to translation from Turkish German, which I think has different notability standards. EF5 00:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Page on an academic created as part of Wiki Education project, unfortunately with WP:NPROF being ignored. High citation area, so h-factor of 38 is fair but not yet passing #C1. He was recently promoted to full professor, no major awards and only WP:MILL mentions in minor science press -- WP:TOOSOON. (Unis have become quite good at promo for junior faculty.) Perhaps in a year or three it can be revived. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leans towards keep but lets relist for a firmer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NFILM, and also is WP:TOOSOON. Content was previously draftified but author returned it to mainspace without meaningful improvements to address previously noted notability concerns. Snowycats (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bus route with no indication of notability. Redirect to List of NJ Transit bus routes (1–99). JTtheOG (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bus route with no indication of notability. Redirect to List of NJ Transit bus routes (1–99). JTtheOG (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 Moldovan Youth League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Youth football season with no indication of notability. Pretty much every yearly edition of this article is sourced only to primary sources. I don't see a possible redirect target, either, as no article for the youth league itself exists. JTtheOG (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable album. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 14:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, all the covers have to indicate at least some level of long-term significance, at least for the eponymous song. Did you check those sources that appear in a Google Books search for Zana "Dodirni mi kolena"? --Joy (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy: Per WP:THREE which is best practice, can you post them up there so I can have a look at them. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 10:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually care that much to argue either way, I'm just asking if that was part of your WP:BEFORE routine. --Joy (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looking at the Google Books references (to address the above discussion), only one book mentions the subject twice; the others all only mention it once. I don't see the subject passing WP:SIGCOV. --Richard Yin (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The album and several singles were, and still are, highly popular in the former Yugoslavia. Under the legacy section, it is noted that songs from the album have been covered by other artists and achieved significant success with listeners. — Sadko (words are wind) 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact they popular doesnt' give them an automatic right to Wikipedia article. Is there coverage per WP:COVERAGE per WP:THREE. The gbook passing mentions are insufficient. This is place were discuss notability. A simple keep !vote doesn't cover any longer and hasn't since 2006. If you have evidence post it up. scope_creepTalk 11:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. @Sadko is right ngl 14:16, 13 January 2015
NovaExplorer37 (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 02:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Following brief discussion on the talk page, in which an editor drafted a new version of the article, it makes more sense to delete this article and for active contributors to create something in draftspace in due course. In its current form, it resembles a CV or promotional piece more than an encyclopedia article. The subject is mentioned in reliable sources but, again, too promotional to establish notability. Northernhenge (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 02:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.
Helleniac💬✒️ 03:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Egekent 2 railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing in the Turkish article shows it to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Chidgk1: I stumbled upon the article out of luck, and fail to see how it is not notable. In general, a railway station on a mainline is often enough to warrant an article on itself — especially if the system is a major one, like Marmaray or in this case IZBAN, there is almost always a coverage on the Commons & newspapers. Not having any sources on the article doesn't make it non-notable automatically, there are few but growing interest about maintaining transportation articles these days. And the article had been expanded and cited now, thanks to the efforts of @Central Data Bank and @Erdem Ozturk 2021. Strong keep I'd say. ahmetlii  (Please ping me on a reply!) 15:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 02:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable accounting school, ref 1 is a database entry, ref 2/3 is a primary ref, and ref 3 is a press release. Fails WP:NORG. Gheus (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 02:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article relies entirely on the publication itself to source the information. No hits in google scholar, and nothing viewable in google books with WP:SIGCOV although there were hits without viewable pages and a few non-notable hits. With zero secondary sources on this book, it fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GHITS. Hits in a search is listed as an argument to avoid at AFD. Those could all be passing mentions, or even advertisements for the book paid for by the publisher. I also don't have access to newspapers.com. If you find anything containing WP:SIGCOV in those sources by all means share it here or better yet add them to the article.4meter4 (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is one of those books where there's almost certainly SIGCOV somewhere but it's cited so often it's a nightmare to find. Nevertheless, after a search: there is an entry with sigcov in multiple books on "The Best Reference Books" [73] [74] (with different content). Also this newspaper review [75]. Willing to bet there is far far more, but there are as mentioned above 3000+ (!) mentions of it. Searching will likely be a pain, because this book is cited constantly. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the standard reference work on the game, and I'm sure there must be plenty of references to it to be found in bridge books and magazines. I'll see what I can find. Meanwhile putting in some cn tags might be a better approach than over-hasty deletion. JH (talk page) 09:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Howlett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Could not find notable sources other than stats pages. The pages that link to it also don't provide good sources. Heart (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of sections of Muslim feminism and does not meet WP:GNG; most sources in the article do not mention feminism/Muslim feminism at all. Helleniac (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails notability, her achievements as athlete are not much and as an official her position is not something special to make attention. no much coverage about her in general. Sports2021 (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This strikes me as an non-encyclopedic cross-categorization per WP:CROSSCAT; perfectly appropriate for a category but failing WP:NLIST under WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE given the massive volume of potential entries in this list. In a WP:BEFORE I find discussion of the concept of Ukrainian literature in translation but not a discussion of these subjects as a group (and the selection of them, if not indiscriminate, appears to be an exercise in original research). Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only sourced with its official website. Non-notable accounting school, fails WP:NORG. Gheus (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2014-05 (closed as speedy keep)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tagged for a year as unsourced and when I click the external link it blocks me Chidgk1 (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Helleniac (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC) (sock strike Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Kids Zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG: this is a press release and other articles just briefly mention it. I think WP:TOOSOON applies. Gheus (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has existed for seven years and seems to have a considerable following per my research. The article has issues and needs thorough editing, not deletion. Helleniac (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC) (sock strike Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Keep per @Helleniac. Cyber the tiger 🐯 (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:TOOSOON seems late to the party here. I see no reason to delete. Snowycats (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Express Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I had originally removed the programming section but restored for this AfD. The references fall well-short of WP:ORGCRIT. There are sources that verify shows but nothing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH which is required to show notability for companies. CNMall41 (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage from third-party sources to meet WP:GNG. The most I found was routine coverage like this game recap from the Grand Forks Herald or this short piece from Mid-Utah Radio. JTtheOG (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails to meet WP:N. I have been unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. The article's sources are mostly the subject's own works along with an article that quotes the subject a single time. Should be deleted per WP:GNG. --Helleniac (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Local sources only found. — Moriwen (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not notable; local sources only — Moriwen (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files

edit
File:Minions characters.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Carniolus (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image's role of illustrating Minions (Despicable Me) can be achieved with c:File:202406111126 IMG 1268.jpg on Commons; thus, it fails WP:NFCC#1. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nawaf Salam addressing UN General Assembly.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wbassi (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I declined a speedy deletion for copyright violation as this is not unambiguously a copyright violation. A lower resolution version of this image was deleted from Commons at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:AmbNawaf Salam addressing UN General Assembly.jpg. The image is no longer at the URL referenced in the Commons discussion. The comments from the uploader would seem to indicate that the photo was provided by the subject (Nawaf Salam) and he was granted some sort of permission. There is no evidence of what this permission is. As well, the subject of the photo would not be the copyright holder so permission would not be coming from the right source in any case. Whpq (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

edit

NEW NOMINATIONS

edit

Category:People wounded in the 20 July plot

edit
Nominator's rationale: Borderline C2C because thet siblings in Survivors of terrorist attacks use Survivors of FOO. But I wanted to see if I'm missing something SMasonGarrison 14:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:December 2009 sports events in Russia

edit
Nominator's rationale: De-tagged C1. Contains a single article about an event that happened in the Asian side of the country. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 10:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kho Kho infobox templates

edit
Nominator's rationale: Declined C1 as non-empty, but useless for navigation as it contains one template that is already in another category. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 10:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century Cameroonian sculptors

edit
Nominator's rationale: 3x upmerge this category is unhelpful for navigation with only one person in it. Also merge to 20th-century sculptors SMasonGarrison 03:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Events by month

edit
Nominator's rationale: The purpose of these categories is to diffuse years into months. Having "events" in the title is a bit redundant. Same rationale as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 24#Events by year. Anything further in the tree can be speedied. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, Peterkingiron, Fayenatic london, Tim!, Oculi, and Black Falcon: pinging participants of the previous discussion. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Autistic transgender people

edit
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:EGRS, I don't this we need to diffuse this 3x intersection. SMasonGarrison 02:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Foreign military personnel killed in the Syrian civil war

edit
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between being non-syrian, being in the military, and participating in the civil war. It would just be better to actually categorize these people by their nationality. SMasonGarrison 04:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Foreign civilians killed in the Syrian civil war

edit
Nominator's rationale: No need to distinguish that they're "Foreign civilians", furthermore, many of these people were journalists, which already exists as a catregory Category:Journalists killed while covering the Syrian civil war. SMasonGarrison 04:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison: What about Category:Foreigners killed in the Syrian civil war in general? AHI-3000 (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have mixed feelings about it. If both nominations go through it would be empty. SMasonGarrison 14:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison: Shouldn't it be nominated together with all the other "Foreign people in the Syrian civil war" categories? And for that matter, why is the discussion for the "foreign soldiers in Syria" categories in a separate section below? AHI-3000 (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I used the CFD tool to nominate them, so that defaults to doing them separately. SMasonGarrison 20:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1810s–1830s in New Zealand

edit
Nominator's rationale: Merge small year categories to the decade level, as recommended in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_4#Category:1809_in_New_Zealand. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1822 establishments in New Zealand

edit
Nominator's rationale: Two categories that collectively contain two articles, one of which is already in a more specific eatablishment subcategory. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Romani genocide victims

edit
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer with survivors and those who died as a result. SMasonGarrison 14:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British Honduras women activists

edit
Nominator's rationale: Can we repurpose this category into the ungendered parent category? I don't see a possibility of British Honduras women activists being sufficiently populated, but maybe British Honduras activists could? Right now there's only Vivian Seay in it. SMasonGarrison 18:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to form consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is now a parent.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d) 00:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Murders in Paraguay by year

edit
Nominator's rationale: Not useful for navigation. Merge/delete per WP:NARROW/WP:OCYEAR. Manually merge to the third target. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Murders in Puerto Rico by year

edit
Nominator's rationale: Not useful for navigation. Merge/delete per WP:NARROW/WP:OCYEAR. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1857 murders in Mexico

edit
Nominator's rationale: Not useful for navigation. Merge/delete per WP:NARROW/WP:OCYEAR. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

edit

Viral fever

edit

Creator says this is an alternative name for influenza in Indian English. I can't find any quotations supporting this usage. Even if it does exist as an obscure term, it seems this redirect could mislead or confuse readers unfamiliar with it. Anonymous 14:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

N°7

edit

Strangely formatted redirect with an unclear function. Delete. Anonymous 14:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

جرس

edit

no particular affinity with arabic demonstrated in the target. not entirely sure there would be a more fitting target either, as nothing seems to be primarily known by this name consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 14:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Video clip

edit

While this is mentioned in the target article, and this should definitely not be deleted, I don't believe that this is the primary topic. Potential disambiguation or retarget? -1ctinus📝🗨 14:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Short-form content, along with the plural. CheeseyHead (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current and suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Harry Potter

edit

Not all criticism of Harry Potter qualifies as a "religious debate". JJPMaster (she/they) 19:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

retarget to politics of Harry Potter, since it's categorized as controversies. Skemous (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
retarget per Ca. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skemous (talkcontribs) 06:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the DAB page Controversy over the Harry Potter series, where all forms of criticism are linked. Ca talk to me! 05:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Harry Potter#Reception, which includes "Literary criticism" and "Thematic critique" subsections. Criticism doesn't imply controversy, especially in a literary context. pburka (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current and suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Land drainage (disambiguation)

edit

Now that Land drainage (disambiguation) has been merged into Drainage by @Klbrain:, this title is no longer required (noting it has history as a disambiguation page rather than as an article) because the target is not a disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The page was there for a very long time (since 2007). The chances of it having incoming links from somewhere are high. Avoiding link rot is a worthwhile goal. While we certainly wouldn't create the page if it didn't exist today, that doesn't mean we have to delete it. There's no awards for tidiness here, and redirects are WP:CHEAP. Fieari (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Channel Canada

edit

On January 1, 2025, Discovery Channel in Canada was rebranded to USA Network by Bell Media. At the same time, a new Discovery Channel was launched, but owned by Rogers Media. Someone recently retargeted this to the new Discovery, but I'm not sure this is a good idea.

Many articles already link to this redirect in the context of the "old" Discovery Channel, particularly when mentioning Mayday (Canadian TV program). So I'm wondering, should this redirect instead stick with the "old" Discovery Channel given its usage? Limmidy (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to disambiguation. Heyaaaaalol (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ambient jungle

edit

Article has previously linked to a sub-section of the Jungle music article about sub-genres. That section no longer exists and there is no term "Ambient jungle" or any similar term on the page. Term for a genre or sub-genre of this does not appear to be in common use. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was removed from the target during a major rewrite by IP 77.86.103.78 whose edit summary said Commenced re-work and re-structuring, refs to be re-structured and added shortly, but that editor didn't add back the sub-genres. Probably retarget to Drum and bass#Light drum and bass which is the target of piped link Intelligent jungle, the alternate name for Ambient jungle, as stated by the redirect creator when he added the term to the target. Jay 💬 15:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Androidism

edit

Confusing term defined by Wiktionary as "the quality of being an android". At the very best, it might get a soft redirect there, but it seems unnecessary given the obscurity of this term. Anonymous 22:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget soft to wiktionary:androidism per nom. 67.209.130.188 (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the dole

edit

I think that this redirect should target Unemployment benefits, not the Dole DAB page. I cannot think of any other way of using this phrase that would involve anything else listed there. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Devlin Granberg

edit

Non-notable retired minor league player. See: Special:Diff/1167647687 Chew(VTE) 05:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trans*

edit

Retarget to Transgender#Other terms. Trans* encompasses more labels, other than transgender and transsexual, and it's covered there. LIrala (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

🫃🏻

edit

Retarget to Pregnant man or pregnancy, consistent with 🫄 and 🫄. LIrala (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

🜬

edit

Following ⚧'s RFD, retarget to Gender symbol § Sexual orientation and gender politics where it's mentioned, because this obscure alchemical symbol is neither mentioned or alluded to/illustrated in the current target. This symbol became increasingly used since 2016 with a lot of memes based in this image, which probably is based in this proposal.[77]. While these are primary sources, it should be noted that in gender symbol it is reliably sourced.

A dab for , a similar symbol, exists and that's a possible result for 🜬, or wiktfying, such as these. LIrala (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kennedy (broadcaster)

edit

Not mentioned in the target article. The redirect has a number of incoming links, which suggests that either the subject should be developed or all of those should be unlinked. BD2412 T 03:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Crusaders Drum and Bugle Corps

edit

No mention at target article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I can't have you, I don't whant nobody baby

edit
  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy deleted

Hind Rajab Foundation

edit
  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy deleted

Templates and Modules

edit

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 14:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 14:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 14:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 14:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 14:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 14:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 14:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Single use template The Banner talk 14:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Single use template The Banner talk 14:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 14:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 14:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flags are unsuitable in navboxes per WP:NAVDECOR. In any case navbox is redundant to {{List of European capitals by region}}. --woodensuperman 11:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

K.M.S.K. Deinze went bankrupt in December 2024 and ceased to exist. Pelotastalk|contribs 08:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. It seems like it might be useful, but it was created in 2012 and has no uses. Maybe there is a different template that meets the need for this one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions. Created in 2007. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or incoming links to explain why this template exists. Created in 2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When an editor is working in draft-space on an article that could eventually become the target of a highly red-linked article in main space (such at those at WP:WANTED), the hope is that this notice might help give pause for editors that might otherwise over-zealously "clean up" draft space. --N8wilson 🔔 04:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or incoming links. Created in 2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions of this subpage. It appears to be identical to this version from the page history, which is easily accessible. We don't need to keep specific revisions of existing pages as a record, since the record is always available. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany

edit

Deletion review

edit

The article is still in the simple english version, what is the problem? On the search engine Bing, Peter Fiekowsky has more than 2 million views, and it is just about having this valuable scientist and author on wikipedia: the article started as follows: Peter Fiekowsky is an American author, physicist and founder of the field of climate restoration and author of "Climate Restoration: The Only Future That Will Sustain the Human Race" (Rivertown Books, 2022). He has founded the Foundation for Climate Restoration, Methane Action, Stable Planet Alliance, the Climate Restoration Safety & Governance Board, among others.'

I contacted the administrator who deleted the article, with no answer from him or her. Is it an action of hostility towards the climate policies? Thank you if you can help to restore this.