Wikipedia:XfD today

Shortcuts

This page transcludes all of the deletion debates opened today on the English-language Wikipedia, including articles, categories, templates, and others, as a convenience to XfD-watchers. Please note that because this material is transcluded, watchlisting this page will not provide you with watchlist updates about deletions; WP:DELT works best as a browser bookmark checked regularly.

Speedy deletion candidates

Articles

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 08	August 10 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Vladyslav Kalyn

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

Appears to be a very young player who may have WP:SIGCOV one day but does not currently meet those standards. Anwegmann (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yaroslav Kysil

AfDs for this article:

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

An AfD was recently opened on this article, and the result was to delete it. It has since been created again with no meaningful improvement. Anwegmann (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolaus von Braun

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

This is a weird one. This guy was quartermaster of the garrison regiment of Malmo, Sweden in the early 1700s. Which seems to have been the town guard. Obviously in modern terms being a department chief in a city's police department wouldn't warrant a Wikipedia article by itself, but does it historically? I don't honestly know. The impetus for the Wikipedia article is a 30-page article in a local history yearbook, the citation for which I've cleaned up with a URL which I invite commenters to look at, especially if you speak Swedish. I doubt there are any other internet-accessible sources.

The source material is written in an academic style with citations, but many seem to be general ones for historical context, rather than ones that actually mention von Braun. He seems to only be documented in primary sources found by the chapter's writers, which in theory is fine. Their book chapter is a secondary source which Wikipedia can cite. It is likely to be the only valid source for Wikipedia on von Braun, though. Is that enough? Again, I don't honestly know. This is an AFD where I'm asking what you all think, rather than saying we definitely need to delete the article.

Reading the source through auto-translation it seems to be much more speculative than the Wikipedia article implies, with much of the information about von Braun being guesses and suppositions. It does seem like a bit of hyper-local history. In Wikipedia terms, it will probably be difficult to create meaningful inbound links (I found this article trying to create links to old orphan articles). And it's hard to imagine who's going to be getting useful information from a vague article about a city guard quartermaster from 300 years ago. I know you could make the "it's not useful..." argument for lots of Wikipedia articles, and Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia so it's fine to have articles on very obscure things, but in this case, I mean... who actually is needing this vague information about a city guard quartermaster who didn't do anything notable?

The article was created by a user who was long ago banned, with the central issue seeming to be stretching sources way too far to write content on hyper-local topics... which sounds exactly like what might be going on here right? Here2rewrite (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I ran the name through Project Runeberg [1] and nothing pops up. If there's no biography there, I'm going to say this person isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, and Sweden. C F A 💬 04:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is not importance so the significance of his office or whether he "did anything notable" is not relevant. All that matters if whether there are enough reliable sources to write a basic biography. Between the thirty pages written about him in the academic edited volume already cited and the literature list therein (most of which are not primary, and several appear to contain significant coverage based on how Norström & Bjernehed cite them, e.g. Den Aran Pommern harstammande svenska atten von Braun and Den med skoldebref forldnade men ej riddarhuset Introducerade svenska adelns attar-tailor). This is a local historical subject but that doesn't exclude it from Wikipedia – Malmö is a city of 350,000 people with an 800 year history, lots of people will be interested in it, even if the nominator isn't. What it does mean is that we shouldn't expect the sources to be an easy google away; they'll be in local libraries, in Swedish, and likely not digitised. – Joe (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't have these sources, likely existing isn't good enough. All we have is one biography. Oaktree b (talk) 04:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I listed three specific sources. There's Nörstrom & Bjernehed, "Nicolaus von Braun - the major city of Malmö 1705–1710", available online; Schlegel, Den med sköldebref förlänade men ej å Riddarhuset introducerade svenska adelns ättar-taflor, available online; and Sundberg, Den Frȧn pommern Härstammande svenska ätten von braun, available in several libraries. And that's just from a five minute search by somebody who doesn't understand Swedish very well. Sources don't have to be easy to find to be useable. – Joe (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTGENEALOGY and the latter two are certainly genealogical reference books. Geschichte (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTGENEALOGY says family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic. What part of that excludes considering independent, secondary, reliable sources on genealogy when assessing notability? – Joe (talk) 10:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do those sources contain WP:Significant coverage, i.e. non-genealogical coverage, of the subject? TompaDompa (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not agree that the sources mentioned above are significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chorzew Siemkowice railway station

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

It exists, but this railway stop doesn't meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Polish wiki has two articles that seem to be about the place [2], [3]. It's talked about here [4] and here [5]. Could probably bring enough info together to make a basic article... They seem to be wanting to bring trains back to the line (or have done so already) in 2024, based on the bits I could translate. Oaktree b (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and Poland. C F A 💬 04:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oaktree b. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Polish Coal Trunk-Line, with positive prejudice for recreation once someone will write an article with some substance. In theory, there is nothing wrong with having this article. In practice there is. It's a premature SPINOFF and shouldn't be kept in present form. gidonb (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as an editorial matter, I agree with gidonb that redirection is the best outcome. No prejudice toward future expansion. Suriname0 (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin Wandelaar

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. No sources. --Bocanegra (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Superleague Formula 2009: The Game

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

This game fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NVIDEOGAMES. Looking at it via WP:BEFORE, not a single review exist for this game. Neither a single source exist for it too. Sank without trace like the eponomous race series. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnar Malmqvist

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Sweden. LibStar (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – same as my argument for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Long (speedway rider) thathe was one of the title clinching finalist of a world championship event, thus he should be able to pass WP:NMOTORSPORT. WP:ATD will be to draftify for expansion. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Commenting here to note to the closing administrator that no such criteria exists in NMOTORSPORT. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've added one additional reference from a Swedish newspaper, but I've only got access to things far more recent than Gunnar Malmqvist's career at home. A search in he newspaper archive of the Royal Library of Sweden gives some promising results, if someone's got access to it through e.g. the university connection (though it's the wrong time of the year to be present on campus, I suppose). /Julle (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Sources are third party sources. Passes WP:NMOTORSPORT.BabbaQ (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources are not third party. Can you state which criteria of NMOTORSPORT is applicable? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did BabbaQ actually look at this article? LibStar (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please address the sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Narendra Bhooshan

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable civil servant. Civil servants aren't eligible under WP:NPOL, therefore notability needs to be established per WP:GNG, but the sources cited don't come even close to achieving this, being a mix of appointment announcements, primary sources, and ones where the subject is commenting on something ex officio. BEFORE finds nothing better.

This has been draftified (twice) already, so that's not an option, and I didn't think A7 would stick, hence here we are. The last discussion had minimal participation, so hoping for a bit more this time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Uttar Pradesh. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: While not cited in this article, this person was head of the early COVID-19 pandemic response in a nationally significant city in India as "the most senior official in the Gautam Budh Nagar district".^[1] Probably warranting an article. Tsarivan613 (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sources that discuss what he accomplished during his time as the head of the COVID-19 pandemic response team? If not, this would end up being just like every other regular announcement article. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like he helped arrange an oxygen generation security plan for Noida city during early 2021.^[2] India had been experiencing shortages of supplemental oxygen during the delta variant wave.^[3] Tsarivan613 (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The TOI source only mentions his comment on the issue. He gives out interview bytes all the time, since he is the head of the team. This falls under routine coverage and the journal entry does not mention him. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see a lot of trivial coverage and then some more significant coverage that isn't independent or from WP:RS. But I think this has potential for a !keep if the only concern is notability. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Rajput, Vinod (31 March 2020). "Greater Noida CEO to handle Covid-19 crisis after DM is shunted - Hindustan Times". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 2 August 2024.
^ Sinha, Snehil (24 May 2021). "Noida to form four oxygen supply chains". Times of India. Retrieved 2 August 2024.
^ Moonis Mirza; Madhur Verma; Soumya S. Sahoo; Sanjay Roy; Rakesh Kakkar; Dinesh K. Singh (2023). "India's Multi-Sectoral Response to Oxygen Surge Demand during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review". Indian Journal of Community Medicine. 48 (1): 31–40. doi:10.4103/ijcm.ijcm_665_22. PMC 10112770. PMID 37082381.

Delete: The person's biography doesn't indicate any notability. Routine career and education coverage that reads like a resume of any mediocre official. The 3 articles noted by Tsarivan613 all mention the official as the one who is a part of the Indian Health organization. They don't actually highlight his special role of something really important he did during Covid-19 except for being elected as a supervisor in a specific region. Obviously too early for a separate Wikipedia page. 50.46.167.81 (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LineLab

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

Relatively new product where the only sources about its uses are by the original creators; some third party sources are not relevant as they do not discuss the software. Page was previously tagged by @Chaotic Enby and Jlwoodwa: for promotional tone and other issues. Tags were removed without a significant change in tone, and without adding sources to demonstrate notability. I find nothing in Google search except the company itself, so it is time for an AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

East African Air

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

I haven’t found any sources, and the sources only show an 404 error. And the doing research I only find articles about an private airline from Kenya, so it’s probably a hoax. Protoeus (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Tanzania. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baloch yakjehti committee

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

Questionable notability per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Note that this appears to be a rewrite of a declined draft about the same organization by the same author: Draft:Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC). The same issues regarding formal tone appropriate for an encyclopedia noted as problematic in the declined draft seem to afflict this version. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per NORG, though the article should be rewritten. Significant coverage in this Asian News International article, this Dawn article, this Times of India article, this The Wire article, etc. C F A 💬 23:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how they left "Sure, here’s how you can add a zone category list to your infobox:" in while copying from ChatGPT. C F A 💬 23:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge with Mahrang Baloch~~~~: or Baloch Long March. This organization itself may not satisfy SIGCOV~~ — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Baloch Long March was a past and single event, so it cannot represent the whole BYC. See my comment and the VoA and Al Jazeera sources as justification below. Balochpal (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge: Fails WP:GNG as many sources listed are from unreliable news sites (some of which I've removed) and also lacks WP:SIGCOV. Would also support content worth merging to Baloch Long March Axedd (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It does meet GNG; the sources just aren't in the article.

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:CFA
https://www.dawn.com/news/1845830/baloch-yakjehti-committee-postpones-sit-in-after-agreement-with-govt	Listed on WP:NPPSG as reliable	About the organization	✔ Yes
https://theprint.in/world/pakistan-baloch-yakjehti-committee-establishes-central-organising-body-mahrang-baloch-chosen-central-organiser/2131286/	Listed on WP:NPPSG as reliable	About the organization	✔ Yes
https://m.thewire.in/article/south-asia/a-baloch-national-gathering-against-enforced-disappearances-and-human-rights-abuses/amp	Listed on WP:NPPSG as generally reliable	About the organization	✔ Yes
https://www.geo.tv/latest/556473-baloch-yakjehti-committee-sit-in-enters-third-day	~ Listed on WP:NPPSG as "leaning towards reliable"	About the organization	~ Partial
https://www.newsx.com/world/baloch-yakjehti-committee-to-run-endbalochgenocide-campaign-against-pakistan-atrocities/	Not listed anywhere, but no reason to assume it's not reliable	About the organization	✔ Yes
https://www.aninews.in/news/world/asia/byc-urges-rights-body-to-intervene-amid-escalating-abuses-in-balochistan20240724190635	~ No consensus on reliability	About the organization	~ Partial
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/baloch-yakjehti-committee-criticises-pakistan-for-atrocities-against-people-of-balochistan/articleshow/111632036.cms	~ No consensus on reliability	About the organization	~ Partial
https://www.lokmattimes.com/international/baloch-yakjehti-committee-steps-up-efforts-for-national-gathering/	Not listed anywhere, but no reason to assume it's not reliable	About the organization	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

That is a source assessment based on significant coverage by major news outlets. Even if we discount the non-listed or no-consensus sources, there are still three reliable sources that offer significant coverage. They just need to be added to the article when it is rewritten. C F A 💬 23:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources like ANI and Times of India are not reliable for the topic. WP:RSPANI Look here for further information. Any India related news site is unreliable when it comes to political topics about Pakistan as the govt has vested interest involved. Other sources do exist but they fail to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV as of now. Axedd (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which is why I marked them as "No consensus" on the chart above. There are still at least 3 reliable, independent sources that offer significant coverage of the organization, which shows that it meets WP:NORG. We can't say something fails GNG just because other unreliable sources happen to have also covered the topic. C F A 💬 00:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per user:CFA. Plus, also check other sources like VoA, Al Jazeera, ABC News, etc as they also mention the BYC. Additionally, please fix the capitalization in the article title (with B, Y and C in capital letters).Balochpal (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC) — Balochpal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hello user:CFA. Can you add the above recent sources, plus Amnesty International, Arab News and The Diplomat, to your table as well? They need to be added to the article also. Balochpal (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom as the article fails WP:GNG and is already covered in the Baloch Long March. Ainty Painty (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: as per the Voice of America, a reliable and authentic source, the Baloch Long March was a past event, not a present event, that happened months ago. (The Al Jazeera news doesn't event mention the long march when discussing the BYC). How would you use it to cover the broader topic of the whole BYC? VoA: Late last year, BYC led a 1,600-kilometer march to Islamabad with families awaiting the return of their loved ones gone missing in the fight between the state and Baloch separatists. Protesters faced severe police action as they tried to enter the capital. Demonstrators, braving the cold for days, eventually left after authorities warned of an imminent security threat. Balochpal (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage provided by CFA is sufficiently convincing to meet the GNG, so I propose that we keep this article. At the very least, it should be merged with Mahrang Baloch rather than being deleted entirely. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not agree with merging as the BYC is a significant political movement and the article on BYC has room for expansion using the existent reliable sources. Yes, Mahrang Baloch is one main leader, but the BYC also has other well-known leaders, like Sammi Deen Baloch, as well as many male leaders. Balochpal (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Balochpal, You don't need to respond to every comment. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a conflict of interest due to the name of the deletion subject and the word before pal in their name Felicia (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Felicia, I have no conflict of interest. My involvement is purely to ensure accurate representation of the BYC, based on verifiable sources (e.g., Dawn, Al Jazeera, Voice of America, The Diplomat, Amnesty International, etc). Balochpal (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Opinions offered for Keep, Merge and Deletion closures. But I haven't seen a good response to the results in the source analysis table that indicate that GNG is established by a sufficient number of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Educational Basketball

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

Disputed draftification, whcih leaves AfD as the route for articles with insufficient referencing and failing WP:GNG. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball, Africa, and Nigeria. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no opposition to draftify, but my BEFORE doesn't show any promise this passes NCORP as I did't find any sources about the organization that satisfied all three of independent, reliable and SIGCOV. Though, happy to be proven wrong by a demonstration of WP:THREE, as always. Bobby Cohn (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as it is mentioned in multiple sources. As an academy it has produced some upcoming notable players. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farm Credit Bank of Texas

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Haven't managed to find a single independent piece offering significant coverage. There are a few trivial namedrops here and there and that's about it. C F A 💬 19:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Economics, and Texas. C F A 💬 19:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kingo Root

AfDs for this article:

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

Same as previous AfD (Possibly malware, few and unreliable sources, written somewhat like an ad) – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 16:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 16:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ as nominator. Additionally, KingRoot and Kingo Root may be different. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 19:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC) (your nomination is your "vote", this could be seen as a duplicate vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD, so Soft Deletion is not an option. To the nominator, your nomination is seen as your vote, please do not vote additional times.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CNET from 2016 and DigitalTrends are reliable according to RSP. 1/4 of the content is devoted to the malware suspicions so I don't see how it's writen like an ad, nor is "possibly malware" a valid deletion rationale. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denny Draper

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Only secondary sources in the article and found during WP:BEFORE check are match reports with surface level coverage of the subject. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and England. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I am happy with the sources in the article, young player with on going career, although somewhat primary heavy, there seems enough to show basic. Govvy (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources do you believe contain significant coverage of the subject? AlexandraAVX (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG and SIGCOV is only intended for non-specific topics per WP:SNG. Please see BASIC and SPORTBASIC for notability of people (basic criteria) as well as for athletes (additional criteria per WP:SPORTSPERSON). Hence there is a distinct difference for people compared to general topics: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". CNC (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. All I see here are primary sources, passing mentions, and some YouTube clips. Let'srun (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (contributor). I tried improving this to bring it back to mainspace, based on elements of BASIC per SPORTBASIC (the guidelines that covers the notability of people and athletics), as a combination of secondary sources, rather than the need for exclusive SIGCOV (the guidelines that covers the notability of general topics). So far there is Sky Sports and BBC for this, which I believe is beyond trivial, and borderline BASIC per Govvy comment. It's otherwise unfortunately that the BBC's Women's Football Show episodes are no longer available, as I remember distinct post-game coverage of Draper after her initial goal; that of her international career, prospects and style of play (beyond ROUTINE), that would certainly cross the threshold for basic notability (people and sports-related). I'll try find a copy of this somewhere to see if it could be used as a cite av media ref, even if not possible as an online source. I think it's also fair to assume basic based on "they have achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level", that of being top scorer in the U17 Euro qualifying, as subjectively the U17 Euros are the highest level of competition at that age range, though I can understand how this is intended for senior competitions only, as well as only a guide to likelihood of notability, as opposed to notability itself. Either way, it wouldn't be too much of a loss if the page get's deleted, as I suspect there will be SIGCOV soon enough for it to return. It would be unfortunate for an active WSL player to have their page deleted, but based on policy/coverage it'd be understandable. I can only assume it's age-related as to why there isn't further coverage, given she would be one of the very few active WSL players to have scored a league goal and not have an article. CNC (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have added a third source for notability [6], so per above comment, that should cover SPORTBASIC. The online source is unavailable, but can be verified here, or otherwise by requesting archival footage from the BBC for non-commercial purposes if preferred (but otherwise nothing wrong with citing media as RS per WP:PUBLISHED). I realise as well that ROUTINE only covers local sources for sport, so with BBC and Sky Sports, game coverage counts for multiple sig cov. At least, I think it's hard to argue that coverage of scoring the winning goal in an important game isn't significant. We can get round to the YT argument if needed, but as it's a verified account from a reliable source (Sky Sports Football) it is "inheriting their level of reliability" per WP:RSPYOUTUBE so shouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Routine is definitely not restricted to local sources; per policy: For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage. NSPORT's requirement that local sources cannot be routine game coverage does not mean only local sources can be routine game coverage. The video is primary and does not contain encyclopedic coverage: it is routine match commentating and amounts to no more than a sentence or two at most: absolutely not SIGCOV. If this was sufficient for NSPORT purposes we would have articles on every DI and probably DII college football player. JoelleJay (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons stated above, but also worth adding here that Draper recently signed a pro contract with Leicester. Until now, her WSL appearances had been as an academy player mostly coming off the bench, so reasonable chance of her making match day squads more often. Delete this article and we could end up having to restore it long before Christmas. Leonstojka (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The sources present in the article seem enough to WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing is far too weak and transactional to meet GNG and especially YOUNGATH, and SPORTCRIT is absolutely not met by one or two sentences of unscripted video commentary on one match. JoelleJay (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no instance of WP:SIGCOV in an independent, reliable source as required under WP:NSPORT, and thus the subject also fails WP:GNG which requires multiple instances. Sourcing is limited to WP:ROUTINE match coverage, stats pages, and coverage in affiliated sources. Per a "keep" voter's assertion that she may become more notable in the future given her career prospects, I would be open to a "draftify" outcome if others believe that would be productive; ping me if so and I'll reconsider my current !vote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as this appears to be the case that notability is not quite there, but due to the age of the subject and current state of the article, 'sufficient' notability could exist within the next year. C 679 10:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Space Launch System (Turkey)

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

Not notable enough to have its own article. No objection if anyone merges it into Space program of Turkey as an alternative to deletion Chidgk1 (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spaceflight and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Seems to meet GNG, various independent sources Lordseriouspig 20:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eatliz

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

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

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

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

Non-notable band. Searches show up only one newspaper article, and most links to their music on various streaming sites. (Note: searching for the band's name in Hebrew is practically impossible, since their Hebrew name just means "butcher shop", according to Google translate). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added the band's three albums. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idaho Freedom Caucus

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

Fails WP:NORG. All coverage I can find is either routine and trivial. The best article available is this short routine AP piece about starting it. Most other coverage focuses on members of the caucus with trivial namedrops. WP:ORGTRIV applies here. C F A 💬 17:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Idaho. C F A 💬 17:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete created by User:IdahoPolitics a sock puppet of User:Tyler Ricks fails WP:NORG. Theroadislong (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. Axad12 (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:ATD is a redirect or selective merge to Idaho Republican Party#History. Curbon7 (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Chen

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

Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable entrepreneur who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Promo article. Fjnat (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and China. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG. They are at least three sources in the article that gives him significant coverage. Subject had won and received nominations for various awards alongside notable Chinese entrepreneurs. Nothing looks promotional in the article but if they exist AFD is not a place to treat promotional issues, it should be cleaned up. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has received WP:SIGCOV in RS and satisfies WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the subject has received WP:SIGCOV in RS because he has not appeared in RS at all. None of the refs cited in the article are reliable sources and most of them are written in a promotional tone, especially the Chinese ones. A further in-depth search also failed to show any reliable, independent secondary sources about him. Fjnat (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think you’ve fully read the link that the page already contains. Alternatively, you might be viewing the page from your own perspective, questioning the media’s fairness without providing reliable evidence, simply claiming it’s unreliable. The latest update I’ve seen comes from the Retures articles.[[7]] 114.45.26.245 (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: No effective references to establish notability. No sign of independent sigcov. The subject has NOT received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

~~1).None of the references cited in the article are reliable sources and most of them are written in a promotional tone, especially the Chinese ones.~~
2).The "Fortune China's 40 Under 40 List" is NOT published by Fortune Magazine, but by the Chinese version of the magazine. The Chinese version of the magazine is far less reliable than that of the English version. The "Fortune China's 40 Under 40 List" is far less influential and recognizable than that of the Fortune Magazine's 40 under 40 List. Being included on the "Fortune China's 40 Under 40 List" doesn't establish notability. As for the rest of the nominations and awards, they do even less to establish notability.

~~3).A further in-depth search also failed to show any reliable, independent secondary sources about him. Fjnat (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

You are the nominator and your nomination statement is your deletion comment/vote. You cannot vote twice. Closing admin please take note of this. Ednabrenze (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it passes notability guidelines. This reporting by China Daily [8] and this from China News Network [9] are reliable and significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Aadditionally, the subject has been listed in the Fortune China 40 Business Elites Under 40 and has also appeared in the Shanghai Top Ten Internet Entrepreneurs as well as being nominated for Green China Person of the Year 2020-2021. These are significant business notability particularly in China – a country of over a billion people. The Fortune China 40 Business Elites Under 40 is credible, reliable and notable in China and all count for the subject’s notability. Teto Amo (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are the creator of the article and it's no surprise that you voted to keep it. The content of the China Daily story is clearly promotional. Both China Daily and China News Network have low reputations and little reliability. None of them are reliable and significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Fjnat (talk) 07:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being selected as one of the "Top 10 Internet Entrepreneurs in Shanghai" and being nominated for "Green China Person of the Year" doesn't mean anything. They don't matter at all because their influence is insignificant. The "Fortune China's 40 Under 40 List" is far less influential and recognizable than that of the Fortune Magazine's 40 Under 40 List. More importantly, the "Fortune China's 40 Under 40 List" is a commercialized project, and any Chinese entrepreneur under the age of 40 can apply on his or her own by filling out the form. Therefore, being included on the "Fortune China's 40 Under 40 List" doesn't establish notability. Fjnat (talk) 11:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s really funny to see you using such discriminatory and offensive language. Moreover, I think you might not know how the internal process system of Under40 works.First of all, while the platform does allow for public submissions, it is not open to just anyone, so please don’t confuse the facts. There are certain thresholds for financing, profitability, and even the requirement for having outstanding products in the industry. Whether it’s Forbes or Fortune in China, or any regional version, they all adhere to principles of fairness and justice. It’s not about buying a spot on the list with money or getting selected by just filling out a form. I hope the editor can understand that international media groups have very strong principles of media integrity, regardless of the country. The list itself does not involve any fees, and only if additional sponsorship is required after the list is produced will there be any business expenses. For more information, please check the link below:FAQ link 114.45.26.245 (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fjnat (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep before search and review of the cited references show WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable secondary sources. Runmastery (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Forbes has become deprecated. Does not pass GNG. Bearian (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mention of Forbes in the article and Forbes is not cited as reference in it. Could you please point out the Forbes that has become deprecated and rendered the subject of the article non notable? You may need to review the article and its sources again. The 40 under 40 listed in the article comes from Fortune Magazine not Forbes. I think this is an oversight on your part given your experience as a former admin. Ednabrenze (talk) 05:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to point out that "The 40 Under 40" listed in the article IS NOT from Fortune Magazine but Fortune China (the Chinese version of the magazine). The Chinese version of the magazine is far less reliable than that of the English version. The 40 Under 40 List in the article is actually the "Fortune China's 40 Under 40 List". Fjnat (talk) 08:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was an oversight on Bearian's part, as he is an experienced lawyer, teacher, and Wikipedia user. He has become worried, as of July 2024, that certain sources cited are not as reliable as they used to be. In particular, Who's Who, Forbes, and the "Grey Lady" have made editorial decisions that make them less reliable than even four years ago [10]. Bearian is worried about RS, especially Forbes. The first sentence expresses his concern about the reliability of Forbes, and the second sentence is his opinion that the subject Does not pass GNG. I agree with Bearian that the subject does not pass GNG. And I think his opinion is important because the subject does not appear in RS. Fjnat (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t quite understand why this editor differentiates between Fortune and Fortune China, and then directly claims that their information is unreliable. I’d like to ask: would you differentiate between Fortune and Fortune Middle East or UK and say that they are unreliable? Fortune is a reputable global media group, and they establish branches in different countries to delve into regional issues. According to the editor’s perspective, does that mean other versions are unreliable and only the main Fortune is credible? This is my concern. 114.45.26.245 (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the website of Fortune, and their own site is very clear about these matters [[11]]. I wonder if this editor has a bias against China, to the point where they believe that any news coming from China is unreliable, even if it’s from international media's Chinese editions. This attitude seems to reflect a lack of understanding. After all, foreign media in China is neither controlled by the government nor by commercial interests. 114.45.26.245 (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added a new citation[12] from Reuters. Other editors and admins please take note of the new citation. The subject is mentioned at least 12 times in this latest citation and helps strengthen its WP:GNG. Teto Amo (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only two reports that fit the profile of a recognizable source are really just propaganda reports, and while the China Daily is certainly authoritative, this one is very brief and not in-depth, with a distinctly propagandistic tone, like a press announcement. So does the China News Network's. And there are no other valid third-party reports.Jimike yep (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Kabiri

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

Not seeing how they satisfy WP:NPOL. He only served as a "deputy of cooperative affairs in the Ministry of Cooperation, Labor and Social Welfare". Does not meet WP:GNG at best. Jamiebuba (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and Iran. Jamiebuba (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the correct title would be Deputy Minister. This is backed up by Farsi sources, that his title was 'معاون وزیر'. Deputy Ministers of national govts are notable, and in this case also member of Steering Council of national govt. --Soman (talk) 11:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this is an NPOL pass - generally, presumed notability would be for cabinet-level posts, but as far as I know deputy ministers in Iran do not serve at cabinet level. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Immers

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

Immers fails GNG with a lack of SIGCOV. The sources are more focused on Steven van de Velde than Immers. Dougal18 (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – I made a good faith effort to try and expand this earlier but Dougal18 is right, the sourcing is almost entirely about his connection to Steven van de Velde. They did win a match but I don't think that translates to a medal where WP:NOLYMPICS comes into play and even then that's presumptive notability. It's possible I'm not looking in the right places and the current coverage is just drowning out other aspects of this guy's career but I honestly haven't found anything. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Volleyball, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (& delete individual page). Athlete is not independently notable, which fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Even the German page about him has no independent sourcing. All notable mentions in the media are connected to Steven van de Velde. Silvymaro (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Netherlands_at_the_2024_Summer_Olympics#Volleyball. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I improved the article with a couple of his merits that are not related to van de Velde. Commonssense (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The improvements - two youth appearances - are the definition of routine coverage, and passing mentions relating to non-notability-establishing tournaments, at that. And only two, but even if there were three (bare minimum of continued coverage), it's not sigcov. Kingsif (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect even after the improvements my Commonsense this still lacks Notability as it only came from one source, which I still don't know if it is WP:RS Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 06:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Steven van de Veldes article was a Keep and deemed notable per WP:GNG. This person is as well notable per good third party sources and Olympic appearance and sports career.BabbaQ (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of the AfD is that Immers' connection to someone notable (van de Velde) does not make Immers notable - arguing that someone else is notable is not a !keep argument, let alone a strong one. Kingsif (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Immers has now consistent top ten placements in the European Championships, World Championships and the Olympics, so he clearly belongs to a very narrow elite in his sport. His European championship title as a junior may not be enough in itself (I and BabbaQ have expanded the article considerably since most people here argued for redirect) but even that is important in the big picture, how consistent this player has been throughout his career. The argument to keep has nothing to do with the global infamy resulting from his association to van de Velde. As a beach volley player he is equally notable in his own right as van de Velde is in that regard. Commonssense (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does meet WP:SPORTCRIT, and has more coverage in Dutch. Geschichte (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose redirect: Matthew Immers has played on a high level with a number different people (such as Yorick de Groot, together with whom he won silver at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics). It is common in beach volleyball to play with multiple partners during ones career. To redirect him to one specific partner is not very helpful. In particular when that specific partners fame is based on the combination of being an Olympian and a convicted child rapists. There is no sports reason to redirect Immers to van de Velde rather than the other way around. The only reason would be that van de Velde is more famous due to being a convicted child rapists. Since Immers is not a convicted child rapists having a redirect that way seems like an (unintentional) character assassination. As per Geschichte and others I would prefer keep due to his results as a player. Gunnar Larsson (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Netherlands_at_the_2024_Summer_Olympics#Volleyball. I struggle to see more that routine coverage and no coverage that is focused on the subject. --Enos733 (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honoré Lechasseur

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

This is a character so incredibly obscure that I didn't even know we had an article on this guy until today, somehow has two separate notability tags on his article, and is lucky to receive two pageviews a day according to statistics. A source search yields quite literally nothing except for the books the character starred in. There is no coverage on this character, and is better off being redirected towards Time Hunter, the series in which the character stars. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Time Hunter (though that article is, itself, in pretty terrible shape). There are no valid sources currently in the article, and searches did not turn up any coverage in reliable sources about this character. Rorshacma (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zaur Darabzada

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

Fails WP:BIO. Significant coverage in secondary reliable sources is lacking. There is not a fact in the person's activities that would make him notable. Being a member of the Board of Directors of CinemaPlus alone does not make a person notable. Also, this article was deleted from azwiki as a result of a discussion and was subsequently requested for restoration several times. Additionally, the article was previously created under the name "Zaur Darabzadeh" on enwiki, then deleted, and after its deletion, the article name was protected due to repeatedly recreating attempts. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Azerbaijan. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Goh

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. I can't find a single reliable secondary source on him, and this version of the article (recreated in May 2024) is sourced only by press releases and the author's own works. I could find no independent reviews of any of his books in a WP:BEFORE search, and nothing remarkable about his academic career. His press releases says he was a visiting/emeritus professor at the now-defunct California International Business University in the US (which appears to have a been a visa mill), South-West State University in Russia, and an online outfit called "SABI University" in France which appears to be a degree mill.

Outcome of the last AFD was to draftify per creator's request in April 2019. The draft was abandoned, and deleted in March 2021. Editors searching for significant coverage, please note that there is an unrelated Singaporean film producer with this name, and an unrelated Malaysian athlete. Wikishovel (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Business, and Australia. Wikishovel (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYWC-AM

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

Previously deleted and salted as DYWC * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dujon Dujonar

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

Fails WP:NFILM, without reviews in independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG as well, coverage is limited to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and tabloid coverage disallowed per WP:SBST. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Bangladeshi films of 1999 -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC) (invited nominator to do so in my DeproD edit summary; not opposed to Keep myself, but his is a standard alternative to deletion when sources exist and cast is notable. I am inviting users who find films/series not notable enough for a standalone page to always consider this possibility.)[reply]
Didn't see that in your edit summary. Not opposed in principle to a redirect but I'd rather have it be stable via an AfD consensus than subject to a revert war. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BridgeWay Station

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreated by a now-blocked sock after prior soft deletion in 2023. Fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:NBUILD with significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Shopping malls, Entertainment, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dandenong West Football Club

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

Contested redirect (courtesy @Nyttend:) and N/C a year ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dandenong Football and Netball Club, but still no evidence of independent sourcing leading to notability for this team. Star Mississippi 13:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Australia. Star Mississippi 13:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I came along, I found that it had been redirected on notability grounds, while other clubs in its league still had articles. I have no opinion on notability, but I believe it absurd to have articles on some clubs in a league while redirecting others. If this concludes in deletion, others ought to be handled likewise. Nyttend (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a few non-AFL club articles which are pretty rundown and poorly maintained, I've just done some work fixing this one and there's plenty of independent news coverage about it Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or delete, either would be appropriate) The references added since the original nomination all fall under the banner of WP:LOCALCOVERAGE (since most are from the local council newspaper) or non-independent sources. There are two references to the club from the website of the Herald Sun, which ostensibly meets the threshold of being a major statewide newspaper – but a closer look would suggest that those are both the 'Local Footy' section of the newspaper's website, which tends to be an online mirror of affiliated council newspapers – plus they're quite WP:ROUTINE. On the balance of everything I don't think it quite meets a GNG hurdle. Aspirex (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rakesh Varre

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NACTOR (with only one significant role in a notable film). The available sources are all tabloid coverage under WP:SBST and/or of questionable reliability under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Repeatedly recreated by UPE/COI editors. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have more than one significant role in notable productions. Significant does not mean "lead" role only. Did you have his role in Evvarikee Cheppoddu in mind? His role in Badrinath could be considered significant too; and at least a couple of other roles. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no evidence of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Long (speedway rider)

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT, only primary sources provided. Nothing found when searching ["Henry Long " speedway] LibStar (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and South Africa. LibStar (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for that he was one of the title clinching finalist of a world championship event, thus he should be able to pass WP:NMOTORSPORT. WP:ATD will be to draftify for expansion. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't a criteria of WP:NMOTORSPORT? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That criteria can be summed up in two words - utter ******* - too overly biased on circuit racing and overly biased on multi-round championships too IMO, because the sport attracts their fanboys. As with #9, how many classes are there at the Bonneville Speed Week? How many records are up for grabs there by SCTA? Or that does not count as notability despite media talking about the cars in that event?
  I think the criteria for world championship speedway should be at least 2 or more appearances in title clinching finals. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can't appeal to your ideal version of the guideline. It doesn't say what you want it to. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A criteria for WP:NTRACK above says "Finished top 8 in a competition at the highest level outside of the Olympic Games and world championships." This means all finalists at those two events pass notabilty as there are 8 lanes on an IAAF approved track. This is what my point is based on. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NTRACK is for track and field athletes. The IAAF is the old name of the governing body for athletics, not for speedway. I don't understand why you would build your argument on a notability guideline for an entirely different sport. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with above comment from 5225. LibStar (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Primary sources only, no indication of notability. No sources presented to prove otherwise. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matúš Viedenský

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

Article fails WP:GNG without significant coverage. The closest news source I found regarding him is SME which mentions that he has a brother named Marek. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails the GNG, and any iteration of NHOCKEY, with a brief career in the Slovak minor leagues. Ravenswing 18:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swissôtel Amsterdam

AfDs for this article:

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

Google news search yields hardly anything. 2 of the 3 sources merely confirm winning a non notable award, in any case the sources are primary. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Netherlands. LibStar (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the new sources, could find the following:

(supports notability) Stadsnieuws. DE NIEUWE LUNCHROOM. "Het nieuws van den dag : kleine courant". Amsterdam, 11-05-1901, p. 3. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 06-08-2024, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010128190:mpeg21:p003

(supports notability) Lunchroom. "De Tĳd : godsdienstig-staatkundig dagblad". 's-Hertogenbosch, 12-05-1901, p. 6. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 06-08-2024, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010407942:mpeg21:p006

(data only, not notability) Vervolg Nieuwstijdingen. STADSNIEUWS St-Nicolaas-wandelingen.. "De Tĳd : godsdienstig-staatkundig dagblad". 's-Hertogenbosch, 05-12-1896, p. 4. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 06-08-2024, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010991206:mpeg21:p004

(data only, not notability) Stadsnieuws. Officieele Kennisgeving.. "Het nieuws van den dag : kleine courant". Amsterdam, 10-04-1901, p. 10. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 06-08-2024, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010128163:mpeg21:p010

gidonb (talk) 07:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please translate these? LibStar (talk) 07:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just stick it in auto translate. Like any other editor. No need to reply to every opinion that makes a different proposal. Each respondent will reach their own conclusion. Of course, I thoroughly read the intro, and had already taken it into full account when drawing my own conclusions. gidonb (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are images of newspaper clips so can't stick them in autotranslate. " No need to reply to every opinion that makes a different proposal." I am merely seeking clarification which is permitted. LibStar (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(data only, not notability) AMSTERDAM. "De morgenpost". Amsterdam, 02-08-1902, p. 2. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 06-08-2024, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=MMSAA06:165560029:mpeg21:p00002

Notability supporting new RS: [13][14][15][16]. Do note that the range of coverage is 2021-1896=125 years. gidonb (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Every hotel will get some brief coverage in the local media. See also my standards. Bearian (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pure (programming language)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP: N. There are some AfDs in the past that mostly made arguments that weren't based on Wikipedia policy (plus some off-site canvassing). There is a short article in iX about the language, but this alone isn't enough to meet notability guidelines. If voting Keep, please provide sources that are reliable and substantially more than a few sentences about the language -- there needs to be enough to write an actual article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I should also add that Albert Graef is the creator of the language -- sources created by them or their close affiliates shouldn't be considered for establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A lot of the previous AfD arguments were based on non-arguments such as "under active development", "unique language", and "not an orphan". IntGrah (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well, one of the previous AfD arguments mentioned a refereed article from the Linux Audio Conference 2009 proceedings, this ACM paper, and Michael Riepe. Rein ins Vergnügen : Pure – eine einfache funktionale Sprache. iX 12/2009, p. 147. ( http://www.heise.de/ix/artikel/Rein-ins-Vergnuegen-856225.html ). This seems like three decent sources to me. No? jp×g 🗯️ 12:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The iX article is fine, but the ACM paper (An LLVM backend for GHC) only mentions Pure in a list of other languages that use LLVM (Pure: A functional programming language based on term rewriting. Pure uses LLVM as a just-in-time compiler.), and the LAC2009 paper (Signal Processing in the Pure Programming Language) is by Albert Gräf so it's not independent. Looking at other citations of Gräf's papers, I couldn't find any that discussed Pure in depth - it's sometimes mentioned as an example of a term-rewriting language but only in passing. It was a nice design and somewhat unusual when it came out, but I don't think it meets GNG. Adam Sampson (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rewriting - I think the best outcome here is probably one or two sentences on the language in a new paragraph inserted under Rewriting#Term rewriting systems#Use in programming languages. I agree with Adam Sampson's assessment of the sources, and it seems like there's been almost no uptake of the language in either academia or industry in the last 10 years (which would make me want to ignore the lack of WP:SIGCOV). I do think this should likely exist as a redirect, and I'm not confident my proposal is the best; there's some argument for expanding its discussion on LLVM or for including a sentence in Pattern matching instead. Happy to keep instead if there are sources I missed. Suriname0 (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any support for Suriname0's proposal? Any better redirect targets? In cases of marginal sourcing, an ATD can be the best approach.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

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

Similar to other articles in the Career achievements of basketball players category, this is a collection of indiscriminate trivia with trivial statistical cross sections, which is a violation of WP:NOTSTATS and does not meet the notability criteria under WP:NLIST. The most pertinent info is already included in the main article. Let'srun (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with severe pruning. Ditch the NBA statistics and Career high sections and trim the NBA records, but that still leaves a notable boatload of the last, e.g. most points scored, most blocks (both now second), etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Too many for one regular bio page. KatoKungLee (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless there's a solid reason to delete it beyond being statistics-heavy. Kareem is one of the sport's greatest players, something which has drawn extremely extensive commentary, so I don't think this is really indiscriminate.

jp×g 🗯️ 21:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unneeded WP:CONTENTFORK packed with WP:UNDUE, indiscriminate, trivial stats minutiae. Major, defining achievements should be captured in the main bio. The basic achievements are already at Kareem Abdul-Jabbar § NBA career statistics, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar § Athletic honors and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar § Legacy. Also fails WP:NOTSTATS: Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing As most of this page is unsourced (tagged since April), there's no opportunity to merge either. Consistent with consensus against standalone odes to other Basketball Hall of Fame players and "top 10" of all-time like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Hakeem Olajuwon and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Larry Bird.—Bagumba (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, there is no consensus. Let's see if a relisting helps.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ~~The sole delete vote recommends merging the material into the main article.~~ However, that article is very long (8098 words), and WP:SIZESPLIT applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not recommend a merge at all: As most of this page is unsourced (tagged since April), there's no opportunity to merge either. As also mentioned, WP:NOTSTATS applies for the trivial numbers as well.—Bagumba (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First all-time (second now) scoring, rebounding and blocked shots are "trivial numbers"? Also, why are you typing "*:"? ":*" actually does something with the asterisk. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned previously, major stats such as those are presented in prose at Kareem Abdul-Jabbar § Legacy. It doesn't need a standalone list conflated with unsourced trivial stats. As for the indenting question, I was using the reply tool, and its formatting seems consistent with Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks § Best practices—Bagumba (talk) 07:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Colons_and_asterisks#Best_practices says to use things like ":::" or "***", not a mixture. If the reply tool is doing something else, then it's faulty in a minor way. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC) [reply]

There's a mixed example there showing *****: sixth reply.—Bagumba (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armoured One

AfDs for this article:

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

Looks like not meeting NCORP, no reliable media. BoraVoro (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Dem Back

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Can only find trivial mentions of this website/group. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NRT News

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

Even though the acceptance of WP:TNT is very far from universal, I think this article is of such a low quality that deletion on this ground is reasonable. The article is short and disorganized, the phrasing is unencyclopedic, and it cites just one relevant source. Is this article suitable for an encyclopedia in its current state? No. Is its current state useful as a starting point for improvement? Again, no. Janhrach (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, Companies, and Iraq. Janhrach (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - AfD is not the place for article cleanup. If you feel article needs to be improved, edit it. This article is by no means an extreme case that would warrant WP:TNT. --Soman (talk) 11:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since the nominator asks for deletion and not for cleanup, there is no procedural reason to close early as keep. The discussion has to come down to whether TNT deletion is warranted or not. Since 1 person thinks it is and 1 person thinks it's not so far, the discussion should be allowed to continue. Geschichte (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 5 interwiki links, de:Nalia Radio and Television looks good for notability, WP:Deletion is not cleanup, and this one is short enough to clean up or expand easily. I removed two wonky sentences and added a source. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of electoral firsts in New Zealand

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Closest thing I can find is this: [17]. Ultimately this is WP:LISTCRUFT with no reliable source dictating which 'firsts' are notable and worthy of inclusion. All MPs are presumed notable so having them be notable by other characteristics typically involves original research. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Edward Gentry

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

Complaint on talk page from 2017 that notability has not been demonstrated. -- Beland (talk) 06:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Crime. Beland (talk) 06:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Georgia (U.S. state) and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sivaiah Potla (Surgeon)

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

Article about a non-notable orthopedic and surgeon that does not meet WP:GNG. Sources are PR and paid pieces. Jamiebuba (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Jamiebuba (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: another version of this article under the title Sivaiah Potla created by a different editor was G11 deleted in May. The unnecessary disambiguation is a tactic used by UPEs. S0091 (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balalin Theater Troupe

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

Lacks notability, significance. Not much found when search performed on Google etc. Thewikizoomer (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol-intensive brand

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

Some kinda essay or dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article. I am also nominating these pages for the same reason: Icon brand & Cult brand. Polygnotus (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Management. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the "See also" in your nomination is somewhat confusing. For clarification, I would recommend changing it to something a long the lines of "I am also nominating these pages for the same reason" -1ctinus📝🗨 17:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@1ctinus: Thanks!

Fixed Polygnotus (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: The one possibly reliable source I could find is this: [18], a scholarly article that uses the concept extensively. Additionally, I can find a Forbes Contributor article (which does not count for notability): [19], and an interview with the professor who coined the term: [20]. These are either unreliable or non-independent. If anyone could find one additional independent source, I would change my delete to a keep. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a suggestion on the AFD for Cult brand to Merge this article to that one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cult brand

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

Some kinda essay or dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article. I am also nominating these pages for the same reason: Icon brand & Symbol-intensive brand. Polygnotus (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Management. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article is mostly OR and its topic is a sub-category of Symbol-intensive brand, above. If that article is kept, I could support a partial merge of this article with that one. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there support for a possible Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kelman's source characteristics

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N or have a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=kelman+compliance+identification+internalization. It seems like this concept is pretty notable in the communications literature, with Kelman's original paper having over 6,000 citations. However, that doesn't change that this article needs to be renamed and rewritten from scratch (in my opinion). Mathwriter2718 (talk) 12:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seneb-Neb-Af

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

I can only find sources and content unduly taking about mastaba. ~~If there should be ATD, then redirect.~~ Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Africa, and Egypt. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: mastaba is not an appropriate redirect target, as he is not mentioned there. It's clear that he's only notable as the person who was buried in his mastaba, though, so the AfD discussion here should centre on whether Mastaba of Seneb-Neb-Af is notable (we can rename the article after the AfD if so). -- asilvering (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks for that, Asilvering. I think we should redirect this article somewhere for now since Mastaba of Seneb-Neb-Af hasn't been created yet. Is there any target you can think of? I wouldn't support renaming because the article is a mess; lacks sources and sufficient context. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mastaba is a generic term for a type of tomb. Redirecting there would make no sense. It could be mentioned at Dahshur#Tombs and cemeteries, though. XOR'easter (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like this target but how is it connected? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's where the tomb of Seneb-Neb-Af is. XOR'easter (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if having a tomb dedicated/made by/for someone establishes their notability. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 13:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your comment. We know it belongs to him; it's got his name on it. -- asilvering (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe, it's much better to respond to comments as a reply rather than rewriting your initial talk page comment. To reply to your new comment: XOR'easter is not making any kind of claim about Seneb-Neb-Af's notability. They're saying that the tomb could be mentioned in the article Dashur, since that's where the tomb is. -- asilvering (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Danke. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear on my stance, I think the tomb could be mentioned there, but that it's not so important or well-reported (at this point) to be worth doing so. -- asilvering (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Okay, having looked into this a bit more, I don't think we should redirect this at all, since this is a very new finding that has only just been reported on in popular press. We don't even have a site report yet as far as I can tell? I don't think a mention is due on Dashur, and I don't think anyone searching for this name will be well-served by a redirect, either. -- asilvering (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Ink Awards

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

Non-notable award. References are all announcements of winners and the majority are unreliable, falling under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. A WP:BEFORE was unable to locate significant coverage that talks about the reward itself. CNMall41 (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Awards, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move: It looks like these should be written as "RedInk Awards". I don't see WP:NEWSORGINDIA really applying here: These are awarded by the Mumbai Press Club, so any reporting is unlikely to be paid. Coverage of almost any journalism award is going to be a little iffy on independence due to sources written by journalists with personal and organisational interests, memberships, and possibly voting participation (although these ones are juried). If the Mumbai Press Club had an article -- and I'm not sure it should -- I'd be happy with a merge to section. In the absence of that ATD, because there is post-event reporting in national sources and the awards presenters have included a Chief Justice of India, a State Governor, a State Chief Minister, and a federal Minister (indicating a particular level of repute)[21][22][23][24][25], and it's reasonable for the awards to [continue to] be listed at recipients' articles and this list article facilitates interlinking, I'm landing on retention (possibly slight WP:IAR). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for a good redirect as an WP:ATD but unfortunately one does not exists. "Press Trust of India" and "News Express Service" bylines fit the definition of NEWSORGINDIA 100% though. I am wondering which ones you feel do not fall under that criteria as I would be happy to go back and look (I may have missed something). I think it would be more of WP:ATA as opposed to WP:IAR. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to hear from more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Moestrup

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD almost 7 years ago was no consensus. I don't think she meets WP:BIO or WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Politics, and Denmark. LibStar (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Decker

AfDs for this article:

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

Questionable notability. I could find limited sources with a Google search to satisfy the inline citations template. Therefore probably fails WP:GNG. TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 02:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The "Willy Decker" in this AfD is a completely different one from the one that was the subject of the first AfD. TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 02:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Theatre, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who directed a Henze opera world premiere and is listed in Who's Who? is notable. I have no time to look today but will next week unless this is closed by then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relistings. More opinions would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Čarapić

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

6 out of the 7 citations are for Google Books, and I see no inherent notability. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 04:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Serbia. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 04:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Courtesy ping to AfC accepter SafariScribe. Curbon7 (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Additionally, can the nominator please clarify their rationale. I do not see how having coverage in books is an indicator of non-notability, and is actually quite the contrary from reality as we want coverage from (among other places) books. Inherent notability is also not a thing. Curbon7 (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7, I still don't understand the nominator's rationale. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I had it in my watchlist but never saw a mention of me. "Inherent notability" is just notability but I put an "inherent" in front of it, probably a bad choice of words on my part. I just see no notability besides a few books, and that's why I AfD'd it. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 14:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator should be willing to reply in this discussion, but on the other hand the article doesn't make me grasp what Marko Čarapić did. WP:NOTINHERITED is possibly being failed here. Geschichte (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I dont see anything wrong with the information provided. Yes, there should be more information but this article is fine as a stub. Боки ☎ ✎ 18:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I also don't follow the deletion rationale. Coverage in a few books is very respectable if the coverage is significant. Are you stating you'd prefer a mention on a website to a book?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per Боки. Nvss132 (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yorktel

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

Lack of notability established with WP:RS Amigao (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are unreliable? BarnyardWill (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please inform me as to why this is being flagged for deletion? The page is written from an neutral point of view BarnyardWill (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The deletion rationale is stated under the article name.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P-GRADE Portal

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

The article lacks of WP:GNG, since it is a project of cloud infrastructure in grid computing with little overall impact and very few available sources, mostly self-published sources of the authors of this project. It seems there are a few other project-related articles that are related to the Institute for Computer Science and Control (SZTAKI) of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences that seem to lack considerably WP:GNG as well. Recently, other related articles have been already deleted: [26] and [27]. The targetted articles, like this nomination, GUSE, and the deleted article of MTA SZTAKI Laboratory of Parallel and Distributed Systems, were all created by the same user many years ago. Chiserc (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Chiserc (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Davis (singer)

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

Fails WP:GNG. A lot of this article relies on Discogs links, leading to a timeline of album appearances or background vocal appearances. The proclaimed singles "I Want You for Myself", "Indigo Waltz", and anything else mentioned does not list her as the singer or featured singer. Furthermore, this articles fails WP:SINGER. There is a dead "Billboard World Music" link which simply stated the release of her song "Can I Come Over" but it never charted. Everything else is unsourced and there are sources available to support the information in the article. Sackkid (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. CptViraj (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 163 incoming links to the singer, usually in song lists saying "(featuring Lynn Davis)". I've listened to two such songs in youtube, and (at best) there are undicernable female background singers in it; no mention of her on the cover. If I had to guess, I'd say the singer's wiki presense largely exaggerates her actual influence. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Luigi video games

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

This article seems to be highly OR in terms of what is considered a "Luigi video game." A quick BEFORE yields little to no results for an overarching series bar Luigi's Mansion, which seems to be notable as a separate series. However, every other entry just happens to be every time Luigi starred in a game, with no clear reasoning as to if it's meant to count as a "series" or not. (As no source I can find links together a Game & Watch Luigi game and Mario is Missing! to any of Luigi's later solo games, for example) The Luigi's Mansion series seems notable, but every other entry this list doesn't seem to have the citations needed to really verify that they're part of a series of video games, nor do they verify that these games are even notable as a group beyond starring Luigi in them. The current article feels very unneeded, given there's nothing claiming notability for this being a notable sub-category of games, and a grouping of video games that just so happen to star a notable character just doesn't hold water. Even if the article were to be focused on Luigi's Mansion, it would need a complete TNT. This list feels better off deleted, with a Luigi's Mansion series article being made if editors find that the subject can be made into a separate article, but the concept of "Luigi video games" just doesn't seem to hold weight as either a series or as a notable sub-collection of videogames. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I could definitely see this as a useful article. The reader (mainly gamers) would be able to tell which games are more focused on Luigi even if there is no leading "Luigi" title for game (ex. Mario Is Missing!). However I do think it should be created once there were more 15 installments, rather than 9. I feel like it leads more on the Luigi's Mansion series for notability. Sackkid (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are definitely a lot of my problems with the current list. There's very few entries, most are unrelated to each other bar a shared protagonist, and it leans heavily on the Luigi's Mansion series as it's the only really notable "series" there. If people want to see what games Luigi featured in, his navbox is still there (Even if that also needs work) or, at worst, this article could be lightly merged into Luigi's article, so that way those interested in seeing Luigi's starring games can find them there. (Not my preferred outcome, but definitely an idea if people feel it worthwhile). Outside of the Luigi connection, these games don't really hold much water as a group, and a guy starring in a set of games does not make that subcategory of games separately notable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are we really claiming the Luigi games aren't a spinoff? Seriously? Nintendo even did a Year of Luigi promo which is currently a Good Article. While it's not as large a sub-series as Mario, trying to deny it exists boggles the mind and we certainly aren't hard-up for hard drive space that would necessitate folding it into the Mario series. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I literally cannot find sources indicating it exists under one banner, and outside of Luigi's Mansion, the only separate game series I can find relating to Luigi is Mario & Luigi, which is a separate series and not entirely focused on Luigi. As it currently stands, the list is just a miscellaneous assortment of games starring Luigi with no verification of the series' own separate notability. Compare this to something like Wario (series) or List of Yoshi video games, which have multiple successful series that can be verified even with a quick Google search. You are right in saying that these games are spin-offs, but they aren't really tied together in a way that shows inherent notability bar happening to be associated with Luigi.

As a note, Year of Luigi doesn't really focus on the Luigi games as one series, with the games released under that year being variations of pre-existing games. Dr. Luigi is a spin-off of the Dr. Mario series, Mario & Luigi: Dream Team is a single entry of the wider Mario & Luigi series, and the various Luigi "remixes" are just variations of pre-existing games. There was a focus on games having Luigi in a starring role, but trying to say that immediately makes a random collection of games notable is like saying Shadow the Hedgehog has his own series because he's had big roles in several games and had a whole year dedicated to him as well. Luigi's Mansion is really the only one here that can be uniquely verified as part of a wider, notable branch of games. A list like this is the equivalent of attempting to make a "List of Pikachu games" and just lining it up with Pikachu's assortment of unrelated spin-off games that aren't branched under one umbrella (Games, for example, like Hey You, Pikachu! and Detective Pikachu (video game) focus on the character, but are not part of an umbrella franchise starring the character like characters like Yoshi and Wario are).

My problem with this list is not a matter of "trying to deny the Luigi games are spin-offs" or some bizarre thing like that, but rather that this list doesn't verify how the games featuring him are individually notable of the original Mario franchise, nor does it contain sourcing verifying the Luigi games as one major umbrella property like other notable Mario characters happen to have. This list is simply unverifiable. If you or anyone else can dig up sources noting these games are part of one whole umbrella, with notability and description inherently separate from the Year of Luigi or the Luigi character, then I'd be happy to withdraw since I just happened to miss stuff in my search. But right now as it stands, the list just lacks the things it needs to really meet guidelines and justify a split off any other article. I do hope this clears up my viewpoint a bit. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep but I see where the nom is coming from. Luigi is too interlinked with Mario (being his sidequick) to really rise to stand-alone Wario (series) or List of Yoshi video games status, but he's also further along than Princess Peach and Toad (Mario) (who both have several games named after them but no sub-franchise article). It seems Nintendo keeps pushing for a new stand-alone franchise, even if it's currently mostly Mansion. Since Mansion doesn't have an overarching series article yet (but could have) and instead hatnote-links to this list, I'd rather keep this list and see where Nintendo takes it, until we can decide how to best present the information. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote, how List of Wario video games is featured and how it is different from Wario (series) doesn't make sense to me. IgelRM (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is... bizarre. I didn't even know there were separate articles for both of these until now. There's a lot of content overlap there that should probably be merged, but that would require a heavy amount of editing and decision making to accomplish that's not within the scope of this AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I can see an argument for there not really being a Luigi series, maybe there's an argument to be made about repurposing it into a Luigi's Mansion series article instead, which is more of a concrete, actual series? Just a thought, currently undecided on what to do personally. Sergecross73 msg me 15:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do agree that something like this might have potential (specifically the potential for a Luigi's Mansion series page), but I'm also agreeing with Pokelego's stance on how to handle this. It's hard to tell what exactly a "Luigi video game" is, and this list has nothing worth saving even in the event a Luigi's Mansion series article, or something on the lines of that, is created. λ NegativeMP1 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Luigi's game appearance are covered on Luigi#Appearances and I think the article is below WP standards as is. But considering the Mario franchise has similar lists like List of video games featuring Mario, I don't think the scope of this AfD can resolve anything. IgelRM (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That list very much feels like it fails Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE given it's covering every time a video game happens to feature Mario, one of the most iconic characters of all time who is so frequently referenced and parodied that a list like this seems very useless in terms of use. It feels like it'd be better off rebranded to being a list of Mario franchise videogames, but that feels like a separate discussion that would take place outside of the scope of this AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nandini Balial

AfDs for this article:

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

Complete lack of notability slygent (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 05:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Delhi, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There still does not seem to be any notabilty. Odd closure of the first AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC),[reply]
Delete - so some published articles in notable publications, but no sources talking about her as a subject. There is one brief mention of one of her articles in one book. I don't see how the threshold for WP:GNG would be passed here. --Soman (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaveri–Vaigai Link Canal

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Tamil Nadu. CptViraj (talk) 05:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete as clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. We don't make articles on projects that are merely "envisioned". Mangoe (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Gaza Strip polio epidemic

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

Basically a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Gaza humanitarian crisis.

More importantly, off all the given sources, only a single one (The National) uses the term "epidemic" in its own voice, with 2 more quoting the Gaza Health Ministry's declaration of an epidemic. RS hasn't been using the term epidemic (probably because as of now there haven't been any confirmed cases yet. There are strong fears of a coming epidemic, and polio has been found in the sewage, but thankfully no infections). At the very least the article needs to be considerably shortened, and name changed to "Polio discoveries" or something. Violates Crystal Ball. It's also not being (significantly) covered by RS on its own, but rather as part of the broader crisis. Hydromania (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Middle East. Hydromania (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gaza humanitarian crisis - Wouldn't be opposed to recreating the article later if more sources begin to call the Polio issue an epidemic, but a redirect would suffice for right now. Jdcomix (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Redirecting the current title if the term "epidemic" is not being used by multiple reliable sources would violate WP:NDESC. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gaza humanitarian crisis. My first impression is that we should probably redirect. Now to read with care... Yeah, merge with Gaza humanitarian crisis. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn‎. Sources presented (non-admin closure) PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nya Doxa

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

Swedish book publisher, zero sources I could find. As with all book publishers, finding sources is very annoying as you get swamped with the books they write, so there could be something, but if there was I could not find it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Companies, and Sweden. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a 1400 words long article about Nya Doxa in Svenska Dagbladet from 1997 and an 1100 words long article in Nerikes Allehanda from 2003, as well as additional shorter articles, like a 470 words long piece from 2002. I've added sourcing to the article. /Julle (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me - tried to find stuff like that myself, but could not. I will withdraw this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Julle’s rationale. Clear case of WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Zhu Yudong

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

I can’t see any in depth coverage in RIS to indicate that this subject is notable. There may be sources in Chinese I didn’t manage to turn up - if not this article should go. Mccapra (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and China. Mccapra (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have been finding Chinese language sources for this subject, who seems to be a pretty famous director. I haven't yet found any RS that demonstrate individual notability, but I'll look again later today and report my findings or not findings as applicable. Our article is longer than his Baidu page, which seems kinda sus. Folly Mox (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Otago

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

Can't find any sources that talk about this flag. The current sources are a passing mention related to the designer's opinion on something else, and flags of the world which is a deprectated source. couldn't find any books, news articles, even on the council website wasn't anything. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and New Zealand. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

clarifying im not saying this flag is inaccurate just saying its not notable enough to have its own article TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very odd that it's not on the council website - it is the official flag and is flown outside their headquarters. Also not quite sure why FOTW is a deprecated source - it's still active and currently undergoing a major upgrade. I'll look for more sources. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FOTW ->Flags of the World has been written off as an unreliable source in general. Although some of its pages might refer to reliable sources, it is self-published content without editorial oversight, and the hosts "disclaim any responsibility about the veracity and accuracy of the contents of the website." TheLoyalOrder (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files

Redirects

2025 UK general election

2025 UK general election → 2024 United Kingdom general election (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Implausible Redirect Blethering Scot 22:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Made slightly more sense when the date wasn't announced. Doesn't make sense anymore. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Min-ho (singer)

Lee Min-ho (singer) → Lee Min-ho (disambiguation) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Currently redirects to the dab page because two people named Lee Min-ho are singers: one is the member of Stray Kids Lee Know and the other is a more prominent actor Lee Min-ho. Which do you think is a more suitable target, Lee Know or the K-drama actor? ScarletViolet 💬 📝 11:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is: Judging by the pageviews, Lee Min-ho is nearly 6 times more visited than Lee Know. However, it seems that Lee Min-ho is more known for being an actor than a singer, while Lee Know is primarily known for his K-Pop singing/dancing. Most readers would type Lee Min-ho (actor) instead of (singer). However, Lee Know is better known by his stage name than his real name. I think there is too much factors at play here to accurate judge the reader's intention, or WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It shouldn't be deleted per Wikipedia:INCOMPDAB, which says to redirect to the more general disamb page if there is no primary topic. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is The standard for partial disamsbiguation is extremely high and this doesn't meet it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is per above. I don't think the standard for partial disambiguation should be as high as it is, but even by my standards there is no primary topic here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The base name is a singer so shouldn't it redirect there if the South Korean singer has been deemed the primary topic for the base name? If there is no primary topic the DAB should be moved to the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to Crouch, Swale's observation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move disambiguation page to Lee Min-ho. Crouch, Swale is right. Since other editors agree there is no primary topic, the base name should be the disambiguation page and Lee Min-ho (singer) should be retargeted to Lee Min-ho as ambiguous. C F A 💬 15:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think other editors are arguing that the title "Lee Min-ho" has no primary topic. Judging by the pageviews, and the fact that Lee Know are known better for his screen name make me to believe that the Lee Min-ho the actor is primary topic for the title "Lee Min-ho". The nominator has said other is a more prominent actor Lee Min-ho. What I think ambiguous in terms of primary topic is the title "Lee Min-ho" with (singer) attached to it, for reasons I mentioned above. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden's uncle who got eaten by cannibals

Joe Biden's uncle who got eaten by cannibals → Family of Joe Biden (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention of his uncle being eaten by cannibals at the target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a sentence about the coverage of the cannibal business to the family article. _pbp 17:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Amazingly to me this isn't just vandalism - Joe Biden's Uncle (Probably) Wasn't Eaten by Cannibals - but it isn't mentioned, and as far as I can tell, has never been mentioned at the target article or anywhere else on Wikipedia. It is mentioned at q:Joe Biden#April 2024 but I don't think someone using this search term is looking for the quote but rather information about Biden's uncle (Ambrose J. Finnegan Jr.) and they won't find that at Wikiquote, or indeed more than a sentence at Family of Joe Biden#Maternal. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Thryduulf. Thought for sure this was an obvious hoax/attack page, but no, it was a real thing. There is no mention of this on Wikipedia, though. C F A 💬 23:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a sentence about the coverage of the cannibal business to the family article. _pbp 03:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both the redirect and the mention. WP:ONEWAY. We don't need to cover every single conspiracy theory. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The idea of Joe Biden's uncle being eaten by cannibals (or not) has received significant enough media coverage to justify a redirect. _pbp 00:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No amount of coverage justifies misleading people into thinking we have relevant content when we don't. The amount of coverage might justify adding content somewhere relevant, at which point we can consider the redirect, but unless and until that happens the redirect is harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 01:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a sentence about the coverage of the cannibal business to the family article. _pbp 03:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:Patent nonsense. WWGB (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WWGB although it really does look like nonsense at first glance, it actually isn't. See the links in my and pbp's comments above. Thryduulf (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. I don't think Joe Biden has any uncles. 88.235.215.238 (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrose Biden was a real person... _pbp 12:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it sounds ridiculous, it probably is ridiculous, but it was a thing that Biden actually asserted multiple times. If someone has seen a clip of him saying it and wanted to find out more about it, searching "Joe Biden's uncle who got eaten by cannibals" is a pretty reasonable way of trying to find out more information about it. Now that it's included in the target article the redirect seems like a good one to me BugGhost 🦗👻 12:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it has significant media coverage. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 14:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but refine to Family of Joe Biden#Maternal. One of the silliest titles for a redirect that is not the result of vandalism (which makes it a good candidate for my list), but the significant amount of media coverage probably justifies Purplebackpack89's short addition. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priestess

Priestess → Priest (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Female priest → Ordination of women (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 15 § Female priest – Keep

Re-target to Ordination of women. This is for consistency with Female priest, as agreed upon at Talk:Priestess_(disambiguation)#Requested_move_25_August_2023. Discussion of the other redirect occurred at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_15#Female_priest. There are concerns about the appropriateness of the current target to house a section for the target of this redirect. See Talk:Priest#Priestesses. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. A priestess is a female priest, therefore the topic is clearly the covered by the article at priest. I've never heard the term used in connection with the origination of women, and would be frankly rather WP:ASTONISHed if the redirect went there. — Amakuru (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's ordination, not origination. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the other redirect Female priest in case we want to change it to Priest for consistency.

@Amakuru: You "never heard the term ... the origination of women, and ... WP:ASTONISHed"?
Keep per Shhhnotsoloud - if someone prepends "female" to this then the topic is most likely to refer to ordination of women
— User:Amakuru 15:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
FYI, I created this RfD while dealing with Draft:Priestess, and related articles' history might be useful. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I might support a split of Ordination of women, with some of it being split off to Priestess and the rest moved to Ordination of women in Christianity. These appear to be 2 separate notable concepts that don't have to be combined. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That is what I've been attempting to accurately do.

Personal bias disclosed: I use the title. And it is legally valid in my region.

Whilst I am a minority to use it in my particular faith tradition, I know many other women in ministry of different faiths, who also sincerely use it for official purposes. As well

As historically. Any woman in many countries, that worked as a ceremony lead in any kind of temple, often was called a Priestess. Priestess Noel Ann (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In favour of making the http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Priestess its own page, linked to Ordination of women.

Priestess Noel Ann (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion may need to occur regarding Draft:Priestess and its article potential to help form consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unreal engine

Unreal engine → Unreal Engine (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Draft:Vengeance Engine → Unreal Engine#Unreal Engine 2 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unreal Engine (game engine) → Unreal Engine (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

UnrealEngine → Unreal Engine (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unreal technology → Unreal Engine (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unreal Engine Technology → Unreal Engine (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unreal Engine technology → Unreal Engine (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unrealscript → Unreal Engine#UnrealScript (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

we should probably delete most of the other ones at https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere?target=Unreal+Engine&namespace=&hidetrans=1&hidelinks=1

but I will open a rfd for them later — Preceding unsigned comment added by J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk • contribs) 17:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tagged every single one of these redirects since they weren't tagged by the nom. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@J2UDY7r00CRjH: Why? These all appear to be entirely typical redirects. Tollens (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of these redirects are used. "Unreal Engine Technology" is not a typical redirect. Neither is Draft:Vengeance Engine, which makes no sense at all. We should use WP:COMMONNAME, not Unreal Engine technology or Unreal Engine Technology. We should not use misspelled links links like "Unreal engine" or UnrealEngine. "Unreal Engine (game engine)" does not make any sense as there is no other unreal engine to disambiguate it with. It also leads to editors actually using this awful redirects. For example see: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Mare_Nostrum_(video_game)&diff=prev&oldid=1235798234 which was using [[Unreal Engine technology#Unreal Engine 2.5|Unreal Engine 2.5]] instead of just [[Unreal Engine 2.5]](Unreal Engine 2.5). why should we support this kind of usage? What benefit is there to having all these inaccurate redirects? J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at WP:RFD#DELETE, some of these fall under "The redirect might cause confusion." Specifically Unreal Engine Technology, Unreal Engine technology and Unreal technology which are not WP:COMMONNAME and are not terms I have seen any RS or Unreal Engine itself use to describe Unreal Engine. Additionally Draft:Vengeance Engine is misleading at best as it is not a real engine. UnrealEngine is also misleading as one might think that is how it is spelled, and to a lesser extent Unreal engine as well. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just as further proof that these redirects are confusing people, I found this wikilink in https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=List_of_banned_video_games_by_country&oldid=1235709794:

>a court found that [[Silicon Knights]] had plagiarized [[Epic Games]]' proprietary [[Unreal Engine|Unreal engine]].

If editors are purposefully changing Unreal Engine to Unreal engine (incorrect), then we should definitely not support that usage with a redirect as it will further this inaccurate usage. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another example: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/X-Men_Origins:_Wolverine_(video_game)

The game was developed primarily by [[Raven Software]] through the use of [[Unreal Engine#Unreal Engine 3|Unreal Engine technology]].

permalink https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=X-Men_Origins:_Wolverine_(video_game)&oldid=1223802693

I think these examples show that these links are confusing to editors and we should not use them as per commonname. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep UnrealEngine, Unreal engine, and Unrealscript. These are common mistakes in editing (WP:RKEEP point 2). They are also common mistakes or shortcuts in searching (point 3) and in navigating by typing URLs (which should be mentioned in point 3 but isn't). Jruderman (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I want to emphasize that WP:RKEEP point 2 considers the prevention of red links to be a net benefit. J2UDY7r00CRjH, if you're concerned about the effects on typo longevity, I suggest categorizing the redirects, then working in other venues to leverage certain rcats such as {{R from misspelling}} for making encyclopedia-wide improvements. See e.g. this feature request and this archived bot request. Jruderman (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unrealscript and Draft:Vengeance Engine are actually redirects to sections of pages. I have updated the nomination above to show the full targets. Jruderman (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On Unreal Engine (game engine), I added {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. There are over 30,000 such redirects, so I suspect this isn't a reason for deletion by itself. Jruderman (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@J2UDY7r00CRjH: I'd encourage you to have a look at WP:RPURPOSE. You've made a pretty convincing argument for keeping several of these redirects here above. WP:CNAME applies to articles themselves, not redirects, and the fact that people are using several of these terms, even if they are incorrect, is reason to keep the redirects as they are useful, not to delete them. I see four groups in the list presented:

Unreal engine, UnrealEngine, and Unrealscript are strong keeps. They are either alternative capitalizations or reasonable typos that will help in linking, and very much core reasons in WP:RPURPOSE.
Unreal technology, Unreal Engine Technology, Unreal Engine technology are plausible search terms, and are good candidates to keep.
Unreal Engine (game engine) is an unlikely search term given the paranthetical disambiguation, but I'm not sure we should delete it as per Jruderman's third comment. I'll withhold judgement here.
Draft:Vengeance Engine should be deleted, it's a cross namespace redirect. It should be noted that the articlespace version is a redirect to Irrational Games. A Google search says that the Vengeance Engine is a derivative of UE2 that was created by Irrational. If for some reason we are keep it, I would suggest a retarget to the Unreal Engine 2 article specifically.

I would suggest to the closer that a new RfD be held on Vengeance Engine to discuss if that redirect be retargeted to Unreal Engine#Unreal Engine 2 or to Unreal Engine 2 should the draftspace redirect be deleted as a result of this discussion. Then again, NOTBURO. Ham tech person 02:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time in the redirects forum and you're right, being a new contributor, I'm not familiar with a lot of the rules. In fact, I initially just blanked these pages and asked someone to delete the page in the comment history, which I now understand is not allowed. Reading these rules, I take issue with some of them. I wouldn't call any of these alternative capitalizations: they are typos. And I don't see why we should make redirects for every typo. That implies that every page should have a redirect with various capitalizations of the entry name. If nobody is using these redirects then I don't see a need for them to fix non existing typos. In any case I think it is better to have a redlink than have a typo because 1. someone will see the red link and fix it 2. Some people will see the blue link with a typo and think it is correct. This is in line with the reasoning given here: "The redirect might cause confusion." Also, I disagree that Unreal technology, Unreal Engine Technology, and Unreal Engine technology are plausible search terms. Looking at Google Trends, it doesn't seem anyone is using these search terms. I'm not aware of any such term being used by reliable sources or unreal itself or really anyone at all using it. I certainly don't see why we need a redirect for a misspelling of a possible search term for this page. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To get a sense of which variants are usually considered redirect-worthy and which aren't, you can check the examples in WP:RTYPO and WP:RCAPS. Jruderman (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The line between {{R from alternative capitalization}} and {{R from incorrect capitalization}} can be blurry sometimes. In "Epic Games' proprietary Unreal engine", perhaps the author is treating "Unreal" as a name and "engine" as a generic noun. But the distinction doesn't really matter at RfD because the reasons for having the redirect are similar: helping users reach the article they intend to reach. Jruderman (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meh on Draft:Vengeance Engine as drafts aren't indexed by search engines and it isn't in mainspace, don't care either way (side note: Vengeance Engine and Vengeance engine currently go different places which certainly shouldn't be the case), as well as Unreal Engine (game engine) as typically redirects from unnecessary disambiguation pages have a base title that could reasonably refer to more than one thing but the redirect certainly isn't harmful. Keep the rest as either alternative capitalizations or reasonable search terms. Tollens (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good gods we have a mess with Vengeance Engine, don't we? Three redirects including the draftspace one, all of which go to different (and yet still plausible) targets. I think we need to have a separate discussion about how to clean it up, but I think I'll wait until this RfD is closed, at least as concerns the draftspace redirect. A read over the Vengeance engine target, Ghost Story Games, indicates that it's a continuation/successor to the Irrational Games target of Vengeance Engine, plus we have the section at Unreal Engine#Unreal Engine 2 and the split article Unreal Engine 2 all as candidates. Ham tech person 17:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all besides Draft:Vengeance Engine which is just a maintenance cleanup thing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Draft:Vengeance Engine per WP:RDRAFT; though it was not moved, it was pointed to a section where it is/was covered. No benefit is derived from getting rid of it. Neutral on the rest. This seems headed towards trainwreck territory. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AFC infobox

Template:AFC infobox → Template:Aberdeen F.C. (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The title of this redirect is extremely ambigous and should be deleted. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete seing as its a navbox, not an infobox Mach61 17:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget to Template:AfC submission as a plausible target for new editors who are trying to submit their first article via WP:AFC and don't know the difference between the proposed retarget and an infobox. (I'm "weak" though since Template:AfC submission is not an infobox, meaning retargeting to Template:AfC submission may throw off seasoned editors.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I'm fine with "delete", which is why I'm "weak". Steel1943 (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to free up for future use and per nom. R move but only used for <2 weeks. Respublik (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is preferable in my mind to retargeting, all of the reasons Steel lists are why we shouldn't do that. Primefac (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtbag (and other Transformers redirects)

Dirtbag (Transformers) → Transformers: Generation 2 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Electro (Transformers) → Transformers: Generation 2 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Firecracker (Transformers) → Transformers: Generation 2 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
High Beam (Transformers) → Transformers: Generation 2 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Hooligan (Transformers) → Transformers: Generation 2 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Manta Ray (Transformers) → Transformers: Generation 2 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Powerdive → Transformers: Generation 2 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Smokejumper (Transformers) → Transformers: Generation 2 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

(My first time to nominate a group, so I'm probably doing it wrong. Feel free to edit/fix the nom as appropriate, or tell me what I need to do.) I propose we delete these 8 redirects, all of which redirect to Transformers: Generation 2. These pages appear to refer to Transformers characters/toys, although they are not mentioned at the target page. So not useful for navigation, says I, and ought to be deleted. None of these names are mentioned at Transformers, either, or I would have suggested retargeting. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 19:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formula one in schools

Formula one in schools → Formula One in schools (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"Formula One" should be capitalised, so the name is incorrect and should be removed. It has no any value and has negative impact - incorrect name show up in search results. Eurohunter (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ as a standard {{R from miscapitalisation}}. Steel1943 (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Steel1943: What is the point to keep totally incorrect and useless name with miscapitalisation? In this way we could create yet a million of such incorrect names. Eurohunter (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  But it's not useless (and not even "totally" incorrect; it's just got one lowercase letter). Did you look at Steel1943's link? We regularly create/approve/keep redirects which are slight mistypings are from the actual target articles. We serve our readers better by giving them an extra chance to find what they are looking for. In the end, the visitor lands at the article (we hope) they want, with the proper and correct name, spelling and capitalization. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 19:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  That's a concern that requires a lot more discussion to change than one editor who is just helping enforce the de facto status quo; the template {{R from miscapitalisation}} is currently transcluded on 24,226 pages. Steel1943 (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Change my vote to "what JohnFromPinckney said". Steel1943 (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per Steel or, my preference, Retarget to F1 in Schools, which is where the current target itself redirects. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 19:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: either way, the "schools" in the nommed target is apparently wrong ("totally incorrect"); the thing is a proper noun, correctly named F1 in Schools. Make everything point there. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 19:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jaheim

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

Redirect from draft space to article space where no draft previously existed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For consistency's sake, the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 27#Draft:Joe Biden is similar to this one. Steel1943 (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Le Clique: Vida Rockstar (X)

Le Clique: Vida Rockstar (X) → Jhayco (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Timelezz → Jhayco (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete per WP:REDLINK. Le Clique has no incoming links and Timelezz only has one. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Both are very reasonable search terms as albums released by the artist. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Chahar Choudhary

Priyanka Chahar Choudhary → Udaariyaan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

One of several films the subject has starred in, and not even her most prominent one. Delete per WP:XY (and see also WP:DEEPER#Priyanka Choudhary) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 17:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My cock is hard

My cock is hard → Erection (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I know Wikipedia isn't censored, but is this really a useful redirect? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it's worth, the same user created the redirect My dick is hard last month. They also created the redirect Female erection though, while on a related subject, seems reasonable. Largoplazo (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That user you said is actually me. I will agree with Largoplazo.

I Googled female erection and most results were about Clitoral erection.

Penile erection redirects to erection and penile refers to penis and cock and dick is a slang that refers to penis.

Hard cock and Hard dick redirects to Erection. Temporarily-retired-user-283828qjdjhhwkh71BQy8293 (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Movies about pbuh

Movies about pbuh → Muhammad in film (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Implausible redirect. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For those who don't have this context, "PBUH" = "peace be upon him". Observant Muslims say this phrase, or write the phrase or the abbreviation, after every mention of "Muhummad" or "the Prophet". However, the same formulation can be used after the names of angels, messengers, and other prophets, so "PBUH" isn't specifically an epithet for Muhammad, and he is never known as just "PBUH". So it's an inapt title and an inapt redirect. Largoplazo (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Largoplazo. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Largoplazo (neatly summarized). — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 19:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki (upcoming film)

Kalki (upcoming film) → Kalki 2898 AD (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Misleading redirect for a film that is no longer upcoming, as of over 30 days ago per WP:UFILM. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 13:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redirect gets little to no pageviews now. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 13:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderland (upcoming film)

Wonderland (upcoming film) → Wonderland (2024 film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 26 § "Upcoming" redirects no longer upcoming – delete

Film is no longer upcoming (had its theatrical release in june 2024). This is one of the most popular film concepts, and several movies have been called "Wonderland" or codenamed as such in the past, i.e. Wonderland (film). Previously deleted when it targeted Spenser Confidential. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 13:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 14:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Funny thing is that when this redirect was previously deleted, it targeted a completely different film. Just goes to show ... these "upcoming" redirects can be trouble if they stick around too long. Steel1943 (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Györöd, Romania

Györöd, Romania → Ghiroda (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Misspelled. The Hungarian name is Győröd and not Györöd. Unplausible misspelling by both Hungarian- and non-Hungarian-speakers. Super Ψ Dro 13:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only does that look like a very plausible misspelling for non-Hungarian speakers who don't know the difference between the two diacritics, it's not solely a misspelling: [42] states on page 47 that The antebellic Györöd was the Hungarian official name. Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda Games in Development

Zelda Games in Development → The Legend of Zelda (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No such list at the target. In addition, the existence of the redirect could potentially lead readers to believe that at least one Zelda game is in development at all times, which cannot be guaranteed to be true. Steel1943 (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not in the mood to have to create and delete this redirect every time a zelda game is confirmed to be in development, so delete cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia & truckee 11, reno

Virginia & truckee 11, reno → Virginia and Truckee 11 Reno (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unlikely capitalization & punctuation combination Rusalkii (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. the capitalization is fine, who cares, but i have no idea what that comma is doing there cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep since it's not ambiguous, but it is a bit unlikely. Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Steel. It's unlikely but not completely implausible for this to be copied from a construction like "the virginia & truckee 11, reno, was...". Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Steel1943. Small benefit but no harm or chance for confusion. —mako ๛ 12:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Windproof umbrella

Windproof umbrella → Umbrella (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The word "windproof" is mentioned nowhere in the target article. That, and without context, such a topic seems difficult to define since the target is meant to protect the user from various elements, including wind ... which means the umbrella itself isn't windproof ... it just blocks wind ... and even then, without proper harnesses, it may fly away. Steel1943 (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Windproof umbrellas are designed to resist being destroyed by high winds. Refine to Umbrella#Modern use, which describes some of those efforts. - Eureka Lott 21:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well-known and heavily used form of umbrella. If there is no information on it in the article, that's a gross omission that should be fixed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and refine as per EurekaLott's suggestion which seems very reasonable to me. —mako ๛ 12:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bruh

Template:Bruh → Template:Disputed inline (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I feel like there are plenty of templates this could potentiall point to, including {{Uw-disruptblock}}, {{Uw-vandalism4im}}, {{Dubious}}, among others. For this reason, I don't think it's optimal to point this to {{Disputed inline}}, as this redirect doesn't seem to have a primary topic among the various templates that one might expect it to point to. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are a lot of maintenance template shortcuts like {{what?}}, {{odd}}, {{why?}}, {{huh?}} and {{whom}} that could, presumably, go to any number of templates, but don't. I think it's fine for this to be retargeted, but I think that for template redirects specifically, "this shorthand could be useful for many templates" is an awful reason to force it to be used for none. jp×g 🗯️ 05:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Redirects to maintenance templates should give some clue to their purpose to those viewing the source and/or diffs of their addition. If someone sees "dubious - discuss" in the rendered version of the page they will be expecting the source to contain something similar to those words not an unrelated slang term. If I saw this being added I would have no idea what someone's objection to the content it was near was, which is a bad thing - it would be even worse if I was a new editor. Ambiguity is tollerable in template redirects only if the context in which they are used reduces the potential for confusion - this template does not do that. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an ambiguous and unavoidable WTF. (Replace all transclusions with the target prior to deletion, if applicable; as of this writing, there are 2 transclusions.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of storms named Jeana

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn

Occupied Korea

Occupied Korea → Korea under Japanese rule (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Redirect to Occupation of Korea. As with that term, "Occupied Korea" could refer to either the Japanese colonial period or the post-WW2 Soviet and U.S. zones. — Goszei (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom seefooddiet (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom. Occupied Korea should clearly point to a page that describes all occupations. Since that page exists, this seems like an obvious choice. —mako ๛ 12:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All-Star Batman and Robin

All-Star Batman and Robin → All Star Batman & Robin, the Boy Wonder (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
All star batman and robin → All Star Batman & Robin, the Boy Wonder (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
All Star Batman and Robin → All Star Batman & Robin, the Boy Wonder (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
All-Star Batman & Robin → All Star Batman & Robin, the Boy Wonder (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

all-star batman and robin is a different goddamn comic from all star batman & robin, the goddamn boy wonder, but its only meaningful goddamn mention is in the goddamn list of batman comics, and the goddamn results seem to give goddamn priority to all star batman & robin, the goddamn boy wonder. should they be goddamn retargeted to the goddamn list of batman comics, or are they goddamn fine as is? cogsan _{(goddamn talk page) (goddamn contribs)} 13:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

on that goddamn note, should i bring up all star batman and all-star batman (the only goddamn difference is a goddamn hyphen), as they have different goddamn targets, or does the goddamn exclusion of robin narrow them out of this goddamn topic? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 00:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Too many goddamn questions!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

bats like their goddamn questions. they like them a lot. cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry that I don't get the references here, and I'm thinking many won't. Heck, I don't even understand the nomination statement. What's going on with these redirects? Steel1943 (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

asbar and asbartbw (what a nice acronym) are different comics, though only the latter has an article of its own. the joke is mostly that the target really loves plastering the word "goddamn" everywhere, to the point where "the goddamn batman" is an actual redirect to it cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not enough goddamn answers!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 01:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate - Since it was too confusing, we should make into a disambiguation page. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Cogsan perhaps. This is a very confusing nomination (even without all the goddamns)! Are the very similarly named comics without articles at the moment not notable or do they just not have articles yet? If they are never going to have articles, the proposal sounds reasonable since it seems like this redirect should point somewhere and that seems like the obvious place that currently exists! Otherwise, I like the idea of redirecting to a DAB that explains the situation (perhaps with WP:REDLINKS?). —mako ๛ 12:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not the biggest batman fanatic out there so i can't say for sure, but results for "all-star batman" and "all-star batman and robin" are riddled with all star batman & robin, the boy wonder, since robin is a pretty important character in batman lore and "boy wonder" is a pretty common nickname for him, so it's hard to tell

in case of doubt, i'll assume the answer is "their only notable trait is sharing their names with that one comic", and change my vote to dabifying between all star batman & robin, the boy wonder, dc rebirth, and the list of batman comics so i don't have to think about it again cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dabify as per the goddamn response by the goddamn nom and the goddamn conversation here. —mako ๛ 15:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mario Party minigames

List of Mario Party minigames → Mario Party (video game) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The target article does not contain a list of minigames. Mia Mahey (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Would be suitable in a gaming wiki. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This title was an article for a month in March ~~2027~~ 2007, prior to being subject to a WP:BLAR. Steel1943 (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

time traveler spotted, authorities contacted. it was in 2007 lol cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid number autocorrect, I guess... Steel1943 (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules

Template:Hurricane Dennis series

Template:Hurricane Dennis series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The only article using the template now is the Meteorological history of Hurricane Dennis. Previously, there were other sub-articles, which were merged into the Dennis article. As a result, this template is no longer needed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CCIlist/core

Template:CCIlist/core (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Totally unused. Izno (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Empty-warn-NPF

Template:Empty-warn-NPF (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Similarly to {{Empty-warn}} (see RfD) the name is confusing. "Empty" is understood to mean either A3 or C1 but not A1 which does not apply to empty pages. This template was kept at a previous TfD because it was used by PageCuration but this no longer applies as it has been removed from Wikipedia:Page Curation/Templates. Nickps (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Deletion is my preferred outcome since the template is unused but~~ I wouldn't oppose moving it to Template:Nocontext-warn-NPF which would be a reasonable title and would match the pattern in Wikipedia:Page Curation/Templates. Nickps (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Still used by mw:PageTriage. See deletionTags.json line 22. There are plans to convert PageTriage to use standard rather than custom (-NPF) templates in phab:T362477, but we're not there yet. These -NPF templates should stay in the meantime. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not ideal. Cam we at least move the page to Template:Nocontext-warn-NPF? The redirect left behind will make it so nothing gets broken and we can delete it as soon as deletionTags.json gets updated. Nickps (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. If you feel strongly about it, go ahead. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel strongly enough about to bring it here. Let's make it happen. Nickps (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nickps Can you file a task to update deletionTags.json Sohom (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably wait for the TfD to close. For all I know someone may object. I'll do it right after that. Nickps (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how I picture it going. First the TfD closes as move so the template is moved to the new title and the redirect at the old title makes it so PageTriage won't get broken. Then I open the task to update deletionTags.json and finally when the update is made, I tag the redirect for WP:G6. Is that fine? Nickps (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't G6 the redirect. Redirects from page moves are supposed to exist forever, to help people track down pages that have moved. They cost nothing for us to keep :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well in this case the redirect falls under WP:R#D2 since, as I've said above "empty" is not really associated with A1 but since the deletion isn't uncontroversial anymore, I'll take it to RfD when the time comes. Nickps (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that a {{R from page move}} falls under WP:R#D2 (The redirect might cause confusion). Besides being a standard practice to leave these redirects (which is why the software automatically does it), it alleviates confusion rather than causing confusion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer Please ping me when the TfD is closed so I don't forget to file the task. That is, unless you want to do it yourself. Nickps (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Resize

Template:Resize (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Midsize (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Resize with Template:Midsize.
{{resize}} reduces text to 90%. {{midsize}} reduces text to 92%. As seen in the lorem ipsum samples at the bottom of {{Font size templates}}, they are all but indistinguishable. In the interest of eliminating unnecessary complexity, I suggest merging midsize with resize, making them "aliases" a la small and smaller. Uses of midsize would be further reduced from 92% to 90%. What are the odds that those uses will be adversely impacted? Exceedingly low, in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I somehow botched it using Twinkle. This should be a proposal to merge midsize into resize. No clue how to fix it since it affects a lot more pages than this one. (One would think Twinkle would be smart enough to catch this error. One would be wrong.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the Earth page is completely broken due to a message going "‹ The template below (Resize) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›".

this should be fixed i think TerrariaTree3852 (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an attempt to fix this; see my contribs. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that 92% or 90% does not make any difference. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have an opinion about this template, but this nomination has broken the heavily used template:XfD relist. See today's RfD for example. Please can you unbreak it quickly. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed (disabled the banner at transclusions). SilverLocust 💬 09:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative merge: {{midsize}} accepts |size=, which can translate to |1= in {{resize}} (if |2= is present, AFAICT). {{midsize}} also accepts |height= for line-height. Would we add that parameter to {{resize}}, or get rid of it? Someone will need to make a detailed plan for this merge to be successful. A sandbox version of the merged template would be helpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone will need to make a detailed plan - Someone knowledgeable and eminently competent like you, I suggest. You could manage the "project" and delegate to worker bees like me. I could handle anything but template code changes, such as template doc changes etc. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have removed {{midsize}} from a number of templates in which it was violating MOS:SMALLFONT. Also, this proposed merge would presumably also affect {{midsizediv}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to keep commenting. I have found that the majority of uses of {{midsize}} are inside of navbox, infobox, and other templates in which the size of text is already reduced; I am working on removing those MOS:SMALLFONT violations rather than doing a template merge and then later having to remove it. This work should not affect the TFD outcome; I just don't want people to be surprised or suspicious when the initial 2,400 transclusions is drastically reduced during the course of this TFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another usage is using it in a unlinked note. This should be replaced with actual note templates like this. Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Qwerfjkl and I have reduced {{midsize}}'s transclusions from about 2,400 to under 240 in article space by removing instances that conflicted with MOS:SMALLFONT. There are likely a few more that should be removed to comply with the guideline, but they are getting more difficult to find among the MOS-valid usages. If this discussion is closed as "merge", this trimming should make replacement easier. Also, I found only two instances of |height= being used among 2,000+ removals, so that parameter is probably safe to ignore. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to think about this. Resize is a shit name for a template that defaults to 90% but also actually resizes things. {{font}} exists if a use actually needs an arbitrary number. So perhaps that's one to throw in the mix being considered here. I don't think it makes sense to merge the two nominated templates for what they're doing and how they're named. If I had any thought, it would be to change resize's default to 100% and then shift midsize's down to 90% from 92%. Either that or up to 95% (which would make it a valid use in infoboxes; 95% x 90% > 85%) and actually make it reasonably "mid"... size. So in that case it may have been premature to remove midsize from where it is used... Izno (talk) 06:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree in principle, but a suboptimal name at the (widely used) target shouldn't stop us from merging two essentially identical templates. If someone wants to propose that {{resize}} be renamed or split, that's a separate discussion. As for removing {{midsize}} from infoboxes and navboxes, text in those boxes is at 88% already, so 97% is the most that internal text can be reduced to, which is a pointless change for readers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't really all that identical though, if we're operating in the space of "templates that change sizes". Resize allows a block display and arbitrary font size. Midsize doesn't. And we shouldn't merge a template with a shit name into a template with... a half decent name. I think I'll make a bold comment now, oppose merge. Izno (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are pretty much identical. Midsize does allow a block content option, using {{midsizediv}}, mentioned above. It can be switched to {{resize}} with the |div= option. And Midsize does allow for arbitrary font size with the |size= option. I tried to explain all of this above, but it looks like I failed. Again, if the target name is a problem, we should start another merge or rename discussion, not bail out entirely on a valid merge. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did not fail, I disagree with your characterization of similarity. But even if that weren't the case, I'm arguing that the names are sufficiently bad that the merge itself is bad and should be rejected. "Again". As for we should start another merge or rename discussion, you are empowered to do so. That's why I said "find another target". The alternative is to make it clear how these are different templates, which would be removing the arbitrary font selection in midsize. As for {{midsizediv}}, that's not part of this template despite your framing it as a question of options that would be in this template (it's not). Anyway, we're into circles territory at this point, so I suggest you disengage. Izno (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely off topic: For another shit name, one with more adverse impact, see |upright= when used for image scaling. Been that way for many years and the shit name argument has failed in extended discussion(s). Seems we're inured to shit names. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Birth year and age2

Template:Birth year and age2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused duplicate of Template:Birth year and age with no clear indication why another version is needed. Gonnym (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, @Gonnym this template is in the same vein as {{Birth date and age2}} compared to {{Birth date and age}}. It's not a duplicate of {{Birth year and age}} because that template doesn't allow you to calculate age at a specified date, as compared to age as of today. If this is deleted, then {{Birth date and age2}} should also be deleted by the same reason. --Habst (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example of what it can do that the other template can't? Gonnym (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym, sure, here is an example:

How old was George Washington Carver in 1900? {{Birth year and age2}} can tell you:

‹The template Birth year and age2 is being considered for deletion.›

1864 (aged 35–36)

The result is suitable for inclusion in any list of people (e.g. sportspeople) with their year of birth and age as of some achievement. {{Birth year and age}} can't do this sort of math, it can only tell how old something was as of the current moment, not as of any particular date. --Habst (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 11:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Val/unitsfromconvert

Template:Val/unitsfromconvert (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Sub template with only one talk page transclusion left. Subst usage and delete template. Gonnym (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Footer Olympic Champions Breaking B-Girls

Template:Footer Olympic Champions Breaking B-Girls (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Footer Olympic Champions Breaking B-Boys (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary. The sport is one and done after Paris, meaning there will only be one champion per event. Can be created if the sport is held again in the future. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hamas history

Template:Hamas history (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template also has a poorly defined function per WP:TG. Contrary to its name of "Hamas history," it seems to be an indiscriminate collection of information about "Hamas members," including their positions and years and places of birth and death. For some reason there is also an assassination-like map attached to the template. It is also unsourced and fails four of the WP:NAVBOX guidelines. It should be deleted. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was intending to change the template page name to "Hamas members", I had already changed the displayed title, but I assume moving it during the deletion discussion would cause trouble?

Which four WP:NAVBOX guidelines does it fail and how? the only one I can see a major problem with is "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template" but that could be solved fairly easily by either renaming it {{Hamas sidebar}} or creating List of Hamas members.

The sources are all in the linked pages. I have only once seen a source in a navbox, so I presumed they were against the style guide? but I can add them if they are allowed?

It doesn't show assassinations, the map shows birthplaces and family origins (most of them died in Gaza, or outside the range of the map, a map wouldn't show much).

FourPi (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Palestinian leaders

Template:Palestinian leaders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template has poorly defined function per WP:TG. It serves no purpose, has no precedent, and seems to be an indiscriminate collection of information including about their places of birth, their militant operations, their wives, their children, and even their religions. For some reason there is also an assassination-like map attached to the template. It is also unsourced and failed all five of the WP:NAVBOX guidelines namely #4 the existence of its own separate article. It should be deleted. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the title to history, because that seemed to better describe the content, this template includes more past figures and fewer current / recent than the one you listed above. But I presume I shouldn't move the page yet?

It's basic biographical details, their leadership role, birthplace, date of death, etc. The date of death link to the page about it if it is a page to link. Religious diversity within the group is relevant to the topic.

What do you mean by "unsourced"? Navboxes don't usually include sources? All the info is in the linked pages, with sources. I have left out any information that sources conflicted about in the linked articles, e.g. the dates of birth for many of the leaders of Hamas are disputed, so I've left them out.

How does it fail all of the navbox rules? the only one it seems to fail definitively is the having a matching main page. But a page could be made. Creating a page seems equally valid as deleting a template to solve the problem of "template doesn't have a page".

FourPi (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Catfurball (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Catfurball, merge with what? If anything I was thinking it needs to be split, into one for politicians and another for militants. FourPi (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Futurama

Template:WikiProject Futurama (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:WikiProject Animation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Futurama with Template:WikiProject Animation.
WikiProject Futurama was turned 5 years ago into task force of animation and is found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Futurama task force. {{WikiProject Animation}} should be updated to accept it as a parameter and the usages of {{Futurama}} replaced. Gonnym (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ryan Reynolds

Template:Ryan Reynolds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Violates WP:FILMNAV, which states: Filmographies (and similar) of individuals should also not be included in navboxes, unless the individual concerned could be considered a primary creator of the material in question. This navbox consists almost entirely of films starring Reynolds in which he happened to also receive writer and/or producer credit (something very common in Hollywood). He was not the primary creator, i.e. director, of any of the films listed. The few valid links that remain fail the WP:NENAN rule of five. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right in the end. If he writes and/or produces, yes, I totally think that qualifies as a primary creator of the works. but, if there ain't at least 5, it just won't work. So, Delete. BarntToust (talk) 12:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 14:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany

Deletion review

[1] Rajput, Vinod (31 March 2020). "Greater Noida CEO to handle Covid-19 crisis after DM is shunted - Hindustan Times". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 2 August 2024.

[2] Sinha, Snehil (24 May 2021). "Noida to form four oxygen supply chains". Times of India. Retrieved 2 August 2024.

[3] Moonis Mirza; Madhur Verma; Soumya S. Sahoo; Sanjay Roy; Rakesh Kakkar; Dinesh K. Singh (2023). "India's Multi-Sectoral Response to Oxygen Surge Demand during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review". Indian Journal of Community Medicine. 48 (1): 31–40. doi:10.4103/ijcm.ijcm_665_22. PMC 10112770. PMID 37082381.

[4] Richard Crossman, Secretary of State for Social Services (24 October 1968). "SECRETARY OF STATE for SOCIAL SERVICES". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). Parliament of the United Kingdom: House of Commons. col. 1609. The House will notice that my title is wider than that of the proposed new Department. This is in recognition of the fact, as the Prime Minister mentioned in the House last week, that I have been asked to continue my coordination of the whole range of social services, in addition to my responsibility for the new Department.

[5] "Records created or inherited by the Department of Health and Social Security and related bodies". The National Archives. Retrieved 1 August 2024. Following the report of the Committee on the Home Civil Service (Fulton Committee), the Department of Health and Social Security (DHSS) was created in November 1968. It was formed by the merger of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Security under a Secretary of State for Social Services. The Secretary of State was assisted by two ministers of state responsible for health and social security respectively; in 1976 a Minister of Social Security of Cabinet rank was appointed within the department.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

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

Wikipedia:XfD today

Speedy deletion candidates

Articles

Files

Categories

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:21st-century German women violinists

Category:Israel Super Cup matches

Category:Korean women independence activists

Misused header templates for establishments and disestablishments categories

Category:Dobrujan Tatar

Category:Wikipedians don't accept payments for contributions

Category:Secretaries

Category:19th-century French politicians subcats

People from the Savoyard State

Category:Princesses in Germany

Category:Ants described in 1758

Category:United States Army civilians of World War II

Category:United States government people by war

Category:Scholars by subfield

Category:Articles requiring a direct DNB link

Category:National Highways in China

Decades in the Colony of Virginia

Emory and Henry College

Category:Discotek Media

Category:Secretaries of State for Health and Social Services

Category:Political parties of minorities in Canada

Redirects

2025 UK general election

Lee Min-ho (singer)

Joe Biden's uncle who got eaten by cannibals

Priestess

Unreal engine

Template:AFC infobox

Dirtbag (and other Transformers redirects)

Formula one in schools

Draft:Jaheim

Le Clique: Vida Rockstar (X)

Priyanka Chahar Choudhary

My cock is hard

Movies about pbuh

Kalki (upcoming film)

Wonderland (upcoming film)

Györöd, Romania

Zelda Games in Development

Virginia & truckee 11, reno

Windproof umbrella

Template:Bruh

List of storms named Jeana

Occupied Korea

All-Star Batman and Robin

List of Mario Party minigames

Templates and Modules

Miscellany

Deletion review