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


Speedy deletion candidates edit

Articles edit

Purge server cache

Raba Khan edit

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

Being in the list of a 30 people for a region doesn't mean we have to create an article for each of them. May be she is a celebrity but not notable to be in Wikipedia like the other youtubers. No independent notability other than being a youtuber. AlbeitPK (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KSKJ-CD edit

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Registered Agents Inc. edit

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

The article's primary justification is that it is the parent company for Epik, which is a notable fact already reported directly on the Epik article, and it would not be sufficiently notable otherwise based on WP:INHERITORG. The remaining items mentioned comprise insignificant coverage with only a few cited references focused on the company as the central topic. Those articles appear biased in part, based heavily on gossip, and show that the company provides business registration services to entities that are the reason for the journalistic coverage due to various criminal allegations associated with them. However, being the registration agent for other organizations that did notable or notorious things does not convey notability to Registered Agents. An earlier Talk page discussion regarding the page's questionable notability did not attract any substantive comments in support of retaining it, so I am nominating it for deletion. CapnPhantasm (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as there has been sustained and an increasing amount of coverage by WP:RSes, particularly by WP:RSPSOURCES. - Amigao (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This separate but closely related deletion discussion may also be relevant here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Keen. The consensus was to redirect to Registered Agents Inc.. - Amigao (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, Companies, Internet, Idaho, and Wyoming. WCQuidditch 00:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources don't have to have to be "focused on the company as the central topic" to 'count' towards notability, but whenever we have sources actually focused on the company, then that is a strong indication of notability.
    CapnPhantasm, being the registration agent for other organizations that did notable or notorious things does not convey notability to Registered Agents is a sort of WP:ITSIMPORTANT argument in reverse. You are saying that their role isn't (in your opinion) important enough to the events of the day to justify all the attention that the sources dedicated to them. However, we care about whether they got coverage from the world at large. We do not care whether the reason for their coverage seems important to us. If the subject got coverage for enabling something, then the subject got coverage. "Why" or "for what" or "do we agree that they deserved that coverage?" is irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete - Actually, it's not whether the reason for coverage is important to us, but the quality of the coverage and whether it should qualify for inclusion -- simply being mentioned in a number of articles is insufficient. Aside from the lead paragraph which is about its Epik subsidiary, the other items are piggybacked off of this, with most being fairly trivial mentions in the cited references.
To test whether this should be included, imagine that each of the points currently listed in the History subsection was positive, like "Registered Agents has been the agent of record for Apple corporation, the Pulitzer Foundation, IBM, and Chipotle." Such an article would likely get speedy-deleted because simply providing services for someone notable does not make your company automatically notable. There are other articles in the Afd lists right now that are going to get deleted for this very reason. Neutrality suggests this should be treated exactly as it would be if the coverage were totally positive.
Under Wikipedia:ORGSIG the company does not appear to have had any significant culture, society or business -- it looks as though they supply services just like other registered agent companies. If this met the test for notability, then we should add in all business registration agent companies mentioned in the same articles. WmLawson (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After reading through all sources, talk page comments, and comments here, I think the majority of the sources fall into WP:ORGTRIV (single line mentions as registered agent of bad companies; example of something being discussed; or local controversy); the most notable thing the company appears to have done is acquire Epik, a troubled domain registrar with an ugly history, and like the nominator suggested it can't inherit that notability per WP:INHERITORG; and unfortunately, the most significant source is all about alleged misdeeds/practices which WP:ILLCON says can't be used as a basis for an organization's notability. Although I do think this page should go, it does, however, seem like the primary editor has gathered sourcing that could be used to potentially enhance and create new aspects of the Registered Agent and Limited Liability Company pages, as the reporting in several of the sources elaborate extensively on the consequences of blindspots in state business formation statutes.MertenMerten (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are cited WP:GREL sources that go well beyond the Epik acquisition and satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. For instance: "Inside the Shadowy Firm Pushing the Limits of Business Privacy" and "A US Company Enabled a North Korean Scam That Raised Money for WMDs" - Amigao (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CapnPhantasm, you previously declared that you have undertaken WP:PAID Wikipedia editing for more than one client of NUANCE Agency, an advertising and marketing firm that you listed as your employer. Any WP:COI to declare here? - Amigao (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative note: I accidentally deleted this page when I intended to relist it - I have reversed the error and would ask another admin to take any future administrative actions here, as I am now involved due to my mistake. Apologies to those involved in the discussion! —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notional results of the 2019 United Kingdom general election by 2024 constituency edit

Notional results of the 2019 United Kingdom general election by 2024 constituency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These are not official election results; they are projections by a pair of private researchers. As a result, this article appears to be WP:SPECULATION by presenting a single set of calculations as an alternative history. The article is based almost entirely on the researchers' spreadsheet or on the Sky News article written by one of the researchers. Per WP:NOPAGE, this topic can be adequately covered by the existing material at 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies: "In January 2024, professors Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher published detailed estimates of what the result would have been had the new boundaries been in place at the previous general election. This analysis shows the Conservatives would have won seven additional seats in 2019, with Labour losing two, the Liberal Democrats three and Plaid Cymru two." Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep
No, these are notional results used by BBC for the upcoming election, and notional results are an essential part when new boundaries are introduced in the UK. Thomediter (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're addressed in detail in 2024 United Kingdom general election and also at 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies. Why do they need a WP:STANDALONE page? And why are there no other pages of notional results for other elections prior to a constituency boundary shift? Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're not adressed in enough detail, if the voting figures are missing, they still matter. Just because there is no page previously doesn't make the page irrelevant. There are numerous examples of this such there being a page about Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 1979, despite there being no page about Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 1977. Thomediter (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (which, just to be clear, is very strong too, but we don't need to specify that). This is a fork from 2024 United Kingdom general election. That page is the correct place for an encyclopaedic treatment of the matter. What is the case for pulling this out from that page? Only to give the polling excessive detail. Why is it useful? Because there is an election in a few weeks, and people in the UK are interested in the notional results following boundary changes. But... it won't have very much relevance at all once the election takes place. There is some possibility that some aspect of the prediction will be so interesting that people will write about it one day, but they haven't yet. No secondary sourcing supports the existence of this page and it is a very clear fail of the ten year test. It is also excessive detail for an encyclopaedic article. We should summarise that in prose and link to a source with the detail. This is, essentially, a kind of news reporting. It is not an encyclopaedic article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The notional results will ALWAYS be relevant to compare how voters changed preference from 2019 to 2024. Again, I have to point out that a lot of news organizations uses these notional results for this purpose. Thomediter (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The ten-year-test argument fails because it is already standard Wikipedia practice to use Thrasher+Rallings notionals from previous boundary reviews when calculating swings. Go to any constituency article and the swing in the 2010 results is the swing from the 2005 notionals- e.g. York Outer (UK Parliament constituency). This is well over ten years ago. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 13:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The 10 year test asks whether this page, as a subject in its own right, will be relevant in 10 years. A parliamentary constituency article will be relevant in 10 years, and the 2024 general election article will be relevant in 10 years. This article forks out some projections and treats those as a subject in their own right, but they are not independently notable. The projection is of interest to pundits now, but it will only ever be independently notable if secondary sources in the future decide to treat the subject of these notional results, for some reason, separate from the election itself. That looks like the clearest of possible 10YT fails. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The list has detailed data which will be used in the election coverage. This page is increasingly important with the upcoming general election. Moondragon21 (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is WP:NOTDATABASE, regardless of how important the data is. The data is discussed on two other pages and linked to from there for anyone who needs it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those that want to keep this: Are there any more sources? There's two decent enough articles talking about this, but it's marginal at the moment. SportingFlyer T·C 02:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards keep, but the article should be linked to those about the 2019 election, rather than the 2024 election. This is essentially an alternative version of the 2019 results. This article is sufficiently notable as it details the results of an election. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rarri Dream edit

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

Fails WP:GNG. Can't find any reliable, secondary sources in relation to the subject aside from the Earmilk link, and contains original research with the ASCAP citation. joeyquism (talk page) 04:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartland Museum of Military Vehicles edit

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

Fails WP:NORG; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Military, Transportation, and Nebraska. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this does somehow survive deletion I am able to get some photos for the article. I haven't looked much into the Museum itself so I can't currently comment on it's notability. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 04:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is not written like an advertisement, instead it needs improvement, not deletion. I'm appalled to see this nomiated for deletion. • SbmeirowTalk • 06:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of LSU Tigers football recruiting history edit

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

The article is pure WP:LISTCRUFT as the topic itself should not be an encyclopedic article. A deletion discussion for a similar article has already passed a year ago and its conclusions are very good. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 04:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TwoTiime edit

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. No discography or chart activity, and no third-party independent coverage. Sources are all primary, consisting of promotional interviews, press releases, and subject's hometown publication (Ottawa Citizen). 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 04:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian colonisation of Khotan edit

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

Another messy pov ridden and non-notable article (WP:POVFORK) by User:Jonharojjashi, this time relying on legendary stories to Indianize the Kingdom of Khotan, despite the WP:RS in the latter saying something completely else (that they were founded by Sakas). Wouldn't be surprised if Jonharojjashi had misused some of the WP:RS in this article as well, wouldn't be the first time [1]. Heck, Jonharojjashi is even citing William Bayne Fisher here, though has purposefully omitted the part where he states the Kingdom of Khotan was founded by Sakas,[1] which is mentioned in the Kingdom of Khotan article.

Instead of obsessing over uncorroborated legends and create a whole article out of it, Jonharojjashi should perhaps look into the consensus in WP:RS instead of ignoring it (such as they did to the WP:RS in Kingdom of Khotan), such as this pretty relevant excerpt; "In the version of the Travels, it is the ministers of the son of King Aśoka (ca. 272-31 BCE) who fled India and founded Khotan, where the earth rose in the form of a breast. In the Life (Beal, 1888, p. 203) and in the Tibetan Prophecy of the Li (that is, Khotan) Country (Thomas, pt. 1, pp. 100 f.; Emmerick, 1967, pp. 19-21), it is the banished prince himself who, having been fed by the breast from the earth, later founded the kingdom. Although found in two independent sources, which shows that the story was widespread, it is a legend devised to claim a noble origin of the lineage and should not be confused with historical data (against this see Emmerick, 1979, p. 167; Idem, 1983, p. 263). No colonialization of Khotan by India in the 3rd century BCE is to be considered seriously." This is written by Hiroshi Kumamoto [2], an expert in Khotanese history (eg [3]).

I think this excerpt from Jonharojjashi's report [4] sums it up pretty well; "It seems sufficient that this editor (Jonharojjashi) is habitually citing poor sources, misusing better ones in an OR matter, and PoV-forking at will, all to push a viewpoint that is clearly counter-historical and India-promotional." HistoryofIran (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Fisher, William Bayne; Yarshater, Ehsan (1968). The Cambridge History of Iran. Cambridge University Press. p. 614. ISBN 978-0-521-20092-9. One branch of the Sakas who founded a kingdom in Khotan (in the Tarim Basin) were zealous Buddhist....

Jesse Sylvia edit

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

No real indication of notability, only sources are routine 'match reports' on poker news sites and a stats database. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Not really notable, even as a poker player, I would delete it. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Homa (company) edit

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

Routine announcements only, not meeting NCORP. BoraVoro (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article was created and edited by User:Kevin Wolstenholme who has a self-declared conflict of interest with the article subject. --Mika1h (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has coverage from sources that indicate notability - VentureBeat (considered reliable) and Techcrunch (likely reliable in this instance). It may need paring-down, no doubt, as some of the content referenced from less reliable sources may not meed the standard. WmLawson (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe there is no need for deletion for this article. It has coverage, and is a relatively notable company, I would not delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talkcontribs)
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 keep‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fluxion (electronic musician) edit

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

Contested PROD. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 23:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

  • Keep – it needs more refs but, given Atlantic306's success at finding some potential additions I'm pursuaded by the artist's discography. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Electoral firsts in Guernsey edit

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Morse (California attorney) edit

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

Not a notable person. Possible WP:BLP1E. I removed some scandalous content which was unsourced, but presumably mentioned in Larry J. Kolb's book. No other sources. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Associated Press (A.P.), “Beating Charged,” Clarion-Ledger (Jackson MS), October
22, 1964, p. 16. Oblivy (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is barely verifiable (but not through sources contributing to notability) that the 1960s Stanford Frank Morse had the middle name Patrick [6], that the civil rights activist and beating victim was named Frank Morse and was from California, that Frank Patrick Morse is an attorney based in Beverly Hills [7] and was connected to some of the named companies. I could not verify any connection to UC Irvine (COI: my employer). None of the legal work removed from the article nor any of its material after the 1960s looks to make any case at all for notability. All we have left to base an article on is the civil rights story and a long "where are they now" WP:SYNfest. And I don't think we have enough detail on the civil rights story to rise above WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Sunter edit

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

Don't see how this individual is notable enough for a page, both in the general sense and in the parameters for which clerics are notable. Much of the article is unreferenced, and some of the sources at the bottom are only brief mentions. One actually focuses on the son of the subject. Leonstojka (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - With all due respect to the hard-workings of Wikipedians who insist on adherence to all the Wikipedia dictates ... there's more to it when it comes to spiritual leaders. I've done a great many Hawaii articles on spiritual leaders. The ones that impress me with their Christian walk in life, are not the ones who necessarily made the headlines when alive. It's people like Alice Kahokuoluna and Father Damien who put their own safety aside to care for the helpless leprosy patients. The ones who don't impress me are the spiritual leaders who make the news, and hobnob with legislative leaders. Not to knock Wikipedia guidelines, but people putting their own lives and welfare on the line to serve others, just doesn't seem to arise in Wikipedia guidelines. — Maile (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I tend to agree with the nomination. This is a rather well-sourced biography of a religious person, but I'm not sure what the notability is... He built a school, ministered to the faithful, other routine things. I suppose it would all get reported on at the time, but it's all strictly local news reporting on what the pastor was up to that week. Oaktree b (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a lot of Wikipedia is like that. That's what makes it useful. Doug butler (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files edit

File:Janus Records logo.jpg edit

File:Janus Records logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zeddedm (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The shape may seem unusual, but it's easier to draw with a ruler or stencil or any other precisive material. Also, it's American-made most likely. Should be transferred to Commons if no objections to tag the logo as free to use. George Ho (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories edit

NEW NOMINATIONS edit

Category:Socialist film directors edit

Nominator's rationale: delete, intersection of unrelated characteristics. A few of these articles may be moved to a Category:Victims of McCarthyism, but that would be a very different discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian flour millers and merchants edit

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. There's no parent category, and for the most part merchants aren't defined by whether they sold flour or not. Mason (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In Australia millers commonly purchase the grain, mill it, and sell the flour, adding value. So they're millers by trade, not merchants. Doug butler (talk) 03:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian commercial artists edit

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining type of artist. Notably there is not a parent category of commercial artists as far as I can find. Mason (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Commercial artists create their art for mass duplication: advertising, souvenirs etc. Not like portraitists etc. Doug butler (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, it is almost impossible to differentiate notable artists by "commercial" as so many made a living out of it. If not merged, better rename it to something related to the kind of art. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian bigamists edit

Nominator's rationale: There's no need to diffuse this category by nationality. Mason (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian event managers edit

Nominator's rationale: I'm on the fence about speedying this category, however, I'm not 100% sure that I've correctly mapped this category to the right parent of event planning. Mason (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian metal workers edit

Nominator's rationale: There are three ways this category can be handled. Either rename this to match the parent category of Metalworkers, merge to Australian metalsmiths‎ or rename to reflect that the intent of this category Metal manufacturing companies of Australia‎. Mason (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Artesian people edit

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining for the only person in the category Maximilien Robespierre Mason (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Violence in the Palestinian territories edit

Nominator's rationale: merge, all four articles in the category are about events after the establishment of the State of Palestine. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.
NLeeuw (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @@Marcocapelle: Do you think no category is needed for the broader Palestinian territories and the events before the state establishment? --Mhhossein talk 06:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly. Which articles are you thinking of in particular? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No special case at the moment, but there should be cases of violence ocurring in the Palestinian territories before the state establishment? --Mhhossein talk 06:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point. The State of Palestine didn't exist until 1988, while Palestinian territories have existed since 1967 (or 1949), depending on definition.VR (Please ping on reply) 09:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Romans from Africa edit

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

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

Category:Australian newspaper proprietors edit

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. Mason (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Three functions: Owner, publisher and editor. Often separated, for instance politicians may be newspaper owners but not publisher or editor. Influence without responsibility. Pastoralists may inherit a loss-making paper and subsidise its continued operation. Doug butler (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no other categories in this tree that make that distinction. Further, I'm pretty sure that there's a cfd that closed on similar newpaper owners, if I'm recalling. Mason (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian leather merchants edit

Nominator's rationale: Do we really need to diffuse merchants by whether they sell leather? Mason (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like steel merchants, corn merchants, ship merchants, drapers and stockbrokers, it's a specialized trade. Doug butler (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to both the proposed target and appropriate subcategories of Category:Leather manufacturers or Category:Tanners. An odd category without a nonexistent main article and no others like it. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 02:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug butler Please make sure to have non-Australian parent categories, when you create similar categories. Mason (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I try. Doug butler (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects edit

Hurt (Witt Lowry song) edit

No article for Witt Lowry and thus not even listed on the Hurt disambiguation page. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules edit

Miscellany edit

Deletion review edit