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

Candidates for speedy deletion

no pages or subcategories

Articles

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 23	December 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Morteza Khoshbakht

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails notability, this was deleted once but recreated with more or less the same thing. I have to repeat what I wrote first time. the article just has a bunch of refs without much to say, from what I found he is a former world youth/cadet (not junior) champion back in 1996 but that's not enough to make him notable. he never won anything in junior or senior level. Sports2021 (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pagini Juridice

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

First, some context: this article forms part of a WP:Walled garden created by User:ATuschinski about his family members. The article on the founder of the journal that forms the subject of this nomination just got torched. Second, the case for deletion is straightforward: lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Almost every citation is to the journal itself. The one significant exception, the article by Mircea Duțu, devotes approximately half a line to this publication: see here, top of page 220. There is nothing to establish encyclopedic notability here. Biruitorul ^Talk 10:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amanpulo

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

The resort which covers Pamalican island fails WP:GNG. Only sources are from travel guides. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Geography, and Islands. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AEYE Health

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

AEYE Health does not appear to meet WP:ORG. In going through the sources, they appear to be press releases or otherwise connected with the company, and the very small number of exceptions do not appear to be significant. There is material out there, but nothing that I think passes WP:ORG, as I cannot find material which is clearly both independent and significant. Hopefully someone can do a better job than I did, but at the moment I cannot find enough to get this past the requirements. - Bilby (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, Technology, Israel, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilby, I see there are several generic sources like Reuters or Fortune, while others, such as the British Journal of Ophthalmology, Modern Retina, and Ophthalmology Times, appear to be specialized journals in the field. Additionally, we're talking about an entity that is bringing significant changes to the sector thanks to the use of innovations such as Artificial Intelligence, supported by studies. Do you have any specific suggestions on how to enrich the entry? Can I ask the company to send me better materials so I can submit them for your review and that of other editors? Thanks! Dirindalex1988 (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mallzee

AfDs for this article:

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

Mallzee shut down in 2021. The article was flagged for neutrality and promotional content in August 2017, it is written mostly like a self-interested ad, and with the lack of any changes to rectify those issues or any edits to indicate the business shut down evidences minimal interest in article. At present, I feel the article doesn't provide encyclopaedic value and given the years of opportunity since the closure of the business without as much as an update indicating such, I doubt the quality of this article will improve. ~ Chip 🐺 08:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Chip 🐺 08:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it passes WP:NORG, even considering some articles, the coverage was incidental. ~ Chip 🐺 08:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell Gratton

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

Nominated by Ponyshine as not notable. (But the AFD was broken; I'm just fixing that and the discussion page.) -- Beland (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadia Global School Dubai

AfDs for this article:

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

There are no independent reliable sources with significant coverage that are not reviews, guides or PR pieces using the same images. The sources do not pass the WP:SIRS check and fails NCORP. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Schools, and United Arab Emirates. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ankur Malik

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

This subject fails WP:SPORTSCRIT, the sources that mention him are poor and do not provide WP:SIGCOV. Nxcrypto Message 07:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and India. Nxcrypto Message 07:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamalon

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:NCORP and NOTCRUNCHBASE very much applies here. Defunct - mostly Arabic - booksales website/POD operation in the Middle East, first in Jordan then the UAE. It started up, it closed down. There is no enduring impact or change in the market that resulted from its existence. The only likely ATD would be a redirect to Fadi Ghandour, but at the most it would be one of hundreds, if not thousands, of investments that Ghandour has made - and it's not really outstanding or worthy of a merge at his page. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Business, Jordan, and United Arab Emirates. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO, part of a network of questionable articles. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vampirefreaks.com

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

Does not appear to be a notable company. The only reliable sources I could find that covered it were passing mentions to the website as a result of the Murder of Carly Ryan. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment references 1, 2 and 3 are the subjects websites. Ref 4, passing mention. Ref 5, they've organised a festival which is a 3 day event and touted as 'America’s largest 3-day gothic-industrial music festival and convention'. Ref 6 is a interview with one of the owners. Ref 7 now points to a casino website. Ref 8 another 'Dark Force event page which doesn't give any real detail about Vampire.com. Ref 9 is another interview. I will have another search before voting, but there doesn't seem to be anything indicating notability per WP:GNG. (Further edit) I've had a look gor referencs. I've added one from Kerrang about the network site closure. The only other references I can find are a tenuous connection to the murder mentioned above. Knitsey (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'll be blunt, User:Knitsey, are you arguing for Deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maoist Communist Party (France)

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

Fails WP:ORG. Every source given is from the organisation itself or a Maoist blog site, except one by the conservative tabloid Diario Correo, which mentions the French organisation in passing. Online searches in English, French, and Spanish return zero reliable sources, and I doubt such sources will be found in print offline. Yue🌙 06:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Yue🌙 06:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found multiple sources in French which discuss the party, especially in relation to the Gilets jaunes: "Morts aux porcs": de violents tags anti-police en plein Paris, "De Rugy Escroc on te fera payer": qui est le Parti Communiste Maoïste qui revendique ce tag?, Nantes. Tags sur son mur de résidence : qui menace François de Rugy?, Vice interview with a PCM member, Montpellier: le préfet accuse des groupes révolutionnaires communistes d'infiltrer les manifestations des gilets jaunes, Droite identitaire, gauche radicale : quand les extrêmes gonflent les rangs des Gilets jaunes. Need to look at this further, but "zero" reliable sources appears incorrect. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The party is underground now but still actively exists, but it clearly needs updates and translations. DuCouscous (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. So, sources do exist. User:Goldsztajn are you arguing for a Keep here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Internet aesthetic

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

This is largely an essay lackign a sourced defintion of "internet aesthetic" and collection of topics that aren't supported through any source suggesting their connection to this term. This is largely WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. There is one source from Vogue in 2022 that references "internet aesthetics" but not in connection to wide range of examples provided here. ZimZalaBim ^talk 05:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Visual arts, Fashion, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Presents a list of things that are somewhat related, more of a meme or trends than any sort of related aesthetic items. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of this is synthesis. Just because an aethetic or design or fashion is popular in the modern day and is discussed on the internet does not mean it is an "internet aethetic". That's just how the world works now, not a substantive cohesive concept: "that usually originates from the Internet or is popularized on it" – very little in the last 20 years wasn't popularized on the internet, so this is a meaningless characteristic unless you are just fluffing up the most recent and niche trends. "micro-trends such as mob wife and tomato girl summer" Groan. Which sources actually bring the concepts here together? Reywas92^Talk 14:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all reasons above. At most, this might be best suited as a category for worthwhile articles such as Corecore, dark academia, light academia, and so on. Only problem is that the title is itself a wholesale invention. I don't think it's influenced the popular literature to remain as . Ornov Ganguly TALK 17:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nom and the arguments presented that the article is a synthesis of original research. Perhaps in a few years if scholarly books or articles are written about this topic it will become notable. At this time it is not. Netherzone (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with everyone else. History being a definition of aesthetic with a line from Vogue tacked on? Seems like a desperate, last minute high school essay more than an article. There are individual elements which might be able to stand on their own, but as a whole it's all over the place. Tengu99 (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I don't understand why everyone wants this deleted, the pageviews showcase notability and I wouldn't consider it original research, maybe synthesis but ut has still managed to get 90k pageviews this year alone. This0k (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pageviews does not establish notability. See WP:POPULARPAGE. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is an essay. Essays have nothing to do with policy or guidelines, they are opinion. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and I suspect most editors here respect the views expressed at WP:ATA. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respect is fine but is not a policy or guideline. Many editors name essays as if they were canon, they are not. They are opinion and have nothing to do with deletion close decisions (or at least shouldn't). Sources have been found and listed for this topic, and that should be enough, per GNG, to keep the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move - There's a lot of well researched and cited information here. We should discuss moving them to their relevant pages, I wouldn't want us to lose all of this. But yes, the article name and scope is weird so it can be deleted. Egezort (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per This0k and search engine results such as this descriptor, and this art and popular culture site, and many more. Just search for the term and articles, dictionary definitions, videos, etc. appear. When a page receives 90 thousand views a year it has real-world connections and real-world definitions (readers aren't searching for this out of the blue or in a hypnotic state, they came here to find out about internet aesthetics). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination mentions a lack of sourced definitions, here is a link to some (disregard the first, Wikipedia, and look beyond that, such as this long and detailed screenshot article). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. While the majority of sources are unusable, the Glamour article, this First Monday article, and potentially this German one are all usable. Ornov Ganguly TALK 12:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly significant coverage of this, not in stuffy academic literature yet, but that's not a requirement for notability. I've spot-checked a couple of the listed aesthetics and found multiple people referring to them as 'Internet Aesthetics', or found them on lists of 'Internet Aesthetics' of course if things on this list are not called 'Internet Aesthetics' they shouldn't be there, and can be removed. (If that happens to leave us with the two that I picked at random, a delete might be appropriate!) JeffUK 11:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move - Coverage about the topic exists but the information should be rewritten to fit an encyclopedic tone.

Miiversal (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article definitely needs some refreshing but the topic is a significant/noteworthy topic in contemporary culture, per the others 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚^(🕷) ^- ^(✉) 09:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also it seems sometime in 2024, someone deleted and rewrote the definition section (the previous text) which previously contained sources along with removing some of the information in history 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚^(🕷) ^- ^(✉) 09:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: While there has been significant coverage, the article does not entirely read like something that should be on wikipedia. Aesthetics might be widely reported on and worthy of an article, but does wikipedia really need an entire list of all of these aesthetics? Perhaps the more notable ones can be included in a list category, instead of in an article. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 12:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My comments are similar to those of Reywas92, so not worth repeating by me.Plasticwonder (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON The premise is that such a thing as "internet aesthetic" exists and the laundry list of current fashions falls into that aesthetic. No reliable sourcing supports the premise. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this Atlantic article does a good job covering the rise of the Aesthethics wiki and defining internet aesthetics as a "a collection of signifiers or, more precisely, a “vibe.”" They do a good job discussing how these aesthetics allow for the articulation, and classification of many different feelings/moods/subcultures/etc. Towards the end they state:

It’s easy to dismiss aesthetics, particularly some of the wackier ones, as superficial and frivolous. But Alexander Cho, a digital-media researcher at UC Santa Barbara, told me that they can be “really important, especially for young adults in terms of creating or fashioning a self.” If you have a hunch about who you are, it’s incredibly easy now to search for images and ideas that help you refine that sense of self.

On the opposite end this Vox article on aesthethics criticizes them as fleeting, hollow and commercial. Prospect magazine did a similar article. I can definitely understand how compared to hippies, goth, punk, etc., these niche aesthetic subcultures can seem inconsequential and like short-lived trends of the past. But there is a long-term movement away from large-scale countercultures towards niche subcultures, which makes comparing them anachronistic. The physical ecosystems of the past (clothing stores, music concerts, magazines, etc.) could only sustain a limited number of subcultures, so people outside of the mainstream only had limited groups to join, and this inflated their numbers. The current digital ecosystem (social media sites, online shopping, etc.) can support a wide diversity of niche subcultures which the larger subcultures are splintering into.

Individually most of these aesthetics subcultures are not notable, but collectively they are a sizeable movement that currently has no other article to be discussed in. Photos of Japan (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have plenty of editors here who disagree over whether "internet aesthetic" is or is not a real "thing" but we rely on sources to determine this. We have a disagreement over whether there are reliable sources verifying the subject's notability while other editors see the article as OR. Could we get a source assessment to settle this dispute over whether there are adequate sources providing SIGCOV or not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sharan Kaur Pabla

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

"Sharan Kaur" was a fictional character created by the author Vir Singh in a fictional novel. There are literally no reliable sources to support that "Sharan Kaur" was an actual historical figure. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 07:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Even disregarding the inaccuracies, this article has only one source supporting it. A Google search found some websites which support his existence, such as this one, but this website is far from noteworthy coverage nor is it a reliable source. Even the most popular result, from SikhiWiki, cites Wikipedia as a reference, making it unusable. Jordano^5³ 07:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jhala Manna

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

This article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jhala Man Singh and recreated under a different title with sufficient differences that G4 speedy deletion was declined.

However, the recreated version still does not show that the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:NBIO.

Most sources have one or a handful of passing or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the subject (A History of Rajasthan, A History of Mewar, Battle of Haldighati, Jhālā rājavaṃsa, Mewar Saga, Mewar & the Mughal Emperors, and Maharana Pratap: The Invincible Warrior.
In addition to having trivial mentions, some sources are also considered of questionable reliability per WP:RAJ, such as Tod's Annals of Rajasthan
One source is WP:SELFPUBLISH: Sacred Mysteries from vanity publisher by Notion Press.
Chiefs and Leading Families in Rajputana has no mention of Jhala Man Singh/Man Singh Jhala/Jhala Bida/Jhala Manna/Jhala Sardar or any other configuration of his names.
Another "source" is a poem.
The final source is an e-commerce site.

No evidence of WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources is found in a WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still not seeing notability, sources are as explained above, not much for showing notability. I still don't find any sources we can sue. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article previously at AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable person. Mentioned in many sources. He played a significant role in the Battle of Haldighati. Lordo'Web (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We're now at a split opinion, so worth relisting in an attempt to garner further clarity on consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article without notability. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. After the source analysis in the nomination statement, any editors arguing to Keep have to counter this assessment of the sources or present ones they believe are reliable. Just saying they exist is not enough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire Beach

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

Cites no sources, couldn't find any, doesn't look notable at all. I was mildly surprised to find that the book exists at all, although it does seem to! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisette Titre-Montgomery

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

No SIGCOV, I can only find 1 independent, non-sponsored, in-depth, and reliable source. Bearian, just because we're scrutinized by the public doesn't mean we need to keep articles that are not within policy. In fact, we should be making every effort to delete articles out of policy. The book user:Megalibrarygirl added (from my one-in-the-morning skim of Google Books) appears to be fairly trivial, stating facts and that's 'bout it. Jay Cubby 06:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Video games. Jay Cubby 06:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, California, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam McCandless

AfDs for this article:

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

Been sitting in the unclear notability pile for 10+ years now, and it cites only one source that doesn't help for NBIO or GNG. There's one mag profile that doesn't go into much real depth but I guess could help, but I couldn't find anything else. WP:BANDMEMBER is pretty clear that members don't automatically inherit notability from the band, so I don't see a NMUSIC pass either. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:14, 24 December 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. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cold (band). Plasuible redirect and it appears to be the only band he released music with. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slipz

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:ANYBIO, his only notability is being a cameraman for a streamer. No reliable source used either. Http iosue (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Music, Internet, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Equestrian Trade Association

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

Fails WP:NORG. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Currently defunct.Seems to have been created by COI user. Imcdc Contact 04:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Horse racing, and United States of America. Imcdc Contact 04:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Senco Gold Limited

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

This article fails WP:NORG , the sources listed here do not provide the coverage required by stringent WP:CORPDEPTH and most sources I found in WP:BEFORE search were unusable for establishing notability as they fell under the purview of WP:NEWSORGINDIA, the history of socking and undisclosed paid editing can't be overlooked either, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soumya511569- Ratnahastin (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to solicit more participation. By the way, the correct SPI is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BNJ Nilam.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bananana

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

Neither List of programmes broadcast by ntv7 nor List of programmes broadcast by 8TV (Malaysian TV network) mentions anything named Bananana. Also, Banananas Music is a partial title match. So, a disambiguation page like this is not needed. GTrang (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. GTrang (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zemun Stadium

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable soccer stadium that fails both WP:GNG and WP:NARENA, which holds that athletic stadia are neither presumptively notable nor inherit the notability of any teams that play there. Significant coverage has not been demonstrated to exist, the article has been inadequately sourced for over fifteen years now (and was notability tagged for 12 years), its only current source is primary. Previous AfD went keep on the basis of several "It's notable," "It's big," and "Important games have been played there," among other illegitimate reasons. Ravenswing 09:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete zero notability established. Sole source is from the home club, their website also doesn't appear to exist anymore. Looking at the previous AfD (which you also nominated), all of the keep arguments completely violated WP:INHERIT and WP:NARENA (which some of them even used as a keep argument), and the closing admin looks to have simply done a vote count. Aydo h8^[contribs] 10:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Serbia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Zemun#Sport or FK Zemun if no coverage is found. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would run afoul of WP:XY. Ravenswing 04:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To fix WP:XY, I would say redirect to Zemun#Sport if no coverage is found because the topic is broader than FK Zemun. --Habst (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection. Ravenswing 18:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be absolutely astounded if this isn't notable. I'll try to do a source search in a bit. SportingFlyer T·C 19:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous AFD which contains numerous sources. Giant Snowman 20:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which of those sources do you claim provides SIGCOV to the subject? Ravenswing 05:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources at the previous AfD demonstrate notability, along with [1] [2] and books such as Srbija: znamenitosti i lepote (1965) SportingFlyer T·C 21:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other issue is this stadium is known by several different names, making BEFORE searches more difficult. Recent coverage also includes [3] [4] SportingFlyer T·C 02:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding the sources identified here or in the previous AfD to the article would likely help garner consensus quicker.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie Beasnael

AfDs for this article:

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

While it has been improved from its poor state after creation by a subsequently blocked sock, this is still a WP:PROMO biography for a non-notable individual. Sources are limited to:

The subject's own writing and thus WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13])
WP:PRSOURCEs ([14], [15])
Churnalism based on interviews solely with or statements solely by the author (and thus also primary sources) ([16], [17])
Primary source official bios ([18], [19])
A WP:TRIVIALMENTION ([20])

Meanwhile, the awards she has received are not of the kind to qualify her as notable under WP:ANYBIO. Nothing qualifying came up in a WP:BEFORE search. Bottom line: fails WP:NBIO, WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Africa, and California. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I had the same concerns while editing the article recently. Ligaturama (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eldon Howard

AfDs for this article:

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

Hasn't changed since previous AFD. Jay Cubby 02:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jay Cubby 02:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unclear why the article was kept per no consensus in the previous AfD. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:43, 10 December 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 03:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Zubretsky

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

WP:BLP of a health insurance executive, not adequately sourced as passing inclusion criteria for businesspeople. As always, health insurance CEOs are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on coverage that's substantively about them and their work, but the referencing here isn't really cutting it: the best sources are two short blurbs published on the same day announcing his initial hiring for the job, which aren't substantive enough to get him over GNG all by themselves, while the rest of the footnotes comprise a press release self-published by his company (which isn't an independent source), an industry trade newsletter that isn't a GNG-worthy publication, and three articles that aren't about him in any non-trivial sense, but just glancingly namecheck him in the process of being principally about the overall phenomenon of how much insurance executives are getting paid.
Further, the information about his annual financial compensation over several years is a bit of a BLP minefield, especially in the wake of last week's shooting -- the amount that a person gets paid is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself, but that appears to be this article's primary concern.
Simply existing as an insurance CEO, regardless of how much money he is or isn't making, is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the principal subject of more GNG-worthy coverage about him and his work than this article is showing. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BLP1E - If the Brian Thompson murder had not happened, it is unlikely Zubretsky would be eligible for his own article. As is, it reads like an unremarkable resume. The same career background and compensation is not that out of line in corporate executive salaries. — Maile (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the mention in the article, "While at Aetna, Zubretsky increased telecommuting for employees as a way to save on office and real estate costs." Maybe so, but this was already the going trend in corporate America about the time he started doing that. — Maile (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I mean, this is well-sourced. A "Run of the mill CEO article" isn't exactly routine, there aren't thousands of health-care CEOs, he's one of a handful... A company of this size is akin to General Motors or Enron, so the CEO would be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well-sourced how, if the only footnotes that actually represent real media outlets writing about him are both short blurbs? Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's generally at least enough for a stub article. We have confirmation of employment at a large healthcare enterprise. Oaktree b (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's enough in terms of sourcing to justify this article's existence. I'm less than keen on Wikipedia being party to a naming-and-blaming campaign, but we're not censored. I created an article on a corporate executive that survived an AfD (Ted Decker) and this is article's subject is vaguely reminiscent of that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Health and fitness. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also this profile in a newspaper [21]. There are mentions of his name in newspapers back to 2007 with Aetna, he's had a long business career. Oaktree b (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well yes, some sources are good. NatalieTT (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd be interested in hearing from a few more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Al-Mustariha massacre

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

Non-notable massacre or air strike. One of the source (ANHA - Hawar News Agency) is linked to the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). ANHA is forbidden in Turkey because it's seen as a propaganda tool of SDF, therefore I have no idea about what exactly is written in the source. Other source (arabi21.com) don't talk about Al-Mustariha or even a kind of massacre commited by Turkish air force. I'm not sure can we create an artice about every air strike and can we name every air strike as a massacre. I found no reliable sources online. I think it fails WP:RS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If there is a real massacre, this page can be used: List of massacres during the Syrian civil war.--Sabri76'^talk 14:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Comment As mentioned above, neither of the two listed sources describe the event in question. However, there are other sites online that do, such as here and here, but no major news agency has reported on it yet. --Leviavery (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned below, SOHR just make news of anouncement of SDF controlled Raqqa Governorate. Turkey has made lots of air strikes and some of them might kill some civillians but I mean we need more reliable sources that air strike is a massacre. SDF/PYD controlled news agency ANFA try to create a perception that Turkish Air Force deliberately bombed a civillian house for order to ensure the emigration of the people. We're sure there were many airstrike and some soldiers and civillians are killer but we're not sure is this a massacre or an ordinary air strike. SDF-PYD don't want loose their areas because they want autonomy and independence if it's possible in the future. Therefore they create news like that for gaining inrernational support against Türkey. Therefore wikipedians should be suspicious about these type of claims and need more reliable sources. We have to ask what makes this event (air strike) special if we consider last bloody 10 years of Syrian Civil War?--Sabri76'^talk 20:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree ANHA shouldn’t be used, it’s clearly not reliable considering the context, but SOHR is a reliable source. As other sources have started to emerge confirming the details, I don’t see a need to delete the article. Please keep WP:NPOV in mind, as both Turkish and Kurdish aligned sources have bias. Flalf^Talk 01:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleppo | Turkish drone kills 11 SDF fighters in eastern countryside - The Syrian Observatory For Human Rights

SOHR itself calls them to be fighters, though this article calls it massacre of civilians by the Turkish Armed Forces. AscendencyXXIV (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Syria, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support The whole article of such an important event only has two references, thus the mentioned sources lack overall credibility - there's no report from any respectable/well-known media agency. AscendencyXXIV (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slight Keep SOHR is a reliable source, and while the coverage is limited as of now, this leads me to believe that there is more to come. Flalf^Talk 17:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR shared the anouncement of SDF-led Raqqa Governorate and it says "191 air strikes". If this is a massacre, how about other 190 air strikes and dead bodies? If it's a systematic air strike massacre, why there is no other news and why big city centres are not bombed? SOHR also says totally 20 civilians killed in air strikes besides 32 SDF soldiers and 3 Assad regime soldiers. Also massacre is so disputed concept in this civil war. For example in here civillians died besides soldiers and I've searched key word of "massacre". I've found that just SDF (YPG) asserted Turkey committed a massacre against civilians and the source belongs to SOHR. I think using only the SOHR source prevents the objectivity of the event. The event in the article is the killing of soldiers and civilians as a result of air strikes and I think that it is not necessary to open a separate article since it is not a sui generis event in this civil war.--Sabri76'^talk 17:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (weak). Coverage in SOHR ([22]) and New Arab ([23]). Suggest a requested move for the title. Longhornsg (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The massacre occurred today, and we have two reliable sources reporting on it as mentioned above. It's also worth noting that the Arabic divisions of Sky News and The Independent have both covered this attack. Biases within Kurdish sources such as ANHA should be taken into account, but most Kurdish sources I've seen source SOHR instead of SDF. Jebiguess (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: All news are based on SOHR and SOHR based on Raqqa Governorate. No photographs or witnesses in the news. Even if we accept this event is real but still no one has answered these questions yet: Does the bombing of a building make it noteworthy? Should an article be created for it or should it be simply moved to page List of massacres during the Syrian civil war ? In List of massacres page, Turkey wasn't mentioned. Is this a new and only massacre from at the beginng of the Syria war? If 190 air strike kills SDF-YPG soldiers and one of them kills civillians, is this make a massacre? Are you sure that it is a massacre instead of an air strike? For examle we have this article: April 2017 Turkish airstrikes in Syria and Iraq. Also civillians killed in those air strikes. This article was created to show that Turkey only carries out air strike to massacre innocent civilians. However, this airstrike is only one of 191 airstrikes against the SDF-YPG, and how neutral is it to open an article for a building that was bombed intentionally or accidentally? Israel also killed 6 civillians in this air strike (2024 Homs airstrikes) Why this is not a massacre?--Sabri76'^talk 06:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Offer: (My offer is valid provided that there is a consensus that the article should remain) I've found Turkish-based English news and I can see the photos. Therefore, I propose to change the title of the article as 2024 Turkish airstrikes in Syria, because Turkey does not want an autonomous or independent PKK-affiliated structure to be established in northern Syria and therefore, it is highly possible that operations will continue and air strikes will increase. Thus, this article will be open to develop for further actions.--Sabri76'^talk 06:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Update: My opinion is this is not a noteworthy event for creating an article unlike air strikes in Syria. If you want to see real massacre about Turkish Air Force, Roboski massacre is most popular one and this was widely discussed in the Turkish media and parliament for many years. If you have a consensus about this event is a massacre you can mention in here: List of massacres during the Syrian civil war. However this article but there are no sources to prove that it was a massacre. However massive air strikes are a fact.--Sabri76'^talk 10:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t understand your opposition. I’m not anti-Turkish or trying to push a narrative, as a Wikipedian I’m simply trying to encourage documentation of facts. There is now a significant amount of independent coverage (particularly in Arab language sources) and even of a Turkish source (as you provided). [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Perhaps there should additionally be made an article about the more general air strikes, but this refers to a specific event.
    
    Also as I mentioned earlier, please keep WP:NPOV in mind. I understand you are Turkish, but you should remember to consider your own biases, especially in sanctioned areas such as around Kurdish related topics. Flalf^Talk 16:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AscendencyXXIV:, @Flalf:, @Braganza: I'm convinced about reality of the event and this discussion can be closed with a consensus, but I still have doubts about the definition of massacre, I think it's about moving the title and it's not the topic of here. I do not have any bias on issues related to Kurds, but I see a lot of systematic Turkophobia in the English Wikipedia, which is supposed to be unbiased. There is such a high level of prejudice against Turks on wikipedia that I don't participate in discussions because of the risk of being labeled as a nationalist even by writing a sentence, but calling the Turkish Air Force as mass murderer because one of the 191 bombings led to the death of innocents doesn't sound neutral at all. If the creator of the article hadn't used the word "massacre" but said "air strike", this article wouldn't have attracted my attention. I have heard on the news that they've been carrying out air strikes in recent days, but massacre is a very big claim. I would like to invite you to the page to get your views on the topic related to the title, I apologize for keeping this place busy.--Sabri76'^talk 17:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Closing Discussion I think it’s fair to say the title is more in dispute than the article itself and that the deletion discussion should be closed in favor of a Request for Move.
Flalf^Talk 18:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

support closure Braganza (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- - I've changed my mind because I still cannot find the location of Al-Mustariha. News says it's in the west of Ayn Issa and north of Raqqa, but we just see Mustariha village in Idlib. Before this news, there's no information about Al-Mustariha village in Ayn Issa. This is so weird. Almost I've found a Mustariha in Hama Governorate. Why I cannot find the location? If we cannot find the location, could we presume that event took place in Ayn Issa Province? I've used VPN and I've seen ANHA news which says 12 dead people but SOHR says 11 civillians. I think one of 12 killed people is SDF-YPG soldier but ANHA didn't mention it because of ideological background of news agency. SOHR used the Raqqa Governorate's statement and it's normal ı think. However, it is very interesting why all the websites reporting the news only stick to the SOHR announcement and don't clarify the location of the village. There are photos, but not finding any information about the location of the village or any information about the village before the incident makes me suspicious. A few small opposition websites in Turkey, known to be close to the HDP, reported this news. No medium or large-scale news website, also known internationally, mentioned this incident. I am contributing to this page for the first time, but I would like to ask if this is normal. The level of media freedom in Turkey may be low and therefore some news may be ignored, but if it is serious enough to be covered, I ask why other large or medium-sized news agencies didn't report it. Don't misunderstand me, I don't claim bombings and deaths didn't occur.--Sabri76'^talk 23:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to 2024 Turkish airstrikes in Syria as proposed by Sabri76. This justifies a split from Turkish involvement in the Syrian civil war which currently only has #2024 Rojava offensive pointing to 2024 Manbij offensive and 2024 Kobani offensive. The more detailed reports seem to be mainly from Kurdish-related sources; this includes both Iraq-based and Syria-based Kurdish-related groups, which are not a monolithic group, so the biases are to some degree mixed; western mainstream media tend to be focussed on 'our' interests, but do have some reports. Overall, 2024 Turkish airstrikes in Syria is very likely WP:NOTABLE. Last week or so: 9 Dec 2024 Rudaw Media Network; 10 Dec 2024 Rojava Information Center; 16 Dec 2024 The New York Times; pre-fall-of-Assad: 24 Oct 2024 The Guardian; kurdistan24.net '1 month ago' Kurdistan 24. Boud (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. This seems sufficiently significant, but needs to be renamed/moved and possibly expanded, for example, as suggested by Boud just above.My very best wishes (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should we keep an article with the present scope (this attack, regardless of whether the "massacre" label is justified) or reframe this as an article about all the airstrikes in the most recent episode? At the moment I see an even split between these options.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Owiredu

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

All the sources fail WP: GNG and the subject of the article does not have the WP:SIGCOV to have a Wikipedia page. The article is ref bombed with press releases with two sentences getting up to 7 references. Ibjaja055 (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Engineering, and Ghana. Ibjaja055 (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. automobile production figures

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

WP:NOTSTATS with no inline citations and mostly essay content in the lead, and arbitrarily cut off at 2000. WP:SYNTH may also be a concern because the sources used might have different methodologies for estimating production in a given model year. PROD contested because:

Objecting to deletion, there are citations, and this information doesn't appear available elsewhere on Wikipedia and it provides valuable information, I'm not sure why this should be deleted
— User:97.176.15.217 22:41, 31 October 2024

But "valuable information" and "not available elsewhere" are not valid justifications for collections of data, especially a year-by-year breakdown over an entire century that does not include all companies. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Business, Transportation, Lists, and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a relic of an earlier era that would be more useful as tabular data on Commons. After 19 years, it's only linked to by 3 articles - two of them as improper circular references rather than useful wikilinks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and nom. I am sure someone else has collected these figures before but it won't have the significant coverage to sustain such a list. Conyo14 (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The news media does cover which are the bestselling vehicles of the year. Google news search for bestselling vehicles in America and each year, finds some results in reliable sources giving significant coverage to this. We have articles for List of best-selling automobiles and List of automobile sales by model. List of countries by motor vehicle production exist as well. This list just shows how many vehicles were made in America by each company year by year. Does production per country get coverage, or just global sales? Dream Focus 07:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that just be WP:SYNTH issues? In which case I would argue just for a redirect to the automobile sales by model list as a potential target. Conyo14 (talk) 08:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kheyrollah Ghahramani

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

Fails notability, he probably won some youth medals but achieved nothing in major events in senior level. the article claims he won two silver at 2012 and 2013 Asian Senior Championship but that's not correct and he never even made it to those competitions. Sports2021 (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not sure how much help it is, but this source suggests he did in fact have a silver at the Asian championships and a bronze at world championship. [24] Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately this source fails to mention these medals are in cadet level. this is his resume in UWW database. as I said he never won anything special in senior level. Sports2021 (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meisam Yarahmadi

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

Fails notability. just being a coach in youth level in a non-Olympic sport is far from being notable. this looks like WP:COI. Sports2021 (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Midwin

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

I can't find any extended discussion of this living person, or any distinction making her automatically notable. Databases record her having had a professional beach volleyball career; she has appeared once or twice in Playboy publications/websites; she ran for local office once. I reduced the article in this edit, removing some poor sources (a magazine search, a Getty images search, a brief TV segment via YouTube) and some unreferenced personal information, but I conclude that notability can't be demonstrated. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Fashion, Volleyball, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Kato

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

The sources fail WP: GNG or the criteria for WP:ANYBIO. Most of the sources are either promotional and puff piece like this or article about his foundation like [25]. I also spotted PR sources farming here. This source and this source are two promotional pieces published on the same day with same contents but on two different news media. Same goes with this this and this. Same contents but different dates on two different news media. It is also interesting to know that 77 percent of all the sources used (7 out of 9) were published in July, 2024. 57 percent out of the 77% (4 sources) were published in one day. Ibjaja055 (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources for the article (especially here and here) definitely look like source farming, and I cannot find anything that meets WP:GNG, for his name or "1BigAllan". I removed the promotional content from it but I still don't think it qualifies for a seperate article from Allan Children's Foundation. Sophisticatedevening (talk) 01:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Uganda. Ibjaja055 (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine McBroom

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

Non-notable attorney, fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Every source in the article is either primarily about a client or is a primary source, with the only other source being a local news article about the foundation of a law firm (link). WP:BEFORE search yields the sources used in the article or gossip about an unrelated person with a similar name. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and California. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files

File:Cf3.jpg

WP:NFCC#5: not encyclopedic. The character of the article is turned almost with his back, and is in a pose in which it is difficult to see him. In addition, the part of the image he occupies is barely a third of the possible. + the image in the infobox includes this version of the character. — Ирука¹³ 06:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Norfolk Railway heraldry.jpg

Photo of a three-dimensional object. The object is in the public domain. Photo license unknown. — Ирука¹³ 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:American social media influencers

Propose merging Category:American social media influencers to Category:American Internet celebrities

Nominator's rationale: Is this really a defining category that's distinct from American Internet celebrities? ^SMason_Garrison 04:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete, if applicable the articles are already in Category:American bloggers, Category:American YouTubers, Category:American TikTokers etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that. ^SMason_Garrison 16:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge, and oppose deletion for that matter. Having the subcategory makes for more consistency with our articles, Internet celebrity and influencer, and the existence of the category—and the heaps of secondary source coverage about 'social media influencers' and all manner of web platform based persons like YouTubers and TikTokers—go to show that these are sufficiently defining categories. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 12:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YouTubers and TikTokers were exactly my point. We already have categories for them. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I may have written unclearly. My point was that YouTuber and social media influencer are separately notable. Michael Sugrue was a YouTuber, but to call him an "influencer" would to me seem to be misunderstanding the genre of his content (education in the history of philosophy). It's possible to be an Internet celebrity, or a noteworthy/notable person on the Internet, without being a social media influencer, making it useful to have influencers as a subcategory. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think nowadays social influencers is a broad term, well covering all YouTubers and TikTokers. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; "influencer" carries a connotation of trendsetting, especially in the realm of purchasing decisions, e. g., vloggers plugging their Stanley drinking tumblers, Instagrammers recommending articles of clothing, etc. That's not a connotation that readily connotes a documentarian YouTuber like Kevin Perjurer of Defunctland, or an education TikToker like historian J. Draper. (as well as aforementioned historian YouTuber Michael Sugrue; I don't really see "influencer" as the point of overlap between that guy and Mr. Beast.) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Hydrangeans's most recent comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the discussion above: Category:TikTokers has been a stable subcategory of Category:Social media influencers since December 2019 shortly after the category was created. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison: I notice the problem is larger, there is also Category:Internet celebrities and Category:Social media influencers. So you might consider withdrawing this nomination and restart at a higher level. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths from cardiovascular disease

Propose deleting Category:Deaths from cardiovascular disease (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination. This cat was tagged for speedy deletion as G4. There was indeed a CfD back in 2021 where this was deleted by consensus. I declined the speedy because this was a lot of material to remove without a discussion, and IMHO I felt this call was just outside of the trust of the community for any one single trusted user. I have no interest in the outcome. BusterD (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Containerize, death by cardiovascular disease in general is too common to categorize by. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on the previous: if the category is not kept then at least the subcategories should be moved to Category:Deaths by type of illness. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguments in previous discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think containerize is the solution here, so that the subcategories are at least moderately closely linked. ^SMason_Garrison 15:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Containerize per above. If it is known, then it is defining. Respublik (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria what are your thoughts on containerization? ^SMason_Garrison 17:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a need for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would allow related caused of death to be easily navigated between. ^SMason_Garrison 05:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can get a clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Both defining, and relatively easy to locate available sources on it. Dimadick (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still appears to be consensus for a change, but no consensus on what the change should be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from the Crown of Castile

Propose merging Category:People from the Crown of Castile to Category:Castilians

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories. If merged, this category should be left as a redirect. If not merged, I think we need an extremely clear definition of how these categories are distinct. ^SMason_Garrison 17:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diffuse among the 12th- to 15th-century subcategories of Category:Castilians. Admittedly the latter is rather vague: without the description on the category page it might also refer to modern Castilians. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact a reverse merge would solve the latter problem. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the difference in page history, I'd rather rename Category:Castilians to Category:People from the Crown of Castile, and leave a redirect for some categories behind the scences ^SMason_Garrison 05:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge as discussed above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Castilians. If there are no further comments we should be all set for a reverse merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from the Crown of Aragon

Propose merging Category:People from the Crown of Aragon to Category:People from the Kingdom of Aragon

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories. ^SMason_Garrison 16:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Technically Valencia, the Balearic Islands and Sicily belonged to the Crown of Aragon but not to the Kingdom of Aragon. The articles directly in this category are about people from the Kingdom of Valencia or the Kingdom of Majorca. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decades in history

Propose manually merging Category:2000s in history to Category:2000s
Propose manually merging Category:2010s in history to Category:2010s
Propose manually merging Category:2020s in history to Category:2020s
Propose manually merging Category:2030s in history to Category:2030s

Nominator's rationale: merge, no clear distinction versus their parent category. The decades as a whole are, or will become, part of history. The merge needs to happen manually because many articles are already in, e.g., Category:2000s decade overviews. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I oppose this proposal, because Category: 2020s decade overviews, et al, includes 2020s in sports, 2020s in fashion, 2020s in music, 2020s in film, etc etc,

the category Category: 2020s in history has a few highly useful and highly specific roles ; a) it is for articles describing history in a broad narrative style , namely, 2020s in history, 2020s in military history, 2020s in Asian history, etc etc. and b) it is also for sub-categories pertaining to that decade's history, such as Category: 2020s in military history, Category:2020s in women's history, etc; so clearly those are not limited only to articles that are decade overviews.

And Category:2020s is clearly a broad umbrella category, with hugely wide scope, so it is not interchangeable with this category. Sm8900 (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The concept of history is inseparable from time periods. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on LaundryPizza's argument?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-governmental organizations

Propose purging Category:Non-governmental organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Note that I'm proposing purging rather than deletion; however, there may be a case to be made that deletion might be preferable due to the scope of the problem.
The term does have a technical definition, but is routinely overused to the point of meaninglessness in the real world, encompassing nearly any organization that exists at all regardless of whether it fits the technical definition of an "NGO" or not — so previous discussions (e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 5#Category:Non-governmental organizations by country) have established a consensus that trying to categorize for the distinction between organizations that are "non-governmental" and organizations that are not "non-governmental" was not a productive use of wikipedians' time and energy. Accordingly, the category explicitly has a usage note on it saying "This is not a category for articles about individual organizations", as well as a {{Diffuse}} template on it, but unsurprisingly is quite populated by articles about individual organizations. Bearcat (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What, exactly, needs to be purged from the category? All the articles? Only articles that don't fit the proper definition? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the category; thoughts on LaundryPizza's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say, purge all individual organizations (all articles except the two on top). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who have sacrificed their lives to save others

Propose deleting Category:People who have sacrificed their lives to save others (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Vague and nondefining category ^SMason_Garrison 16:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find this preposterous. How is this vague? Should it be "People who have knowingly sacrificed their lives to save others"? "People who have knowingly died when directly acting to save others"? Blockhaj (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only two articles in a category that does not fit anywhere, we better add a direct link in the See also section of the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are tons of people throughout history which can be added to this category. Blockhaj (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- They do not all get a Wikipedia though. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Sure, but there surely must be tons of articles out there which fits this category no? The current two articles were just the ones i could think of in the moment of creation. Blockhaj (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  If you don't add any other articles yourself it'll be very unlikely this category gets further populated. Other editors will not be aware that the category exists because it doesn't naturally belong in any category tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I do not see why that is a reason to delete it? Blockhaj (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I have now added more articles and placed it under the category of altruism. Blockhaj (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That does not help. Editors expect to find topic articles in this tree, not biographies. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  The purpose of categories is to help navigation. This category doesn't do that, and even if it did the question of whether this meets the criteria of a defining feature. ^SMason_Garrison 15:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Shouldn't categories help with gathering articles with the same or similar nature? I never find that categories help with navigation, at least on English Wikipedia. Anyhow, which "tree" should this be put under? Blockhaj (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  They don't help with gathering, they help with reading articles about a similar topic after the gathering has been done. And your last question is exactly my earlier point, it does not fit in any tree so it'll never be populated by anyone else. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be well defined and useful — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the nominator. If kept, it should be renamed as something like People who died after attempting to save others/People who died after saving others, because the intention to sacrifice their life is hardly determinative baring exceptional circumstances. Even then it is somewhat clunky and opaque.Respublik (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The construction "sacrificing one's life" (etc) is cherry picked as it is the most common poetic phrase for this (next to "giving one's life" which is more ambiguous). A more strict and direct name will make the category harder to find i think. Instead, the category itself has a specifying note written on it: People who have knowingly died when directly acting to save others.. This can further be expanded on if needed. Blockhaj (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename.' I think a good title might be people who died due to efforts to save lives. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is vague imo and not what the category is about. Its about people who knowingly died to save others. Blockhaj (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that in many cases, the person did not know whether they would die when attempting to save someone else. They acted despite the risk to themselves, but they could be certain of the exact outcome beforehand — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok, perhaps rename to people who knowingly died due to efforts to save lives. Sm8900 (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea for the category is to list people who knew they would most likely die as a result of attempting to save others lives. Ie, they would sacrifice their life (not in the sense of using one's whole life span to invent or create something to save others). Take Vince Coleman (train dispatcher) as an example. Blockhaj (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It is indeed vague and impossible to define.--User:Namiba 15:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom but suggest creating list. Certainly there are notable people who did this but it doesn't fit as an encyclopedic category per se, because there's too many vagaries here. However, I propose people who support this category consider creating a list (see all the lists on Lists of unusual deaths) because I think there are probably enough sources that support this as a notable topic. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 18:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Listify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Engineers from Jharkhand

Propose merging Category:Engineers from Jharkhand to Category:Scientists from Jharkhand

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge, as for the merge target I am not sure if an engineer properly belongs in a scientists category. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lost in Quebec: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment? House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alvarado wrestling family

Propose renaming Category:Alvarado wrestling family to Category:Alvarado professional wrestling family

Nominator's rationale: Opposed on Speedy. The article is at Alvarado wrestling family but this is a subcategory of Category:Professional wrestling families, so I thought the rename made sense. Mike Selinker (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it makes more sense to have Category:Professional wrestling families renamed to Category:Wrestling families. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably a good idea, though it's a subcategory of Category:Professional wrestling. So, if so, it should move to be a subcategory of Category:Wrestling.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Professional wrestling families. Further discussion on which category should be renamed is needed :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose moving to "category:wrestling families". Professional wrestling is not the same thing as wrestling. They share similar moves, but it's similar to the difference between a Ballerina and a Gymnast.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arab supporters of Israel

Propose renaming Category:Arab supporters of Israel to Category:Arab Zionists
Propose renaming Category:Muslim supporters of Israel to Category:Muslim Zionists

Nominator's rationale: This category should either be renamed to be consistent with the child categories of Algerian Zionists etc, or the subcategories should be purged or renamed. Being a Zionist doesn't mean that you support the state of Israel. Zionism advocates for a Jewish homeland; not all Zionists support the state of Israel. And people who support Israel don't need to do so because of Zionism. @AHI-3000: for making me aware of the category naming discrepancy ^SMason_Garrison 03:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support and also rename Category:Muslim supporters of Israel to Category:Muslim Zionists, in order to match it with Category:Arab Zionists and Category:Christian Zionists. AHI-3000 (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with adding the category to the nomination. But you need to tag it. ^SMason_Garrison 03:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison: I already placed the CFD template on Category:Muslim supporters of Israel. AHI-3000 (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison: Should we combine #Category:Muslim supporters of Israel into this discussion? AHI-3000 (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm fine with adding the category to the nomination" ^SMason_Garrison 04:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Supporters of Israel are explicitly Zionists. Dimadick (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. @Smasongarrison doesn't agree though, even though almost everyone agrees that "Zionist" is usually used to mean "supporter of Israel". These meanings are far from being mutually exclusive. AHI-3000 (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of tagging me? I literally made the nomination. I don't disagree that the common understanding is that these are often used as synonyms. ^SMason_Garrison 03:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So do you agree or not that Category:Muslim supporters of Israel is an appropriate subcategory of Category:Zionists? AHI-3000 (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not appropriate until it is renamed. ^SMason_Garrison 04:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Zionism and Christian Zionism are specific ideologies. See nomination above. There is no Arab Zionism ideology. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. It's eminently possible to support Israel without being a Zionist. Grutness...wha? 03:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you're opposing the rename, but what are your thoughts on the rest of the proposal. "This category should either be renamed to be consistent with the child categories of Algerian Zionists etc, or the subcategories should be purged or renamed." ^SMason_Garrison 23:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. It looks like this is the odd one out of a big tree. Perhaps it should be renamed after all, and then the entire tree be brought up for discussion at relevant WikiProjects... Grutness...wha? 03:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be in favor of renaming all siblings (e.g. to "Zionist activists") and purging, but that does not take away the fact that Category:Arab supporters of Israel is an accurate name for the category that is nominated here. It can simply be removed from the Zionists tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Muslim supporters of Israel, but I still do not see consensus for any particular action. Further discussion would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Engineers from Himachal Pradesh

Propose merging Category:Engineers from Himachal Pradesh to Category:Scientists from Himachal Pradesh

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge, as for the merge target I am not sure if an engineer properly belongs in a scientists category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's question?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lost in Quebec: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment? House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Substituted amphetamines

Propose renaming Category:Substituted amphetamines to Category:Amphetamines

Nominator's rationale: Per opposed WP:CFDS request:

Extended content

Category:Substituted amphetamines to Category:Amphetamines – C2C: Non-standard chemical class category name. See here (i.e., only a single use of "Substituted" in a chemical category name on all of Wiki) and compare other closely related category names like Category:Phenethylamines, Category:Beta-Hydroxyamphetamines, Category:Methamphetamines, Category:Cathinones, Category:Tryptamines, and so forth. – 76.174.0.57 (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The main article of the category is Substituted amphetamine. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but see reasoning above and compare Category:Phenethylamines and Substituted phenethylamine, Category:Beta-Hydroxyamphetamines and Substituted β-hydroxyamphetamine, Category:Cathinones and Substituted cathinone, Category:Tryptamines and Substituted tryptamine, and so forth. Category:Substituted amphetamines is an outlier and goes against standards, including within its own category tree (it's a subcategory of Category:Phenethylamines and it contains the Category:Beta-Hydroxyamphetamines, Category:Methamphetamines, and Category:Cathinones categories). There is no reason for this inconsistency and it makes using these categories (i.e., knowing/remembering whether the category has the prefix "Substituted" in its name) more tedious than it needs to be. There are dozens of other examples as well (e.g., see here for just some of them); Category:Substituted amphetamines is the only exception having "Substituted" in the category name on the English Wikipedia. – 76.174.0.57 (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a month and there hasn't been any discussion, so I'm requesting feedback at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals. It looks like there's also some prior discussion above at Category talk:Substituted amphetamines#Rename; the page was previously moved from Category:Amphetamines to Category:Substituted amphetamines. I disagree with the reasoning there and think the category name would still be better as Category:Amphetamines, so continuing with the move efforts. – 76.174.0.57 (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support move per nominator — the argument re: consistency (WP:C2C) makes sense to me. After the move, we should make sure that both Amphetamine and Substituted amphetamine are main articles for Category:Amphetamines, analogous to Category:Phenethylamines.

NB. To ensure Category:Cathinones and Category:Methamphetamines are managed accordingly, I've just made Substituted cathinone a main article for the cathinones category, as well as adding Methamphetamine to the methamphetamines category, making it a main article. This seems like the right approach to me, but I have much more experience editing chemistry articles than I do managing categories, so please let me know if you disagree. Preimage (talk) 06:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neapolitan families

Propose renaming Category:Neapolitan families to Category:Families from the Kingdom of Naples

Nominator's rationale: A request to rename to Category:Families from Naples was opposed on Speedy, in favor of this better name. Mike Selinker (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Kingdom of Naples" was a very specific time period of Neapolitan history and I don't see why this category would be limited to this and not cover other time periods/kingdoms in Neapolitan history. Note there are only two articles in this parent category, one of which is Rothschild banking family of Naples, which was not from the time period of the Kingdom of Naples, but when Naples was part of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies (which succeeded the Kingdom of Naples). Also there is a subcategory Category:Neapolitan noble families, which is a subcategory of Category:Neapolitan nobility, which for stated reasons spans multiple kingdoms. Likewise the Gagliano family was prominent for about 200 years, in the Kingdom of Naples, the Kingdom of Two Sicilies, and the Kingdom of Italy. Neapolitan is a perfectly cromulent word that covers all of the history of Naples (in all its historic forms) and there's no reason to limit families (that span centuries) when they are notable by their geographic location, which is Naples. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 00:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Kaliforniyka's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of religious buildings and structures in East Timor

Propose merging Category:Lists of religious buildings and structures in East Timor to Category:Lists of buildings and structures in East Timor

Nominator's rationale: And other parents. Part of a mass cleanup after the recent rename of East Timor's article to Timor-Leste. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both the nominated and nominee categories are likely to be speedy-renamed now. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, only a single article in the category, not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politicians arrested in Turkey

Propose merging Category:Politicians arrested in Turkey to Category:Turkish politicians

Nominator's rationale: ^SMason_Garrison 02:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per reasoning below. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if not kept the category should be deleted instead of merged. The articles are already deeper in the tree of Category:Turkish politicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politicians arrested in the Maldives

Propose merging Category:Politicians arrested in the Maldives to Category:Maldivian politicians

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between being arrested for a crime and occupation. ^SMason_Garrison 02:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. We don't classify people by having been arrested. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if not kept the category should be deleted instead of merged. The articles are already deeper in the tree of Category:Maldivian politicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aim for the Top! images

Propose renaming Category:Aim for the Top! images to Category:Gunbuster images

Nominator's rationale: The official English name of "Aim for the Top!" (トップをねらえ!) is Gunbuster. Although Diebuster has its own name, in releases in English-speaking markets, it often has Gunbuster 2 (or "GunBuster 2") as another name used in conjunction with Diebuster. Furthermore, Gaina is working on Gunbuster 3. In addition, I created a category on Wikimedia Commons, commons:Category:Gunbuster, for that reason. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I wanted to add that a similar example of having the original name is the Neon Genesis Evangelion category, encompassing Neon Genesis Evangelion, Rebuild of Evangelion, and spin-offs. I figured that by following Evangelion's example, Gunbuster, as the franchise is known by its original name, could be more easily identified and more streamlined across the English-language Wikipedia. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

More "solider" redirects

Super solider → Super soldier (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Solider with the Green Whiskers → Soldier with the Green Whiskers (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The Tin Solider → The Steadfast Tin Soldier (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Robert E. Lee and Young Solider → Robert E. Lee on Traveller (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Foot Solider (Rich Homie Quan song) → Rich as in Spirit (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
For a lost solider → For a Lost Soldier (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Stereo Solider → DNA (Little Mix album) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Confederate solider → Confederate States Army (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Child solider → Children in the military (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Michael Gibson (British Army solider) → Michael Gibson (British Army soldier) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Brian Wood (solider) → Brian Wood (British soldier) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These redirects all have the same misspelling of "soldier," which was discussed in a previous RfD from last week. As its rationale says, "solider" is also the comparative form of "solid" and can also be a misspelling of at least several other words. Delete these unless someone can provide a justification or suitable alternative course of action. Regards, SONIC 678 05:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment however, this is not a bare "solider", in the context of these redirects, there are no other topics that could be referred to by the entire redirect, other that as a mispelling typo by adjacent character transposition of "soldier", unlike a bare "solider" -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep most common form of typo. Unlike the bare single word "solider", these do not mean more solid, or other things -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - rename Foot Solider (Rich Homie Quan song) to Foot Soldier (Rich Homie Quan song) -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 06:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete Michael Gibson (British Army solider) and Brian Wood (solider) ; as it is the disambiguator that is being misspelled and not the base term. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Retarget The Tin Solider to The Tin Soldier as a {{R from typo}} -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Weak delete super solider, confusable with supersolid misconceptions -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - In theory you are right, but in many years of patrolling solider on this site I have noticed a very clear pattern of "super solder" being a very common typo for "super soldier" - something to do with comics I think. Ϣere SpielChequers 05:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep ~~all but stereo solider~~ I have been patrolling the word "solider" on Wikipedia for many years, and in so doing created at least one of the above redirects by moving an article with that typo in its name. Solider does indeed have a genuine meaning, but most new occurrences on Wikipedia are typos of soldier and all of these redirects are in my view much more likely to come up as typos of soldier than because someone actually searches for say "confederate solider" because of something to do with confederates and solidity. So while I don't dispute the previous RFD, not everyone typing solider is making a typo and we shouldn't default just because the majority are probably wrong, in the above cases a correct use of solider would itself actually be odd. So we should keep these redirects other perhaps than "stereo Solider" which might as well be an alien language for me. Ϣere SpielChequers 05:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Except why should "Stereo Solider" be deleted? What you said still apllies User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 06:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Stereo Soldier" is a song at the target of Stereo Solider, so it is a mispelling for a subtopic at the target DNA (Little Mix album). -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 06:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for digging that out, I've stuck my comment on that one. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Unnecessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete all that don't have "solider" as the first or second word, as it's too much stuff to type before making a minro spleling mistkae
delete super solider, foot solider (rich homie quan song), solider with the green whiskers, and confederate solider as skill issues
retarget the tin solider to... the tin soldier
and i guess extremely weak keep the rest (which is... only stereo solider and child solider)

what a doozy... cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The bare solider shouldn't reidrect to soldier, but all these are cases where "solider" is plainly a common typo for "soldier". In what context would someone be intentionally trying to find out how to make a child or Confederate more solid? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 11:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, common typo. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The entry for Robert E. Lee and Young Solider was listed incorrectly as both the redirect and the target. I have corrected it and notified at its target and creator pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shrub

Alex Shrub → Grand Theft Auto: Vice City#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But mentioned at List of fictional politicians#Congresspeople. Jay 💬 18:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No pages currently link to the redirect; it has had 5 page views in the 90 days before the RFD opened. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget to the list entry Jay pointed to (might be worth adding an anchor to the right spot). Cremastra ‹ u — c › 01:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough substance to warrant a redirect even at the list. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to List of fictional politicians#Congresspeople which tells the reader the same thing as search results do but quicker and more reliably. J 947 ‡ ^edits 22:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old Roman Empire

Old Roman Empire → Roman Empire (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I have no idea what this is supposed to contrast to. Veverve (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could figure out quite easily by clicking on New Roman Empire, Veverve. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"New Roman Empire" is not mentioned anywhere at the target... Also, as a sidenote, aren't the Byzantine empire and the Holy Roman Empire the two well-known claimants to this title of New Roman Empire, instead of modern Italy? And what about the Third Rome claims? Veverve (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I presume they are saying that the Old Roman Empire is often searched for since there is already a redirect for the New Roman Empire.

~~This0k (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate the Roman colonial empire of the Roman Republic; the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire; the post-Republic East+West Roman Empire. Contrasts with the New Roman Empire. This is a succession of the evolution of the Roman Empire, from colonial empire adjunct to a republic, to the conversion of the republic into rule by Caesars, to the collapse of the west and the eastern rump Roman Empire being called the Byzantine Empire by Western European scholarship (though politically, it is the same entity as that before the collapse of the western portion) -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leave as is. It seems obvious to me that this phrase is used to contrast the original Roman Empire with the Byzantine Empire or other states claiming to be successors to the Roman Empire. It is not an especially common phrase, and does not seem to have a more specific meaning in academic use, such as the empire of the Roman Republic, the Principate, or the Dominate. Thus "Roman Empire" is the best target. P Aculeius (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE New Roman Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has also been nominated #New Roman Empire at RfD -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clear contrast with "New Roman Empire" which is a term that gets used with some regularity. The target is thus accurate. Fieari (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The referred RfD for New Roman Empire closed as disambiguate couple of days back.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Herisse

Ethan Herisse → Nickel Boys (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

WP:RETURNTORED to encourage creation. Has other credits in high-profile works such as all episodes of When They See Us. Nickel Boys may be his most prominent role to date, but that is unlikely to remain the case precisely because of the rise of his profile due to this role. Redirecting it to only one work he's appeared in is hostile to readers. Nardog (talk) 06:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules

Template:Priekule Municipality

Template:Priekule Municipality (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Seems to have been replaced with Template:South Kurzeme Municipality. Gonnym (talk) 10:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pp-arb

Template:Pp-arb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I can't find a discussion which lead to this newly created protection template. I'd like to see any evidence this is actually needed. Gonnym (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grobiņa Municipality

Template:Grobiņa Municipality (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Seems to have been replaced with Template:South Kurzeme Municipality. Gonnym (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ethiopia Monument header

Template:Ethiopia Monument header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ethiopia Monument row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused Ethiopian monument table related templates. Gonnym (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sub-template (the usage count shown on the /doc is unrelated as it is a shared documentation page). Gonnym (talk) 10:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany

User:Awilh37/Android vs. Apple

From my understanding, user essays are only allowed if they're directly about Wikipedia. You better fracking believe that a page called "Android vs. Apple" will almost never be directly about Wikipedia!

To put it more politely, this article isn't about the Android vs. Apple debate in a viewpoint that puts it into the perspective of Wikipedia (like, for example, WP:BFDI does) but rather reads like a kind of soapbox to share your opinions regarding the Android vs. Apple debate (which is what Reddit is for and not us) User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 00:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an example of what userpages are not for. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 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:American social media influencers

Category:Deaths from cardiovascular disease

Category:People from the Crown of Castile

Category:People from the Crown of Aragon

Decades in history

Category:Non-governmental organizations

Category:People who have sacrificed their lives to save others

Category:Engineers from Jharkhand

Category:Alvarado wrestling family

Category:Arab supporters of Israel

Category:Engineers from Himachal Pradesh

Category:Substituted amphetamines

Category:Neapolitan families

Category:Lists of religious buildings and structures in East Timor

Category:Politicians arrested in Turkey

Category:Politicians arrested in the Maldives

Category:Aim for the Top! images

Redirects

More "solider" redirects

Alex Shrub

Old Roman Empire

Ethan Herisse

Templates and Modules

Miscellany

Deletion review