WIKIDELETION

TODAY

22:31, Saturday, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Page out of date? PurgeIt!™

About this page

This page gives live feeds for today's new AfD, TfD, FfD, CfD, and WP:CP nominations. (For technical and/or other reasons, feeds for speedy deletion, MfD and PROD are unavailable.)

Some sections contain redlinks and/or are empty; this means there have been no new nominations yet today.

See also: Wikideletion Yesterday

Articles for deletion

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 05	July 07 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Bus (group)

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

Non-notable band. Article was moved from draft space and I originally returned it. After examining the article I noticed that it claim the band started 6 December 2023. However, the the only reference was published 2 February 2021. This was at least 17 months before auditions started. In addition the reference seemed to be about three young women and not twelve young men. The article provides no references for a band that has only released two singles and was created by a non-notable reality show, 789 SURVIVAL. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment: The citation currently in the article was clearly incorrectly inserted, probably the result of an inappropriate copy/paste job. But may I remind the nominator that Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. A Google News search for BUS 789 Survival turns up plenty of Thai-language coverage. (I'm not !voting keep just yet due to quality concerns raised by the aforementioned copy/pasting). --Paul_012 (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes but as said the band does not appear to be notable. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Their music have already been released. The band was split into 2 different subunits: BUS5 and BUS7. It should be easier to find sources from these 2 names. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Draftify. Should not linger in mainspace with WP:V problems that are basic in nature: Who are Bus? Are they one or two groups? Who are in those two groups? Geschichte (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Granita (restaurant)

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

WP:MILL defunct restaurant whose claim for inclusion is a WP:1E situation: the restaurant was known only for being the site of the Blair–Brown deal, an event in British political history which has nothing to do with the restaurant as such. Nothing else about the restaurant is in any way remarkable or notable. Sandstein 20:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Companies, and United Kingdom. Sandstein 20:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Blimus

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

Article is quite old, band seems to be long-since defunct. No real evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. No hits, no awards, no label, etc. None of the links are archived on archive.org, two are just listings on the programme for a festival. The BBC interview is the most promising but an interview alone wouldn't support an article, and looking at the URL it seems like it was actually a promotional listing for that same festival, rather than a journalistic interview. Googling around it seems to mostly be Wikipedia mirrors at this point. Here2rewrite (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete I found some media coverage from 2010 and apparently they were active as late as 2011, but mostly it's just Wikipedia mirrors. --Un assiolo (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Looks OK to delete. That 2010 interview on Surrey Live consists mostly of deliberately nonsensical quotes by band member Graham Hill. Attention-getting, yes. Notable in the Wikipedia sense, no. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign

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

This is not a notable topic. This is an extended news cycle. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM apply. It's also too likely to devolve into a WP:POVFORK. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Even if Biden does eventually drop out, what use would the article be..? Prcc27 (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete This, by itself, isn't an encyclopedic topic. It's just one development in the 2024 United States presidential election. Presenting the material outside of a context like that is POVFORK-ish. XOR'easter (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
● Wait Currently, it is a really notable topic spiraling right now, once things drop, then discussion can be made on deleting this page. InterDoesWiki (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
That's not how notability works. It's either notable or it's not. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Redirect, but I think that's where the problem lies. This topic obviously deserves some coverage on Wikipedia. The problem is that there is no clear answer of where. I think a discussion needs to be had. Seems like 2024 United States presidential debates or Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign would make the most sense. But 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2024 United States presidential election or 2024 Democratic National Convention could also work too. The fractured coverage doesn't benefit our readers. (I was just going to redirect this boldly, but never got around to it.) Esolo5002 (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Speedy blank and redirect to 2024 United States presidential election#Calls for Biden to step aside, which already contains all that needs to be discussed on this topic. Wikipedia is not a source of breaking news and is poorly suited to be, because we're an encyclopedia, not a news blog. If history shows that this was so significant an aspect of this year's election that it needs to be discussed in a separate article, we can write that article at that time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

KCBT-LD

AfDs for this article:

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

This television station does not contain the necessaryWP:SIGCOV from reliable, independent sources to meet the WP:GNG. This subject did survive a 2019 AfD, but that was under a much different (and looser) standard of notability for television stations than what we have today, and a AfD earlier this year closed as non consensus due to low participation. Let'srun (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Let'srun (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

KVHF-LD

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Facility records and FCC licenses don't cut it, and a search didn't come up with much more. Let'srun (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Let'srun (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Dracthyr

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

While the issue isn't one of conversation regarding the subject in the referenced media outlets, the problem is more one that the article's subject matter and reception is strictly within the scope of World of Warcraft: there is no indication of notability outside of that, discussion or examination. They are essentially less a fictional character race and more a gameplay mechanic that strictly matters within the context of the game itself. This is similar to how the previously AfD'd Gnasher Shotgun was strictly a gameplay element of Gears of War.

Attempts to try and find more sourcing proved fruitless, especially with Google Scholar. Additionally SUSTAINED is also a concern, as beyond the initial announcement the subsequent articles were in a short time span to each other. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep Not really sure how someone can look at the article and come out with ~~"there are no reliable sources"~~ "this lacks notability" besides a gross failure of WP:BEFORE. The Game Informer article, Polygon article, PC Gamer article, PCGamesN article and a 2nd Polygon article are all SIGCOV about the Dracthyr that easily exceed the threshold for GNG. As for the idea of "notability outside the scope of WoW", I'm not sure what policy this is trying to argue it violates; I suppose WP:INDISCRIMINATE? The article does discuss the "development, design, reception, significance, and influence" of the subject, and articles on fictional races are not uncommon. So how exactly is this different? It flummoxes me what the deletion rationale is here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep: I am similarly flummoxed. Yes, a World of Warcraft race is discussed as part of World of Warcraft; being discussed in context is not a negative. Independent discussion on Google Scholar is unlikely, and not necessary to demonstrate notability. Toughpigs (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment @User:Zxcvbnm Zx there are many times I've tried to assume good faith with you, but at no point did I say "there are no reliable sources" or even imply that. You have been on a *really* bad tear with bad faith lately. As it stands the point was that the article's reception is discussing a *fictional* race strictly in the context of a gameplay element. Key word: fictional. The sources you thumped there are all within the same short time span, and all examine the subjet in the scope of a *gameplay* element. There is no discussion regarding design or examination of them as a race. This is no different than trying to do an article on a Pokemon and strictly focusing on how good or bad it was in terms of gameplay for its particular generation. Any other fictional race article still illustrates some reaction or examination beyond just the gameplay element. Additionally User:Toughpigs at no point did I ascertain Google Scholar was the only outlet, just one observation that even there there was nothing as scholarly works tend to be a go-to on this subject. The problem is not that it's discussed in the context of WoW, but that it is *only* discussed in that context and strictly a gameplay context. If you're going to oppose that's fine but don't mischaracterize my argument.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, the argument they are only spoken of in gameplay terms is completely false; the last paragraph in the article argues the journalist's opinion that the Dracthyr were shoehorned into WoW's lore and story. I personally believe that specific discussion about their role in the story is not a necessary step to prove notability, but, even if it were, this would still pass by your very own criteria.

I do admit that was not exactly what I meant, but it was not meant in "bad faith". I will edit it to clarify with better wording. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
That by itself is at least something, but it still feels hard to justify a stand alone article on the subject (and strengthens Pokelego's point about it being a more viable merge into a Dragonflight article). SIGCOV is just one aspect of an article, but the actual content of a discussion needs to be considered. I feel sometimes you rush to make sure you have sources just to satisfy perceived policy, but itself isn't the only deciding factor on an article. Case in point, the recent discussion about Ornstein and Smough. It's not just about meeting that WP:THREE threshold. The reader neeeds to understand the significance of this subject with no prior knowledge to WoW or gaming too.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge with World of Warcraft: Dragonflight. Basically every source in the Reception section is discussing how the Dracthyr affected gameplay of the game, but there's no indication of notability aside from that. The Dracthyr are essentially just a gameplay mechanic. Outside of a brief snippet of PC Gamer in the first paragraph and the Polygon source in the last paragraph, none of the sources are showing any impact of the Dracthyr outside of the context of World of Warcraft, and simply show the impact of the expansion they were introduced in on gameplay of the game. It feels more logical to me this is covered at the Dragonflight article, since basically everything about the Dracthyr are in the context of Dragonflight. Someone curious about the Dracthyr's impact on the game are better off going to what actually changed the game, instead of a gameplay mechanic that is part of the expansion. I'm not opposed to this being split out if more sources proving notability separate from the expansion are found, but right now there's really not that much. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

As I stated above, there is literally commentary on how they impact the game's plot. The "just a gameplay mechanic" argument does not hold any water. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

As I stated in my vote, there is very little sourcing showing considerable impact. Just because there are two sources is not enough to separate the concept from the base expansion, and can easily be included in the Dragonflight article, where the bulk of this information is most relevant. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Articles being written on the race is in itself proof of outside impact, just as reviews of games are. Playing as the race has impacted someone enough to critique it. Suggesting that an article's subject must be discussed in a scholarly context to be viable as a standalone page is plain ridiculous and there is no policy like this. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge per Pokelego999. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge. The sources seem to treat Dracthyr as a gameplay mechanic first and foremost, which is not compelling to me that this is a significant subject beyond significant as part of Dragonflight. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Franz Ketterer

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

Article about an obscure subject that does not seem to be notable outside of some (likely incorrect) mentions that he invented the cuckoo clock. I cannot find sufficient sourcing to improve the article. Mbdfar (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Cansolabao, Samar

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

Does not have any notability and has no sources. TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep: ~~Meets WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognized barangays.~~ Also, coverage found in books. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
@Cocobb8 barangays are not cities/towns of the Philippines. They are just administrative divisions. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). Only those that jave backing reliable, independent, secondary sources that are not mere statistic listings or listings of schools/establishments/tourist sites, like Forbes Park, Makati, are qualified to have standalone articles. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
@JWilz12345, I know that it is an administrative division, which is why I am saying that it meets WP:GEOLAND per [p]opulated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. I am using the guideline as a justification for my !vote, and the discussion you linked to was not officially closed, nor was it an official RfC in any way, so at this point WP:GEOLAND is the guideline to follow for this article. Yes, it lacks coverage, but it is presumed notable per GEOLAND. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
@Cocobb8 so, in your opinion, is Barangay 51, Caloocan (list of Caloocan's barangays) notable too? It is a legal administrative division, with a chief local executive (a "barangay captain or chairman") and a set of elected councilors ("barangay kagawad"). The country has more than 40,000 barangays or administrative wards of the country's 1,634 incorporated places. Hard to maintain all 40K+ articles as per some concerns raised by Filipino Wikipedians in debates concerning articles of barangays of the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
@JWilz12345 I did not realize it was 40,000 barangays. Thanks for pointing it out. But, I would still keep this article per the coverage I found in books. Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Clarification: Barangays are not just "administrative" divisions like regions, but are full fledged political units like towns, cities and provinces. WP:GEOLAND has a funky definition of a "settlement". Barangay 666 in Manila is not a WP:GEOLAND settlement, as it along with 800 barangays of Manila, and perhaps 90% of the barangays in Mega Manila, are one contiguous urban sprawl. Standalone barangays in the hinterlands are WP:GEOLAND settlements if the built up area is not contiguous with the primary settlement in the town center. The question is if WP:GEOLAND is good enough if we can't write an article because there's no WP:SIGCOV from an WP:RS. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
@Howard the Duck maybe because the Philippine LGU system when it comes to municipal level is not intended as it was originally used to be. The article for the Philippine towns speaks of a former type of "town" called "municipal districts" that were mostly found in far-flung or remote areas. They were unincorporated (similar to U.S. census designated places) and were managed by tribal chieftains. It was after World War II that these unincorporated regions/districts within the provinces began to be converted to regular towns or municipalities, even those that do not comprise a single settlement but multiple barangay settlements that may not be contiguous to each other. The last of the conversions to regular municipalities were in the 1980s.

I would like to see a country whose smallest administrative divisions/units are covered by enwiki. I think that would be India (e.g. Delhi Cantonment and Haqiqat Nagar ➡️ List of neighbourhoods of Delhi). @Cocobb8:, can you give specific examples of countries whose 90-100% of smallest administrative divisions (divisions of cities/towns) are covered by enwiki? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
@JWilz12345, it's not about whether that is the case for other small administrative divisions. That is a larger-scale discussion, and that is not the purpose of this AfD. As I said before, I would still keep this as per the sources I found. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck Just a question where does GEOLAND talk about urban sprawl and subdvisions/subadminsitrative units of a greater one? Ping me in the reply too please. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
There was a previous barangay AFD like this one, and Barangay 666 in Manila is not a "settlement" for GEOLAND purposes but villages that are built up separately are. I don't have a computer with me and I won't be bothered to look it up on mobile. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle: In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan, User:Eostrix discusses this. Granted it was apparently his personal interpretation.

As for this barangay, this is quite some distance away from the main Hinabangan town center, about 36 kilometers away. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
...that AfD completely mis-applies WP:GEOLAND... SportingFlyer T·C 17:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Hinabangan#Barangays as per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep Cansolabao is also a village. The article should be reworked and sources added, but a village with 1,200 people would be notable in a country where the administrative boundaries aren't in wiki-dispute. SportingFlyer T·C 15:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer the current de facto consensus among Filipino Wikipedians is that the administrative wards or barangays should be treated per case-to-case basis. Those like Forbes Park, Makati can stand alone, but majority (90% perhaps) do not. Unless a higher consensus through WP:GEOLAND forums overrides the de facto consensus of the Filipino Wikipedians. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:GEOLAND is policy which would over-ride local consensus, which would not preclude this topic anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 13:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:GEOLAND is a subject-specific notability guideline, and overrides local consensus. WP:GNG is the general notability guideline overrides any WP:SNG. WP:GNG overrides WP:GEOLAND. The argument here is does this place have WP:SIGCOV anywhere? Howard the Duck (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:GNG does not actually override WP:GEOLAND - WP:GEOLAND is one of the rare exceptions and simply requires verification that this is a populated place. SportingFlyer T·C 05:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Hinabangan#Barangays. HueMan1 (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Prince Karl of Hesse

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources include passing mentions in a couple of books about other people and a self-published fansite. DrKay (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Germany. DrKay (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep. References add up to enough to pass GNG. The coverage of his wedding in 1966 by Pathé News, a British newsreel company, was the equivalent of coverage by network television news today. The book references are way more than passing mentions, and the subject doesn't have to be the primary topic of a book for it to be a valid reference. Being a German aristocrat is not by itself enough to establish notability, but an aristocrat who attracts consistent media attention can be notable. Interestingly, the German Wikipedia doesn't have an article on him, but the French and Dutch ones do. Someone who reads German might be able to find additional references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Just sources are just about sufficient for general notability. Cortador (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Enough sources to pass notability. Azarctic (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete. The wedding might be notable as a news event, but all the other citations are books about other people (Queen Sophia or the Nazi Hesses) or directories. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Josephine Balsamo

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Possible merge/redirect to Arsene Lupin or Maurice Leblanc, but not sure which. All information is unsourced too, so I am not sure it would be a valuable merge. Boleyn (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment Scholar finds this book about Hayao Miyazaki's earlier works, which included one film adaptation of Lupin. I don't see an obvious way to access that work and see whether substantial coverage of this character might be present. Jclemens (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment - It looks like there is a viewable preview of that book here. The coverage of the character in it is extremely minimal - basically mentioning her when describing the plot of the original story that The Castle of Cagliostro was loosely adapted from. Rorshacma (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for confirming that. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Arsène Lupin#Overview, where she is briefly mentioned. The current article is completely unsourced, and searching is not bringing up anything but brief mentions in plot summaries, such as in the book discussed above. Since there is no "character list" for the Lupin series, and the original story she appeared in does not seem to have its own article, redirecting to the main page where she is briefly mentioned appears to be the best viable target. Rorshacma (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

List of women bishops in the Anglican Church of Australia

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

Fails WP:NLIST with no evidence that reliable, secondary, independent sources discuss Australian female Anglican bishops as a group versus discussing them individually. (The sources listed under "Further Reading" describe the experiences or cover women clergy more generally or all women Anglican clergy in Australia, not just bishops. The one exception, a book by Muriel Porter is not an independent source, as Porter is an elected member of the Anglican Church's governing synod and described in her Wikipedia article as an "advocate" who is "active in campaigning" for women's ordination in the church.) Meanwhile, the page fails WP:NOPAGE as a WP:CONTENTFORK of List of female Anglican bishops. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Muuse Ismaciil Qalinle

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

Contested PROD. The sources do not demonstrate notability under WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, or WP:NMUSIC. (The first source is some kind of WP:USERGENERATED list of MP3 files, the second source has a single WP:TRIVIALMENTION of the subject, and the third fails verification entirely, referencing an entirely different individual with the patronym "Qalinle.") Edited to add: an editor has added a reference to Somali Culture and Folklore, pages 63-64. I do not believe this is a valid reference; the book itself is 64 pages and according to Google Books pages 63 and 64 appear to be index pages; Qalinle does not appear as a search term. Additional qualifying sources were not found in my WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Somalia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Yevhen Kholoniuk

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Ukraine. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment. NSKATE is wrong and should never have been adopted. So many articles about champion skaters are being deleted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

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!} 16:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Messhof

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

Fails notability for a biography. See talk page for prior discussion, I think anything relevant here is feasible to merge into the game articles. IgelRM (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. IgelRM (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep Messhof is a single game dev, so the article passes the subject-specific notability criteria at WP:NARTIST. He "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". He has several independently notable games, and Ghost Bike is also likely to be notable upon release. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Wang Qingyun

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and China. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

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!} 16:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Veronika Kropotina

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

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!} 16:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Marek Solčanský

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

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2014 Winter Olympics#Luge as ATD because I could not find any in-depth coverage about this luger to meet WP:GNG. All I found on news websites were passing mentions of his participation at the tournament. He was not even on top three luge winners. This article has been deleted from Slovak Wikipedia on 18 November 2018, possibly due to BLP concerns. The only interlanguage wiki available is Norsk Bokmål (Norwegian) Wikipedia but it listed exactly the same sources as the English article. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep the article meets the notability criteria for athletes, having competed in the Winter Olympics and achieved notable rankings in World Championships and World Cups.Yakov-kobi (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Nuckle Brothers

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There's the 50 words in the OC Weekly article that's linked already, and there are mentions in student newspapers like the Daily Titan ([1], [2], [3]), but they can't establish notability. toweli (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:NBAND including #7 - not one of the more prominent purveyors of Orange County ska. Geschichte (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Robin Kinross

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

Does this even pass WP:GNG? The current references are certainly nowhere near up to scratch. One hit on Google News. Uhooep (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Cambodia's Kitchen

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

An orphan article. Getting 2 reviews in the Melbourne press really isn't a big claim for notability as per WP:AUD. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Cambodia, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Rodell, Besha (2022-08-30). "Cambodia's Kitchen brings a taste of Cambodia to the CBD". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.
  This review appeared in both The Sydney Morning Herald's Good Weekend magazine and in The Age here. The review notes: "My worry is that many of the dishes that really set Cambodian cuisine apart aren't represented here. I was hoping to find amok, or nom banh chok, a fragrant fish, coconut and noodle soup. ... But there are vast differences between Cambodia's Kitchen and many of the other nearby quick-service noodle joints. Everything here is made in-house, including the beef balls and fish cakes, things that almost universally come from a packet."
2. "Australia Travel: Best places to eat in Melbourne". The New Zealand Herald. 2022-11-20. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.
  The article provides 144 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "I love discovering cuisines that are under-represented back home and Melbourne offers plenty of that. Cambodia’s Kitchen is the only Cambodian eatery in the central city and when I visited, it was well-patronised by Khmer-speaking customers. The noodle soups are signature here, and I was chuffed with my pick of beef noodle soup – a thick and aromatic broth packed with a very generous serving of slow-cooked succulent chunks of beef shin as well as tendon, tripe, and housemade bouncy beef balls."
3. Monssen, Kara (2022-11-16). "Cambodia's Kitchen review 2022: Chinatown newcomer behind city's great-value lunch spot". Herald Sun. Archived from the original on 2023-07-02. Retrieved 2024-07-04.
  The review notes: "Linna and brother Ivanra keep it simple at their Russell St restaurant. Think 44 seats inside a ho-hum dining room, flanked either side with decorative awnings and ornamental wicker lamp shades overhead. A soundtrack of Selena Gomez and Taylor Swift buzzes from the speakers. The menu has photos of each dish and is printed out and slotted into a plastic display folder."
4. Sweet, Frank (2023-06-30). "Melbourne's best hot pots". Time Out. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.
  The review provides 167 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "If there’s a hot pot you’re yet to try on this list, it’s probably this one. Fairly new to the scene having opened in 2022, Cambodia’s Kitchen is still regarded as a well-kept secret among hot pot lovers and multiculturally adventurous foodies alike. The cosy Russell St restaurant serves authentic classic Cambodian fare, a rich noodle soup (kuyteav) being undisputedly the star of the entire operation and what many street vendors in Phnom Penh typically sell for breakfast."
5. Curran, Libby (2022-08-18). "Cambodia's Kitchen Is the New CBD Restaurant Paying Homage to Classic Cambodian Fare". Concrete Playground. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.
  The review notes: "Here at Cambodia's Kitchen, the Huns' long-held family recipes and use of traditional techniques deliver an accurate reflection of what's being cooked up on the streets of Phnom Penh. Linna's menu draws plenty of inspiration from her own mother's and grandmother's cooking. The signature Cambodian rice noodle soup is the hero offering — a pork broth base loaded with minced and sliced pork, pork liver, and homemade beef balls, fish balls, fish cake and pork loaf."
  - Here^{Internet Archive} is Concrete Playground's editorial policy. Here is information in the editorial policy that supports its being reliable:
    1. Its editor is Samantha Teague.
    2. "Concrete Playground is Australia's fourth largest independently-owned digital publisher (Nielsen Market Intelligence, July 2018),"
    3. "All facts need to be thoroughly checked by both writers and editors before publishing — we have a duty to our readers to provide them with well-researched, accurate information."
    4. "Direct quotes cannot be altered, and subjects do not have any approval over their quotes."
    5. "Corrections will only be made to a published piece if something is found to be factually incorrect. If a change is made to a published article, a dated amendment will be added to the footer to acknowledge the original piece has been edited."
    6. "All writers must disclose any possible conflict of interest on any piece of work they submit. This must then be disclosed at the footer of the published piece."
    7. "We regularly critique restaurants and bars, and cultural events. These judgements are entirely our own and are only made after experiencing the subject first-hand. All positive and negative feedback must be backed up by reasoning."
    8. "Opinion pieces (including our restaurant and film reviews) are entirely independent and are never produced in partnership with a third party."
    Concrete Playground is cited as a source by a number of books, which also supports its being reliable. Here are the publishers and links to the books that cited Concrete Playground: Academic Press (1), Johns Hopkins University Press (1), Routledge (1 and 2), Taylor & Francis (1), and Text Publishing (1).
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cambodia's Kitchen to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Abstract differential geometry

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

WP:OR: All this stub is based on 4 primary sources that have the same first author

WP:ORPHAN: All incoming links from the main space are in "See also" sections or in a stand-alone list. Apparrently, the only reason of these links is de-orphanization. D.Lazard (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I would lightly support deletion. On Google Scholar, the "Geometry of vector sheaves" book has been cited 137 times, although the majority appear to be self-citations or citations of the form "for work on this related topic, see the book Geometry of vector sheaves". As far as I can tell (but without confidence), the topic is not of major research interest. Gumshoe2 (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

In other words, you did not find any reliable WP:secondary source that discusses the subject. D.Lazard (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to say anything definitive yet, but a first pass through the citations to both books has an anomalously high level of dubious sources: MDPI journals, unreviewed preprints, etc. In any case, this stub has been functionally abandoned since 2009, and the creator has not edited since 2010, so working on it doesn't seem to be anyone's top priority. XOR'easter (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete This looks like a real topic, with publications over decades. But as far as I can tell, all the work I've seen comprises primary sources, or secondary sources written by the primary authors. As far as I can tell there are no in-depth independent reliable sources for the topic, so an article would need original research to construct it. Hence delete, but happy to reconsider if substantial independent sources are found. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Outline of Cebu

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

I'd blank and redirect, but it seems an unlikely search term. I simply fail to see what pupose this article serves; there is alreadt an article on Cebu. TheLongTone (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Philippines. TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Cebu. Procyon117 (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Redirect not a useful outline, everything should be in the main article. Reywas92^Talk 22:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Gdeszyn

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

Poorly referenced, only one source says that such a "battle" existed and moreover the source is completely biased for the Ukrainian side. No polish sources or books talk about such a Battle of Gdeszyn . Fajowy (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Poland, and Ukraine. TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I support this article is based on one sentence from Volodymyr Viatrovich's book which talks about this battle and nothing more and he is considered even for pseudo-historic AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

List of Firefly (film series) characters

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

Doesn't meet WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN and CAT:UNREF for years. Possible redirect to TV series, but unsure merge is a good WP:ATD as this is all unsourced. Boleyn (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Video logging

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

Bereft of encylopedic content, while the term is cleary genuine it's also pretty self explanatory (that video logging is the logging of video, thank you wikipedia). Reads somewhere between a how to guide and veichle for spam. Article isn't serving any purpose not met by Digital asset management, Content management etc. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Kind of want to Keep just because Vlogging exists, can be called video logging as well, and this seems needed for distinguishment against that. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete: My first thought was to redirect to "vlog", but that's a different concept. This is categorizing videos, which seems self-explanatory and not really needing an article. This is at best a DICDEF that's too long. Oaktree b (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Oaktree b: Still think if this is deleted, “Video logging" redirects to “Vlog" Hyperbolick (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 10:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Swadhin Axom

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

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

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

In no way was the article I have written am original research. Additionally many such articles on proposed states exist, and a separate category in wikipedia exists as well. Will those pages be deleted or just this, since its against a particular POV Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Swadhin Axom was never used as an alternate name for assam. Swadhin means Independent and the proposed independent state is just refered to as Assam or Axom- both are the same literals. Swadhin axom is used by academics to describe this proposed state. Ref: Prafulla Mohonto, Proposal for Independence. Would suggest you to read it Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
To maintain neutrality, would suggest editing existing articles based on your arguments, using credible sources, instead of plain WP:I just don't like it. Wikipedia should never become a battleground of political ideologues. If you read the article its neutral, you can add additional pointers in the article, if you have sources for the same. Thanks Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Don't accuse me baselessly of just not liking it.

You mentioned a google search, another wikipedia article and its sources on the Talk page- that's not enough when the question is whether "Swadhin Axom" as a concept should be a WP:CONTENTFORK from Assam. Wikipedia's neutrality policy is not about giving equal weight to every political opinion. It also doesn't say that we should have a different article for every political way of looking at something.

Sources and GNG

Now let's look at the actual sources in this article:
Source 1 - Ivy Dhar has extensive discussion of the idea of Swadhin Axom, specifically in relation to the ULFA and nationalism

Source 2 - Nipon Haloi only mentions it once

Source 3 - Dutta & Laisram only mention it once

Source 4 - Udayon Misra only mentions it once

Source 5 - Not only does Santana Khanikar only mention it once (outside of the glossary), she proceeds to call the proto-state as simply the ULFA instead of Swadhin Axom.

Source 6 - Swadhin Axom is only mentioned as part of the title of a speech

Source 7 - Does not mention it

Source 8, 9 and 10 - Does not mention it- all about the 1970s Assam Movement

Source 11 - Does not mention it

Source 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 - Does not mention it, not even in the entire book of Source 17. These are all about the 1970s Assam Movement

Source 18 - cannot access myself but also looks like a book entirely about the Assam Movement

Source 19, 20, 21, 22 - Does not mention it

etc. etc.

Now, I couldn't keep going through the remaining 40+ sources but this is only to highlight one issue: the article doesn't really meet WP:GNG standards. Not every sources need to meet WP:GNG, but there should be at least one to establish that the article is notable. Source 1 is a good source for this article, and there may be more in the 40+ citations I couldn't get to.

However, I would still delete this article and draftify it (I changed my vote) because:

WP:V - Verifiability

Just from the first 20, I suspect a lot of these sources were thrown on there because they came up in the Google Scholar search for "Swadhin Axom". Wikipedia requires that the content be verified based on the content of the sources. We don't do original research by giving our own analysis of the source.

For specific example, let's take the sentence "Figures like Bishnu Prasad Rabha, a multifaceted artist and social reformer, Tarun Ram Phukan, a prominent political leader, and Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, a key figure in the Assam Movement and a former Chief Minister of Assam, have played crucial roles in advancing the cause of Swadhin Axom" It's supported by Sources 14-18. If you will recall from my list above, these are all about the 1970s Assam Movement that don't mention the idea of Swadhin Axom. If Swadhin Axom is really not just a local name for the English phrase 'independent Assam', then you would need a source to connect Swadhin Axom and the Assam Movement, instead of providing the original analysis that the Assam Movement was an important part of the Swadhin Axom proposed state.

I will reiterate that I think that the article Assamese nationalism would make more sense for the sources you are using. If the article is just about providing more WP:NPOV perspectives about Assam- those should go in the Assam article. If this article is supposed to be about a proposed state it needs to show that the proposed state is a proposed state. From what I see, it might be better focused on the ULFA explicitly, their governing structures etc. In its current state, this article is not fit for mainspace. And it's not because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 00:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your careful work in checking all the sources. But I am not convinced that the single source (Ivy Dhar) that you mention can save the article. First of all, the source is a Master's thesis, which is normally not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Secondly, it is only a small section (4.04) that discusses the concept, and it does so in the context of Assamese nationalism and most of the section deals with ULFA, both of which already have their own pages on Wikipedia. I don't agree that this source establishes "Swadhin Axom" as an independent topic that merits its own page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes- I'm saying that it can be draftified and potentially reworked into an article actually about the specific idea- based on assuming good faith that maybe one of the 40 sources I didnt check have something useful. Not particularly opposed to deletion, and if there are no other sources this should be a section of Assamese nationalism as you propose.

A master's thesis is a reliable source- the policy you link to cautions against blimdly accepting since many theses do original research and are therefore sometime primary sources. But that's not the case here where the author is describing existing sentiment, not coming up the idea of Swadhin Axom outright. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright let me have a look a this article again, and try finding secondary articles on the idea. However i don't feel this should be merged with the ULFA page as its solely not connected to ulfa, and is something like Dravida Nadu Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete Most of the article is WP:SYNTH. United Liberation Front of Asom could be a redirect target ... but this title is misspelled (Axom instead of Asom). Walsh90210 (talk) 04:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I would like to disagree, since the idea of "Swadhin Axom" (Independent Assam) deserves nuanced understanding and should not be exclusively linked to the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA). While ULFA has prominently championed this cause of an independent Assam through armed struggle, the concept of Swadhin Axom encompasses a broader spectrum of historical, cultural, and socio-political aspirations that predate and extend beyond ULFA's formation. Also both Axom and Asom are used, you will find articles using both the terms.

Pre-ULFA Aspirations: The desire for a distinct Assamese identity and autonomy can be traced back to the colonial and pre-colonial eras. Movements and sentiments advocating for Assam's self-determination existed well before ULFA's establishment in 1979 (Guha, 1991, 56). Cultural and Ethnic Diversity: The idea of Swadhin Axom also reflects the rich cultural and ethnic diversity of the region. It includes the voices of various indigenous communities who have sought to preserve their unique identities and heritage (Baruah, 2005, 112).

Political Autonomy Movements: Throughout Assam's history, various groups and political entities have called for greater autonomy and recognition of Assam's distinct status within India. These movements have often been peaceful and democratic, emphasizing dialogue over armed conflict (Misra, 2012, 143).

Both of the 3 papers are important sources

Therefore, I propose renaming the Wikipedia article to "Proposal for Swadhin Axom" instead, because it is of relevance to the geopolitics concerning greater southeast asia as well

Ref:

Baruah, Sanjib. Durable Disorder: Understanding the Politics of Northeast India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Dutta, Anuradha. Assam and the Northeast: Development and Conflict. Guwahati: Eastern Book House, 2010.

Goswami, Priyadarshini. Ethnicity, Insurgency and Identity in Northeast India. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2001.

Guha, Amalendu. Planter Raj to Swaraj: Freedom Struggle and Electoral Politics in Assam 1826-1947. New Delhi: Indian Council of Historical Research, 1991.

Misra, Udayon. The Periphery Strikes Back: Challenges to the Nation-State in Assam and Nagaland. Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 2012.

Sharma, Monirul Hussain. The Assam Movement: Class, Ideology, and Identity. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2004. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kautilya3and @Walsh90210 @EmeraldRange Hey also wanted to point out 3 volumes of books that looked into this topic. Swadhinataar Prostab & Economics of Swadhin Axom. I feel these sources

You mentioned the following:

" If this article is supposed to be about a proposed state it needs to show that the proposed state is a proposed state."

I was only looking at english sources, and there is a lack of literature when it comes to Northeast India.

There is one article from a newspaper that briefly talks about this idea, but does not elaborate on it: https://www-asomiyapratidin-in.translate.goog/assam/parag-kumar-das-memorial-lecture?_x_tr_sl=bn&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

I am offering a brief translation below from assamese :

However, the proposal or demand for independence is not limited to generations. After the Greco-Roman period, proposals for independence were raised. Buli commented that Tetia's memory is still alive today due to Dr. Mishra's agitation in the Indian freedom struggle. But that freedom was not real freedom, many people raised the issue of muklikoi quora during this period.

Teon Koy, 1947 The freedom that was gained in Chant country was not real freedom. That freedom was in political freedom. Without social freedom, there will be total freedom. Therefore, many of those freedoms are not complete freedom, many of them were promoting social equality and elimination of discrimination in order to achieve complete freedom.

The disillusionment was largely disillusioned with the passage of time after independence. All those who hoped for independence were disappointed. During the 60s and 70s, the common people were angry about the socio-economic inequality. About which the movement was started. Protests were held by university and college students. Around that time revolutions were starting in different countries of the world. Apart from political freedom, social freedom, social and economic discrimination, women's freedom was also raised.

This movement started in Europe and reached America. The Vietnam war was forced to end on the basis of this protest. In the next period, the black people's movement was influenced by this movement, which was the global judge. Kakat also made posters on this topic in Indian schools, and propagated about this movement through discussion.

Dr. Mishra thought that period of 60-70s was the golden age. Because there was a lot of hope in this demand or movement at that time. The literary majesty of that time was influenced by this movement. A new curriculum was being prepared with the support of intellectuals, college teachers and others who supported the movement to raise the demand for curriculum change. Slogans were being written for the liberation of poor women.

ofc the two books would be the primary source for this article, and there are several sources - secondary analysis done on these books which can be taken as the secondary supporting sources Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that "Swadhin Asom" (there is a misspelling) literally means Independent Assam, and this should be the article instead, an article that describes the motives for an independent Assam. as there are many different sources that describe this movement as a whole. — Karnataka 09:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete upon review, I don't think the sources in the article necessarily support an article on this specific topic - it does not mean that there should not be coverage of those wanting independence in Assam, but this appears to be possibly about a geographical region and the sources do not support that. WP:NOTESSAY also applies. Drafitfying is fine, but I'm not sure there's a clear topic here after a BEFORE search. SportingFlyer T·C 12:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Selective merge to Assam separatist movements or United Liberation Front of Asom. These appear to be the appropriate places for discussion of the causes for an independence movement and related activism, but there doesn't need to be a separate page for the proposed state like this. Flyingphoenixchips's sources and some of this article's content belong in those articles.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A fuller deletion rationale is preferred rather than a brief reference to a general policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 10:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Moruf Oseni

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

Procedural nom following the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 June 19 where consensus was that the speedy wasn't the right outcome, but did not necessarily find support for retention and the outcome was for an AfD to establish consensus. Note I have dropped the protection to ECP to allow established editors to improve the article if they feel so inclined as it didn't feel right to have a fully protected article at AfD. However if p-blocks or other solutions are needed, feel free to implement them. I have not protected the AfD out of hope that all editors will work productively. Star Mississippi 13:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Star Mississippi 13:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @BoraVoro:, who has been fighting the relentless efforts from COI/SPAs to prematurely undraftify this page. Owen× ☎ 14:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

What is the main issue with the page? Are other editors citing any apart from the G11 on the Achievements and Awards section mentioned in the deletion review? @Star Mississippi Michael Ugbodu (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the merit @Michael Ugbodu, I just nominated it as the outcome of the DRV. Star Mississippi 01:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Tentative cautious keep. It appears this article has a history of ping-ponging between draft space and mainspace, with promotional tone, COI/UPE(?) editing issues, and initially unclear claims of significance/notability. As such it deserves scrutiny. (As an aside, it sounded from DRV there might be information about this on the article's talk page, but this has not been undeleted). That said, earlier this month Michael Ugbodu (who I understand may be an involved editor?) added additional sources which point to achievements and awards that present a credible assertion of significance. In such cases, there are sometimes concerns if the sourcing (and awards) themselves are sufficiently independent, i.e. editorially independent vs regurgitating primary sources only. I'm not familiar with Nigerian sourcing, so don't have a good opinion on this. However, while the process followed with this article has been irregular and far from good practice, absent credible assertions to the contrary, it does seem there is adequate 3rd party coverage, sourcing, and notability to warrant an article. Martinp (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for flagging the lack of talk page @Martinp. Oversight on my part. It's now undeleted Star Mississippi 12:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Now that I've reviewed the talk page, and read the DRV in more detail, I'm changing to delete, send back to draft and enforce requiring using WP:AFC to recreate by any COI editors. I applaud @Michael Ugbodu for their clear statement of COI on the talk page, and for hunting up promising sources. However, paid editing COI should also be listed on the editor's user talk page, and paid-COI article drafts are indeed supposed to go through WP:AFC, not be promoted into mainspace by a COI editor. This is not just bureaucracy, it is exactly there where independence of sources, article bias, etc can be reviewed best, insulating from the fact that a paid-COI editor has much more energy to argue than uncompensated volunteers if there is any debate. We've now had (at least) multiple days at DRV and now 2.5 days here where no-one independent has truly investigated notability and independence of the secondary sources used. Given the COI, this is a must, and while it may be frustrating to a paid editor and their client to have to wait, it would equally be unfair to keep this article in mainspace absent someone independent, experienced with local (Nigerian) sourcing, to verify, jumping the queue vs other paid articles that are going through the (admittedly clogged) AFC pipeline. I'm happy to change my vote if someone independent does investigate those sources during the rest of this AFD. Martinp (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

We need to come to a consensus on the main issues with the page. The sources for the awards section are all newspaper sources and not primary sources, so can be considered credible. However, I think the second paragraph on the achievements section can be better written or scrapped as it sounds promotional.

Let's hear what others think as well. Michael Ugbodu (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It's trickier, Michael. We have a lot of trouble with CV-like COI articles which do use secondary (newspaper) sources, but they are not sufficiently independent of the article subject. I'm (probably) not notable in wikispeak, but would not become so just because I persuaded a newspaper (or two) to run an article where they just parroted what I told them. That's why we need someone who doesn't have a COI to look into that (I can't, since I know nothing about Nigerian newspaper writing habits!) Martinp (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 10:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Martin Tišťan

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

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2016 Summer Olympics#Athletics because I could not find enough in-depth coverage of this athlete to meet WP:GNG. The only decent source I found is Netky where he was disqualified, but it looks nowhere near significant. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Redirect per nom. Does not satisfy the criteria at WP:NATH, so a redirect is the best option. Gödel2200 (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

2019 CAFA U-16 Championship

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage Mdann52 (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

1. the initial delete nomination (lack independent sourcing):

Link 1 by Khovar.tj National Information Agency of Tajikistan/ not related to CAFA

Link 2 Tasnim News Agency an Iranian new agency Independent from CAFA

Link 3 Turkmen news agency which is also Independent from CAFA

Link 4 Sport.kg an Information Agency; Sport.kg is the only specialized portal in Kyrgyzstan

and many more; that i will add to the article to enhance it sourcing

2. The tournament is organized by the Central Asian Football Association (CAFA), which oversees football in Central Asia. CAFA is a member of the AFC and, therefore, FIFA. As an international competition between member nations, the tournament holds significant notability. This is particularly relevant now, as some footballers who participated in the tournament are becoming prominent figures in Central Asian football and across Asia. The tournament shall be cited as the beginning of their international careers, further emphasizing its importance. Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, and Central Asia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Mehran Tebyani

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

Moved from draft by conflicted editor, no evidence of passing WP:GNG primary sources and interviews don't help with notability. Theroadislong (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Redraftify until notability issues fixed. Procyon117 (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Muzzammil Aslam

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

The creator of this BLP SheriffIsInTown claims that this BLP falls under NPOL, but NPOL is not applicable here. Any advisor to Chief Minister of a province, must meet the GNG, which they do not. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL. Youknow? (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Advisor's portfolio is considered equal to a minister making them functional part of the cabinet. In this case, they are a member of the provincial cabinet. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- SheriffIsInTown, Firstly, this notification does not state they have the same status or powers as a minister. Notifications typically mention such if an advisor is getting the same power/status as a minister. And even if they did, I don't think it falls under NPOL. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

List of country subdivision flags in Africa

AfDs for this article:

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

Just closed to draftify and immediately recreated by the same editor. Thanks to the merged content it is no longer a G4, but none of the material added addresses the issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of country subdivision flags in Africa. If this closes as draftify or delete, suggest protection to avoid this situation again. Star Mississippi 23:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 23:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The title is "flags of country subdivisions of Africa", and what is shown are the flags of country subdivisions of Africa. By draftifying it, you are removing a whole list of flags that some people may find useful. Eehuiio (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

This page is not a gallery anymore, I converted into informative tables. I hope this will help 2A02:A453:D05E:0:7859:2E95:3DE6:2A4A (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

It remains un sourced, which is the chief issue. Please log in when you edit. Star Mississippi 13:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

many sources have been added now. This should not be deleted. Eehuiio (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Please review sourcing guidelines. fotw.info is not an acceptable source, nor are many of the others. This is why it remains functionally unsourced. Star Mississippi 13:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Even if it is unsourced, it still has information that fits the title. Deleting it would be useless and unnecessary. Eehuiio (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Draftify over current draft with historymerge (the current list article at least looks better). Eehuiio, as Star Mississippi notes, neither fotw.info nor crwflags.com nor others are reliable sources. For the purpose of this list's entries, I believe official government sources would be reasonable to use despite not necessarily being independent. The alternative is that every entry that is not reliably sourced is removed/commented out per WP:V/WP:BURDEN, which would remove most content from this article; historymerge would be needed in this case anyway. If this is moved to draft, then please put it through the Articles for Creation process per the AFC template once you believe that the flags are properly sourced; please don't move this back to mainspace in a deficient state where it is likely to be speedily deleted, etc. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
This page also has other sources, so it isnt completely unsourced. Also, it still fulfills the title and is useful. Eehuiio (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

post-relisting, confirm my draftification !vote, ref per comments of BD2412, etc. If it's fixed in draft and sent through AFC, then good. If it's left unfixed then so be it. If it's moved back to somewhere in mainspace in a deficient form (yes, protect away), then consider that a WP:G4 with broad latitude ref this AFD. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 14:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Nominator commentyes, the reopening was Involved, but I do not believe that is an issue as it's clearly not a discussion for a NAC. Cleaning up redirects now Star Mississippi 14:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
I think we're all tired of whack a sock. @Eehuiio if you run into issues editing here, just remember to log in first. This has nothing to do with your edits. I've protected against logged out edits. If any admin thinks this is Involved, feel free to revert me. Star Mississippi 18:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete: and salt. Draftification makes sense when ~~an editor~~ editors familiar with our notability guidelines ~~offers~~ are available to work on the article. Draftification makes no sense when a single-purpose account cares more about having their pet page on WP than they do about any P&G. If we draftify this again, it'll bounce right back to mainspace as soon as we turn our head away, and we'll be back here in a couple of weeks for the 3rd nomination. Salting in this case is only meant to force the author to go throuigh AfC. Owen× ☎ 21:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete The rationale by Own makes sense to me and as a NP patroller I am frustrated when an editor ignores process. Lightburst (talk) 01:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Draftify. Move-lock the draft and create-lock the page. The draft will either be worked on in draftspace or die on the vine. Deletion should be reserved for cases where we should never have such an article. BD2412 T 21:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Draftify: I agree with BD2412 that the page should be SALTed until the draft is accepted at AfC. I also believe that a comment to that effect, with a link to this discussion, should be added to the draft for the benefit of AfC reviewers. I disagree with OwenX that Draftification makes sense when an editor familiar with our notability guidelines offers to work on the article. Anyone can edit a draft in the draftspace. As a result of this AfD, there will also now be likelly be a set of eyes on the draft. Someone could also agree to work with the author. Edited 23:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC). I also disagree with the contention that Draftification makes no sense when a single-purpose account cares more about having their pet page on WP than they do about any P&G. Draftification is actually the best way to force that editor to try to learn those P&Gs so that they can get the article through AfC. I share Lightburst's frustrat[ion] when an editor ignores process, but I do not believe that it is a valid reason to delete an article. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
You make some good points, voorts, and I partially amended my !vote above accordingly. Yes, drafts are available for everyone to work on, and this AfD may very well bring more attention to the page. But while the AfC process was indeed intended to teach editors our P&G, the ability to move drafts into mainspace without going through AfC effectively negates that objective, allowing a SPA to circumvent the process. I'd gladly undelete the page to draft if a non-SPA requests it, or even history-merge with a new draft. But realistically, I doubt anyone but the original author has any interest in this page. I agree with BD2412's statement that Deletion should be reserved for cases where we should never have such an article, but contend that this is exactly the case here, where sources do not establish notability, and the only one requesting a draft is an editor who doesn't seem concerned with our notability guidelines, and is simply waiting for an opportune moment to sneak the page back to mainspace. Owen× ☎ 12:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Just a quick side note. Flags of regions of Egypt is completely unsourced. The absence of sourcing in the nominated article revealed that, and if the latter article were fixed, it could transclude into this one as is. BD2412 T 21:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Fermor (Russian nobility)

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Strong Keep Both named individuals of the Fermor family have high military ranks: William Fermor, General in Chief with the notable act of occupying Berlin plus Governor of Smolensk and Pavel Fermor, first principal of the Alexander Military Law Academy. William Fermor is referenced in the SSNE database of the University of St Andrews^[1] as Commander in chief of Russian forces during the 7 year war. Axisstroke (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Notability of some persons has nothing to do with the notability of the family. WP:NOTINHERITED - Altenmann >talk 15:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  The family bore arms of count of the Holy Roman Empire, your argument is pretty thin. Axisstroke (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  Evidence? Anyway, In Wikipedia a notability of a subject, namely "Fermor (Russian nobility)" is judged from the presence of reliable sources describing the subject (namely "Fermor (Russian nobility)") in reasonable detail. Please see WP:NOTABILITY, WP:RS WP:CITE. - Altenmann >talk 20:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  The SSNE entry 3876 referenced above lists it. Axisstroke (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  SSNE 3876 says not a word about Russian family.- Altenmann >talk 16:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  SSNE 3876 references count Wiliam Fermor, the most prominent member of this noble Russian family. Axisstroke (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  For the fourth time, I don't see any references about "noble Russian family" to assert its notability for English Wikipedia. - Altenmann >talk 20:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/ssne/item.php?id=3876

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Disagreement

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

Non notable topic Jax 0677 (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment this is a one-line WP:DICTDEF because nobody could agree on a redirect target. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Clearly something that should be redirected, but to what is the question. Disagreements (epistemology), Dissent, Objection (argument), Argument, etc. all seem like valid targets. Curbon7 (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete and then move Disagreements (epistemology) to this title because the subject of that article corresponds to this one. Use a hatnote to point to the other redirect targets mentioned byCurbon7. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear what the consensus is here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Disagreements (epistemology) has too many problems of its own to be the primary topic here. A broad-concept article at Agreement might be the best target; but I am not sure any redirect is better than the current quasi-DAB setup. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Michael Buckwald

AfDs for this article:

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

Eight months since the last AFD, and he's still a non-notable CEO of a notable company. Article is nearly identical to the previous version, apart from the 2013 Time magazine interview. The rest is still just coverage of him in the context of his company, passing mentions, and interviews. G4 contested by SPA anon editor, likely the logged-out article creator. Strong aroma of UPE. Wikishovel (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, California, Florida, and Washington, D.C.. Wikishovel (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete fairly obvious WP:REFBOMB with largely worthless non-WP:GNG compliant sources like [4] and [5]. Looking at the new sources since the last AFD not addressed by the nom [6] there is no WP:SIGCOV of the subject. I suppose every so often the UPEs will try again when they have new paid placements or references with passing mentions that can be added to game G4 but it is what it is. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:44A3:EFF3:245F:594D (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment Leap Motion (the company he was formerly CEO of) does have an article; his current company (Torch Sensors) does as well (much more dubiously). There is a non-trivial amount of coverage from c.2013. The article needs cleanup, but I am undecided between keep, redirect, and delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walsh90210 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete Checked all of the refs here (very bombed) and only one has more than a mention of him and that is an interview. Everything else name-checks him in an article about a product. Many of the refs that I checked do not verify the statements in the article. Lamona (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I should add that I did the usual G-search and found no significant independent sources. Lamona (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Torch (company) where he is mentioned. Or his earlier company, Leap Motion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I thought about that, but since his name appears at both we have a classic WP:XY and I would rather not kick this one to RFD. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:780A:A70F:B434:93EA (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Leap Motion: The sourcing presently in the article is all about Leap Motion, I'd redirect there. The Time magazine interview doesn't help notability, but does talk about Leap. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Chidananda S Naik

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

Some information on this guy: Chidananda made the sixteen minute short film Sunflowers Were the First Ones to Know... in four days at the end of his one-year television course in the Film and Television Institute of India. The 16-minute film is based on a Kannada folk tale about a rooster not coming causing the sun not to rise in a village. It won the La Cinéf award at the Cannes Film Festival. This is the main content on doesn't warrant an article here. Anything (Essentially, just the award) you need about him is already online.

Almost every single source on the internet about Sunflowers Were the First Ones to Know says short film wins Cannes award and nothing else. This is a case of WP:TOO EARLY. Why not wait till he directs feature films?

I am acting in good faith because two users see User_talk:Mushy_Yank#Notability_2 and second opinion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Does one film guarantee notability? claims that this person does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (people).

The critical reception section is a stretch, no matter which Indian film won in Cannes, the comment would be the same. Another source about this guy's short film from Variety: [7] (again, only about the award). This AfD is a complete waste of time (caused by undo of redirect to Cinéfondation saying take it to AfD [8]) DareshMohan (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Cinéfondation#Prize winners: A redirect seems like a good ATD so far. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Subject passes WP:ANYBIO#1. The significant award/honor here is 1st Prize - Premier Prix award from Cinéfondation, 2024 Cannes Film Festival, where the film was judged among 18 films globally. The award is well know and has it's own article on Wikipedia, Cinéfondation. There is coverage from multiple published sources that are also reliable. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I am not fiercely opposed to keep if everyone agrees he is notable but I think it should be made clear that 1) the award itself has no page, it's the foundation that promotes it which has 2) it is technically the film (a student film) that receives the award, not its director. You don't think that if we decide ANYBIO applies in this case, we would establish a precedent setting the bar extremely low? I do. I don't think that WP:DIRECTOR appplies anyway~~, coverage on the film being insufficiently significant imv.~~ -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC) On second thoughts "unstriking" (virtually) my comment: I do consider that "coverage on the film (is) insufficiently significant imv." for the director to meet WP:DIRECTOR requirements. Not unsignificant nor trivial and mentioning a significant award, yes but not enough at least for WP:DIRECTOR, I should think.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
The foundation is notable for the award it gives out. It was started in 1998 and the award has been given annually since then. The award, technically, belongs to the director for being the brains behind it, which is why the director's name is mentioned in the 2024 Cannes Film Festival and Cinéfondation article instead of the producer's name. Nandi Awards is only significant in Andhra Pradesh, whereas Cinéfondation brings coverage from Variety (magazine) as well as Hindustan Times, which would you consider a more popular award now?

Coverage on the film being insufficiently significant? Here are some reliable sources that explicitly mention the film's name in the title: [9][10][11][12][13][14]. Expecting a breakdown, analysis or a review for a film that has only been screened once(AFAIK) is absurd. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
There are some articles that are indeed significant in the links you provided here. ~~Not commenting on the rest, if I may~~. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
But since you kindly asked me (not sure the question was meaningful or not ironic): yes, obviously I find the Nandi way more "popular" than the Cinéfondation premier prix, yes. That's not exactly the point, I'm afraid. Here, the fact that this is a student short film is for me, so far, an issue, and I still favour a redirect, but as I said, not fiercely opposed to keep, especially in light of the sources you ~~added~~ presented here (most of them also being on the page, except if I am not mistaken, the article in the New India Express and DDNews). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC) (edited my comment for clarification as my comment may have been misleading . Also adding that it's very likely that among the journalists or papers who mentioned the award and interviewed the director, not many if any at all have seen the film; and for me, this too is a problem; basically the question remains: can ANYBIO apply if the award, significant or not, is attributed to the work? Can WP:DIRECTOR apply in a case where coverage, although somehow significant as it addresses the film, is only mentions of the plot, the award, and in some sources of a few facts about production? Most sources are indeed generally reliable, although various articles are not being bylined, which I personally don't mind but is regularly pointed out negatively when it comes to Indian film, some users considering such coverage unreliable as a rule (I don't :D). I am still not sure, and still consider a redirect to be the best outcome. Maybe it's absurd to require further analysis of the work but can we really bypass that requirement just because the film has only been screened in Cannes, and not by the journalists who wrote the article, and is short? Not sure. Sorry for the cascading clarifications. I don't think I will change my mind from now, nor positively nor negatively. Even if one considers that it's the film after all that's notable and the article about the director is only here as a form of substitute for the article about the short, I am not certain that the premier prix at Cinéfondation, although significant, can be considered a major award nor that the coverage is substantial enough. Maybe the said coverage cannot be more than what it is now for obvious reasons, maybe, but still. I've done, again, some further searching and there's also coverage in French: https://lepetitjournal.com/inde/actualites/triomphe-indien-au-festival-de-cannes-2024-386190 or this blog; https://www.inde-cineskope.com/2024/05/cannes-2024-payal-kapadia-et-linde.html Good luck.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
What's stopping you from doing a WP:BEFORE? There are many reliable sources for the subject and the film apart from the the six I have cited.

The coverage that follows from someone meeting an additional criteria is just a bonus. Most Olympic athletes, older MLAs, sports personalities, politicians and judges do not have significant coverage. There are many articles with only database entries and primary sources as references simply because they meet an additional criteria and are presumed to be notable. The basic criterion that has been followed until now is that if an award has a standalone article and someone has received that award, they are presumed to be notable. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
What's stopping you from doing a WP:BEFORE? is a very undue, rude and aggressive comment. I've searched for sources extensively THREE OR FOUR TIMES. Just look at my comments (and at 2 other venues) and presented sources myself (you're welcome). Again, the award has no page, and the film received the award, not him. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
If you think that a regional award is more popular than Cinéfondation and that there is no substantial coverage when the coverage is not even required, then I cant help you. Ciao Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been posted on Talk:Cannes Film Festival, Talk:2024 Cannes Film Festival, Talk:Cinéfondation, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Film festivals task force and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards to draw a wider range of editors for discussion. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete: So he won a sidebar competition at Cannes. The film might be notable, this individual isn't. Redirect to the film's article, if it's deemed notable. This is too early to have a wikipedia article for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep - clear pass of ANYBIO #1. If I were able to assess and read the non-English language sources, I'm confident there would be a clear NBASIC pass as well. ANYBIO doesn't require significant coverage of the person outside of the work, by the way - that is pretty much the whole point of that criterion. Newimpartial (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
@Newimpartial: Here is the sources in Indian language [15] which also just say that the film won the award. So is the short film notable or him notable -- I would say the short film maybe. DareshMohan (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
And I would agree with you, DareshMohan. ANYBIO clearly states, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" (emphasis mine), while all sources mention that the film received the award. And while I would certainly admit that for a student short film the award is significant, I wouldn't transfer that significance to the person directly. Even regarding the film, it is judged as a student film and I personally am reluctant to consider that in itself the award (although clearly an achievement) is enough to make the short notable (the notability for films is more strict and the award needs to be considered a major award, which this one is not imv). As for the director, even less so, then. Of course, he directed it, but then WP:DIRECTOR would be the relevant guideline. And see my view about that guideline applying or not, above. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I believe you both (Mushy Yank and DareshMohan) are misreading WP:DIRECTOR, the point of which is that when the works attributable to a particular creator are notable, that makes their creator notable. This is a major, and well-documented, limitation to the WP:NOTINHERITED principle, which continues to apply in the other direction - the non-notable films of a notable director are not necessarily notable.

What is more, your interptetation of ANYBIO #1 does not, I think, reflect the general understanding. While for collective works, the distinction betweent the work and its creators may be significant for notability. However, the idea that the sole author of a book that wins a major award could somehow not therefore be notable does not reflect a coherent reading of NCREATIVE, in my view (which I believe is the general one). A film of this kind, where the director is universally regarded as its creator, follows the same logic as a book IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry to insist, but I think we've read WP:DIRECTOR quite correctly: our point is precisely that we don't think (at leat in my case) the evidence proving that that short student film is notable (work, singular, not plural in the present case) is compelling either, given the type of coverage or and the nature of the award it received. I've already repeated that various times. As for ANYBIO, feel free to change the wording or phrasing of the guideline if you think it's too limitative, but I've quoted the current one and it's pretty clear. The person has to receive the award and the said award (concerning persons, obviously) needs to be both well-known and significant. If you think that evidence shows that the work is clearly notable according to the guideline, let's agree to disagree. If you think that the award received by a film can be automatically transferred to its director and that this is the general and correct view, sure, I understand but that's not what the guideline says. If you think that that award is well-known and significant, sure, maybe, regarding student short/medium length films but certainly not for the notability of a "director" (who was still a student when he received it). That is for me setting the interpretive bar slightly too low but as I said above, not fiercely opposed to keep this if everyone agrees this inclusive interpretation is acceptable and the coverage about the film show it's a notable work. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus and discussion is continuing up to the time of relisting. We have basically two very different interpretations of policies and that is not easy to reconcile.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

CKM NSS Senior Secondary School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV found anywhere and the sources used are entirely primary sources. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Kerala. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete As with an advertisement WP:PROMOTION, the referenced source is the school's promotional website ~ ~ Spworld2 (talk) 03:42, 06 July 2024 (UTC)

Yabani

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

I am not sure but want a definitive consensus on the notability of this TV series. First off, the article doesn't meet our guideline per WP:NFP–there is totally a decline of SIGCOV, or maybe because I didn't find either, but I tried searching only to see release dates announcements, etc, and thus, doesn't satisfy WP:SIRS.

On another note, I found out that the additional criteria WP:NFO, and WP:NFIC may push for the userfication, given thoughts that it may still meet notability at the highest release (seems like it has been released), and because it started notable actors and actresses. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, Entertainment, and Turkey. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Added a few things for verification; a lot of so-so coverage exists (in Turkish, English) and, although not great, it seems to show some attention to the production. Notable cast. A redirect to producer/network is imv warranted, so very opposed to deletion.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Agastya Nanda

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

Notability is not inherited–being a member of a notable family is not an exception, infact, it is the true definition. Having asserted above, the article doesn't meet WP:NACTOR because he only started in one or two films, and not multiple. Infact, most of the sources were about the family, and not this young actor. In regards to that, there is more to draftifying and marking as promised because this is a clear issue of WP:TOOSOON. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Nikhil_Nanda#Personal_life: mentioned there. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Per nom, fails WP:ACTOR also WP:GNG. Youknow? (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The Blue (film)

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

From the current state of the article, it is clear it doesn't meet WP:NFILM; no critical review from reliable sources or rating in any film rating platform. If sources are found, ping me. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Arts, Film, and Iran. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nomination statement to which I have nothing to add. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Iranian films of the 2000s: given the notable cast. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

BigID

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

Fails to establish notability under WP:NCORP. Sources are _almost entirely_ related to fundraising events. Brandon (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and New York. Brandon (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete, fails all relevant notability guidelines of WP:GNG, WP:NBASIC and WP:NCORP in its current status. All sources are PR distributed material with a clear evidence in the photo caption. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Panorays

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

Article seemingly lacks any sources aside from trade press. Even then a significant amount of coverage is related to fundraising events. Brandon (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Israel. Brandon (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete, no evidence of notability. Sources in the article mentioned the subject in passing, some are PR materials except one that give significant coverage and seems reliable. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Alexander Heid

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

References, when reliable, do not provide significant coverage of the subject to meet WP:BASIC.

Rolling Stone primarily covers HackMiami, mentions Heid in passing as an organizer of the event.
Financial Times quotes Heid in relation to the 2017 Equifax data breach.
Ars Technica doesn't mention Heid in the article at all. Brandon (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, and Florida. Brandon (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG per these two sources [16][17] which give sigcov but are not cited in the article. The RollingStone could also be of support because the subject is mentioned in at least three paragraphs. But almost all sources cited in the page fail notability requirement as the subject received zero mentions. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

John Taylor (given name)

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

No indication that this is a double name for any of the entries, rather than just a given name/middle name combo. The bishop actually has a compound surname. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
What is the distinction between a "double name" versus a "given name/middle name combo"? Isn't a middle name just another given name (after the first name)?—Bagumba (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
A double name is a given name formed by two names, e.g. in either Pope John Paul, where John Paul is the given name. These are usually hyphenated. A middle name is a name that is given but is not a given name. People aren't typically referred to by it. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, there's similar pages at Category:Compound given names.—Bagumba (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete unless it can be proven that any of these are compound names. We don't index by random given/middle name combinations. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

D. Christopher Evans

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

I found no significant coverage after multiple searches. The current three sources in the article are an Access Denied page to the subject's non-independent biography, an article by the subject, and a local article about him being appointed. SL93 (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep meets WP:GNG per these sources found and added to the article [18][19]. These sources give sigcov and seem credible to pass for notability. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The first source was already in the article, and both sources are routine coverage. Both sources are just announcements of what the subject did in in his career - being hired and forming his team. SL93 (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep Being denied access to a source in not a proper reason for deleting an article. The source is still available in an archive (now added]. I find the coverage to be significant and dealing with more than routine about his career progression. Thincat (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Thincat The access denied thing isn’t why it is a bad source, but rather that it isn’t independent coverage. SL93 (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, in itself it doesn't contribute much, if anything, towards notability but it provides some sufficiently verified information. Taken as a whole there is enough adequate information for a stub BLP. Personally, I prefer AFD discussions to include only matters that are relevant to article deletion but I realise that some people are not so well aware of our standards or they regard discussions as adversarial rather than inquisitorial. Thincat (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Mohamed Ashmalee

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

This subject fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:Notability (people)/Subnational politicians for the Maldives. Generally, ministers (and subordinates) there are not presumed notable. Otherwise, independent sources lack in-depth coverage on which to base an encyclopedic biography. JFHJr (㊟) 03:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Maldives. JFHJr (㊟) 03:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Cabinet ministers are generally presumed notable via WP:NPOL as national officeholder; is this ministerial position a cabinet position or is it a civil service one? Curbon7 (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Looks to be civil service (appointed bureaucrat, no mention of cabinet or the like). A presumption of notability does not apply here per the subnational politicians country listing for the Maldives. JFHJr (㊟) 15:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Sebastian Payne

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

Notability of the individual is questionable, and as I've noted before his article is written like a resume. PlateOfToast (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Probably passes AUTHOR, a few book reviews found [20], [21], [22], but the sourcing used now in the article isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep quite a well known figure, has been a guest on Question Time (TV programme) for example and I think he meets the WP:JOURNALIST criteria of being an 'important figure' as his career changes have been reported on independently.[23]. Agree the article reads like a resume though, needs work. Orange sticker (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Bharwara Sewage Treatment Plant

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

Unless this is the sewage plant that made the Ninja Turtle, I can see no reason for there to be a stub article for a wastewater treatment plant. I've done a bit of news search and there doesn't seem to be anything spectacular or of note regarding this plant, other than it opened on the birthday of a city/government official. It may have been the largest STP in Asia at one point. Still, I can only find 2 articles that mention that, one in 2014 (and even that article is mostly hidden behind a paywall) and one saying that a scheduled STP in Delhi would surpass it in all areas. Lindsey40186 (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

List of Spanish musicians

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

WP:SALAT, the scope of the list is too broad. There are more than 2300 pages in Category:Spanish musicians, this list is useless without further subdivision. Broc (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Lists of people, Lists, and Spain. Broc (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Could be subdivided alphabetically when needed Atlantic306 (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep Template:Musicians by country shows these articles are common, wouldn't make sense to have one country not on the list. Being incomplete is not a valid reason to delete any article, nor is the arguments "its useless". If there was a bot someone could run to grab basic information from the infoboxes of the articles linked to, and add that to table formation, years active, what type of music they play, etc, it'd be more useful. Dream Focus 00:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
My argument is not that the list is incomplete. A list of 2300 entries would be far too wieldy, and the potential entries that do not yet have a Wikipedia article are even more. According to WP:SALAT Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections, hence my comment about the usefulness of the list. In particular, I am concerned by having an endless and incomplete list of blue links, with no additional information, and no curation. The argument "these articles are common" is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Most of these lists were created in the early years of Wikipedia (when they maybe contained only a handful of entries) and have been kept per status quo, but now have no reason to exist. Broc (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
The size of a list is never a valid reason for deletion. Many list simply break off into smaller list when they get too large. List of aircraft, Lists_of_stars#By_proximity, etc. Dream Focus 00:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete per WP:LISTCRIT -- more specifically, poorly defined inclusion criteria -- what does originating from Spain mean? If a person is born in Spain but moves to another country at an early age, does that count? Or vice versa? What about at a later age? What about citizenship change? What about very old entries where "Spain" then wasn't the same as "Spain" now? Using modern political boundaries as a subdivider is inherently problematic, which brings to my next point -- this is also an unencyclopedic cross-categorization. There's no end to the different combination of ways you could subdivide. Is this using "musician" to subdivide a "list of Spaniards", or is it using "Spanish" to subdivide a "list of musicians"? Why not by style/genre instead? Or birth year? Or alphabetical? This sort of random intersection of properties is best left for Wikidata. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment - This debate is probably going to end with "no consensus" due to conflicting WP policies. This list of Spanish musicians probably violates WP:SALAT and WP:LISTCRIT because it's just a poorly-defined and never-ending pile of blue links. On the other hand, different WP policies would support this article's existence because of many similar list articles found at Template:Musicians by country. But if you browse all the other country lists, most of them have the exact same problems as this one. I submit that this is a bigger policy challenge beyond assessing the usefulness of this list about Spain, but an AfD discussion almost never results in deeper discussions of larger policy conflicts. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
@Doomsdayer520 I do not see any conflicting policy. I see WP:SALAT and WP:LISTCRIT showing that this stand-alone list should not exist because too broad in coverage and with no clear inclusion criterion. I even see troubles with WP:NLIST as I could not find a single source that publishes a full list of Spanish musicians. I see many entries in Template:Musicians by country that could possibly deleted under the same arguments. Those lists have varied levels of curation and subcategorization, hence might deserve separate discussions. What would you suggest is the right forum for discussion, if not AfD? Broc (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
@Broc - I agree with your assessment, but look at the "Keep" votes here which are also based on policy. I've seen this happen many times before and it will happen again. Here people will argue about this individual article and nobody will address bigger issues, probably not even the Admin who is guaranteed to say "No Consensus" at the end. Meanwhile, there are folks who discuss policies for lists and others who discuss policies for categories and others who discuss policies for templates etc. etc. etc. Just imagine getting them coordinated. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Standard list for a topic notable as a set, with a clear defining criteria.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Please see Template:Musicians by country, There's a lot of these lists, and a random look at some seems to indicate that none of these have sourcing. They're just existing lists by country. Some are just alphabetical lists, and others include really nice images. If we keep these lists, I don't see how we can cherry pick and eliminate certain ones, but keep the others. — Maile (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep per Dreamfocus. Mccapra (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

1895 Pacific Tigers football team

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

After reviewing this article, I am not convinced that it meets the WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS. The only source is a database, and I'm not finding the sources needed to meet the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and California. Let'srun (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Given that every other season on Pacific's football history has an article, I think some kind of merger would probably be best so that the information on this one is not lost. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Do you actually have a suggestion for a merge, perhaps to a combined season article? I'm all ears, but looking at 1898 and 1899, I'm not seeing much for those seasons either...Let'srun (talk) Let'srun (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Not to mention, there isn't much info here to save, considering the only source. Let'srun (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Pacific Tigers football, 1895–99, perhaps? Or maybe extend it to include a few of their next seasons? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't see coverage to meet NSEASONS even for that range, at least from a first glance at the sources in those articles and elsewhere. 1898 has only the database and a very short recap, while the 1899 one has only the database and a long section devoted to the rules of the game in the era with no references to the actual team. Reasonable minds may differ. Let'srun (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep, this is the first game and the first season of the team's history. The year is a matter of record and the season covered to some extent in the sourcing. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

covered to some extent in the sourcing Where? All I'm seeing is one line in a database entry here. Cbl62 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete (without prejudice). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS due to the lack of WP:SIGCOV. Pacific was a major program in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s but not so in the 1890s. Indeed, the program was practically non-existent prior to 1919 -- a grand total of five games played between 1895 and 1918 (zero wins, one tie, four losses, 11 total points scored). If someone some day wants to create an article on the early history of the Pacific football program, it might possibly be viable, but I certainly don't have the time or inclination to work on that when there are so many more worthwhile topics to pursue. Cbl62 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Merge to Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899. Jweiss11 (talk)

@Jweiss11: Two issues with your suggestion: 1) a closer cannot redirect to a redlink so that's not viable unless someone creates it; and (2) is there SIGCOV to support the proposed article? Cbl62 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It's probably worth the editing time to create the proposed article, though, and merging the very small amount of information. The 1898 and 1899 articles aren't in great shape either, and it's possible the game(s) which were played were indeed covered in local papers of the time. SportingFlyer T·C 17:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is also not a directory. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge now that a target article has been created.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Personally, while I appreciate the work put in by jweiss11, I don't think that the combined article meets the WP:NSEASONS due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Ali Sher Bengali

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

To be frank, this article glorifies our subject despite historical scholarship barely documenting sufficient notability to be included within Wikipedia. Some of the sources in the article do not meet Wikipedia standards. Of those that do, some of them are not about our subject at all and are used to source points irrelevant to our subject. The sources which do mention our subject only mention him in passing, never as a separate topic. Article contains a lot of Original Research to make it look like more notable than it actually was, which can mislead people. In connclusion, this article fails WP:N with no significant level of coverage. Jaunpurzada (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh, India and Islam. Jaunpurzada (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete. The subject fails notability and the sources on the page are poor to unreliable WP:HISTRS with many failing verification with no significant coverage on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Clearly passes Wikipedia's minimum requirement criteria WP:GNG. also there are many offline sources are available, for more information please see WP:OFFLINE. Some of ref are 1, 2, 3, 4. Thank you. 06:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Vilangkattuvalasu

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

Orphaned stub with no sources. Shows no notability. GoldRomean (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. GoldRomean (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Geonames.nga.mil reports that the village (which it spells Vilangāttuvalasu) is located at 11°06′22″N 77°45′48″E / 11.10611°N 77.76333°E / 11.10611; 77.76333 14145226 N (Approved) . Google Maps shows a temple in the village with the address 4Q47+HCR, vilankattu valasu, Sivagiri, Tamil Nadu 638109, India. So if that is correct, we also know the village's PIN code. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete - I don’t agree that these are substantial enough to show notability. The temple is the only place in that location that uses this name, whereas all other buildings surrounding it use the name Kodimudi, the taluk and the taluk headquarters. The temple name may be user generated and may not reflect official designation. Kazamzam (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete - I couldn't find anything in a search of the 2011 India Census data. Klbrain (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel

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

For similar reasons as the previous nomination. The page still does not address a notable subject and therefore fails WP:GNG. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 00:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 00:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Where is the last AfD so we can compare? Oaktree b (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
The last AfD came when the article was titled at Denial of the 7 October attacks, and thus is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denial of the 7 October attacks. (I have no opinion or further comment.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh boy, I remember that one... Yes, I'm not keen on wading into that again either. Oaktree b (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete or merge into the parent. Quite so. It doesn't address a notable subject. The page largely revolves around and is organised based on one Washington Post piece, as broadcast loudly and proudly by its horribly unencyclopedic first sentence. "Denial" topics normally only emerge when supported by the weight of significant scholarship. What we have here is instead a collection of WP:NOTNEWS-flouting material, with one US news piece used as a washing line to string up a mixed bag of Israeli news pieces WP:COATRACK-style. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

keep but balance - It's currently skewed and opinionated, but it's a widely discussed topic that might warrant inclusion. It should possibly be expanded to include famine denial in the other direction. Denialism (and accusations of it) are closely related to misinformation, but not quite the same concept, so it doesn't fit as a section of that article to merge. MWQs (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment I keep hearing about people denying that Hamas really did this or that Hamas really did that, mostly rumor-level, so my knee-jerk is that reliable sourcing for an article on this subject probably exists, either under its current subject or refocused to conspiracy theories about the 2023-2024 Israel-Gaza conflict more generally. Per MWQ, I'd be willing to vote keep if we have even one Wikipedian who volunteers to do the considerable work of making the necessary improvements. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Templates for discussion

July 6

Template:Newspaper of record

Template:Newspaper of record (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused wikidata related template. Gonnym (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep, albeit a little weakly. The nominator seems to be under the misimpression that a template being unused is by itself sufficient grounds for deletion. It is not. This template was developed for potential use in a Module:Find sources template, and while it wasn't initially adopted, it might be in the future, and given that its development stage is appropriately tagged and that retaining it is cheap, that provides grounds for keeping. It is also relevant for editors looking at the history of the creation of the find sources module, and could have other uses for editors seeking for other reasons to associate a country with its newspaper(s) of record. Sdkb ^talk 06:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
The commentor above is under the misimpression that the nominator does not know how TfD works and that hundred of templates get deleted on a weekly bases for being unused. 3 years being unused is a clear indication that either the template creator has abandoned a template or that the community does not want it. Both are valid grounds for deletion. Gonnym (talk) 08:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
and has no likelihood of being used isn't exactly ambiguous, and is bolded for good reason. To the extent it's not being followed, it ought to be — even when there's only a small chance they'll be used in the future, the maintenance cost of retaining templates is minimal (particularly when their documentation is clear, as here). Deletion for the sake of deletion does not benefit the encyclopedia. Sdkb ^talk 14:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm yet to be convinced of the value of deleting templates, merely because they are unused. Or indeed for any reason, except when they are using a valuable piece of namespace that could be better used. Even then moving is an option. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Template:Wesleyan Cardinals quarterback navbox

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

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

Weak oppose: (I think this is how opposing and supporting works) Has four now, so I could see the rationale for both keeping or deleting it. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Template:Eastern Football League seasons

Template:Eastern Football League seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox with all red links. DB1729^talk 14:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Template:Riddell District Football League seasons

Template:Riddell District Football League seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox with all red links. DB1729^talk 14:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Template:Western Region Football League seasons

Template:Western Region Football League seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox with all redlinks. DB1729^talk 14:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Template:Wales Conservative Party MPs

Template:Wales Conservative Party MPs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As a result of the recent election, the template is currently blank. 2601:249:9301:D570:B519:DC52:8298:C7B (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Files for discussion

July 6

File:Henri Matisse, 1902, Notre-Dame, une fin d'après-midi, oil on paper mounted on canvas, 72.4 x 54.6 cm, Albright-Knox Art Gallery.jpg

No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then. (See Wikipedia:Public_domain#Publication.) grendel|khan 07:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Matissenotredame.jpg

No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then. (See Wikipedia:Public_domain#Publication.) grendel|khan 07:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Categories for discussion

July 6

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:EBU stubs

Propose deleting Category:EBU stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub category and template, newly created to hold just one article. As always, stub categories are not free for just any user to create on a whim for just one article of interest -- the minimum bar for the creation of a stub category is 60 articles, and for that very reason stub categories should normally be proposed for creation by Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting rather than just getting created willy-nilly.
But the parent category Category:European Broadcasting Union has just 14 articles in it of which only two are short enough that tagging them as stubs would be justifiable -- so really the only possible source of any significant amount of content for this is the Category:Eurovision events subcategory, but Category:Eurovision Song Contest stubs and {{Eurovision-stub}} both already exist to cover that off, and the one article that's been filed here already had that on it, thus making this entirely redundant to another stub template and category that we already have. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Film series characters originally introduced in a film

Propose deleting Category:Film series characters originally introduced in a film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category of dubious utility, created just to hold a single article. I have to assume that the intended distinction here was "film series characters originally introduced in a film vs. film series characters originally introduced in other source material that a film series was adapted from", because that's the only way this makes a lick of sense -- but that isn't a useful or defining distinction, and would be an utter nightmare to try to maintain since every film character who has an article at all would have to be in either this category or an "adapted medium" sibling. We have no other "film series characters originally introduced in [type of medium]" categories that I can find. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete The convoluted title is enough to convince me that this is not a defining characteristic and that the category has little, if any, potential for growth. Pichpich (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Named roads

Propose deleting Category:Named roads (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization on a non-defining and unmaintainable characteristic. The category's name itself is obviously silly, because nearly all roads that exist at all have names and the few roads without names are profoundly unlikely to be notable at all -- but the usage note on the category is far more specific, identifying the category as "about the roads that are named after famous personalities", which is just a straight-up violation of WP:SHAREDNAME, and still approaches indiscriminacy anyway since a lot of roads are named after people, with it becoming very subjective whether any given person is "famous" enough to categorize the road as "named after a famous person" or not. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Cricket administration in Mexico

Propose merging Category:Cricket administration in Mexico to Category:Cricket in Mexico
Propose merging Category:Cricket administration in the Netherlands to Category:Cricket in the Netherlands
Propose merging Category:Cricket administration in Sri Lanka to Category:Cricket in Sri Lanka

Nominator's rationale: merge, only one article in each of these categories, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Cricket administration in Bermuda

Propose deleting Category:Cricket administration in Bermuda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Organisations based in Macau

Propose renaming REDIRECT Category:Organisations based in Macau to Category:Organizations based in Macau (over redirect)
Propose renaming REDIRECT Category:Defunct organisations based in Macau to Category:Defunct organizations based in Macau
Propose renaming REDIRECT Category:Organisations based in Macau by subject to Category:Organizations based in Macau by subject
Propose renaming REDIRECT Category:Medical and health organisations based in Macau to Category:Medical and health organizations based in Macau
Propose renaming REDIRECT Category:Sports organisations of Macau to Category:Sports organizations of Macau
Propose renaming REDIRECT Category:Youth organisations based in Macau to Category:Youth organizations based in Macau
Propose renaming REDIRECT Category:Non-profit organisations based in Macau to Category:Non-profit organizations based in Macau
Propose renaming REDIRECT Category:Naturalised citizens of Macau to Category:Naturalized citizens of Macau
Propose merging Category:Macau voluntary organisations to Category:Non-profit organizations based in Macau
Propose merging Category:Scouting and Guiding in Macau to Category:Non-profit organizations based in Macau, Category:Youth organizations based in Macau and Category:Scouting and Guiding by country

Nominator's rationale: Subcats use a mixture of -s- and -z- spelling; seven others currently use z. There is no reason to use the -s- spelling in Macau, diverging from the international default -z-. The voluntary orgs cat is non-standard and an unnecessary layer, and the Scouting and Guiding cat holds only one article. – Fayenatic London 16:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Independent film stubs

Propose deleting Category:Independent film stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Stub category and template that have likely outlived their usefulness. As always, the core purpose of stub categories is to facilitate expanding and improving the stubs enough that they can be pulled out of the stub categories -- so the most useful stub categories are ones that correspond to a community of editors with some expertise in the subject area, who can therefore collaborate on expanding the articles. But there isn't any particular community of independent film experts -- editors' areas of expertise are going to centre around countries and/or genres rather than indie status per se.
That is, there are editors who work on American films regardless of their major vs indie status, and editors who work on Japanese films regardless of their major vs indie status, and editors who specialize in science fiction films regardless of their major vs indie status, and on and so forth, but there aren't really any editors whose area of expertise is "independent films irrespective of country or genre".
This was certainly a good faith creation at the time, when we had far fewer articles about films and far fewer stub categories to group them in -- but the stub category tree is now so much more deeply granularized that this just doesn't represent a particularly useful characteristic to group stubs on anymore, because we have many more stub categories for much more specific and collaborative country and genre and time period groupings than we had in 2006.
I've already gone through the category to ensure that each article also has genre and/or nationality film stub templates on it as well, so nothing will be stranded if it goes, but it's just not at all clear that indie status is nearly as useful a basis for collaboration as the country and genre tags are. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Zimbabwean Queen's Counsel

Propose deleting Category:Zimbabwean Queen's Counsel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one category about the former country of Rhodesia. Since Zimbabwe isn't a Commonwealth Realm, this category won't have any articles in it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Maltese Queen's Counsel

Propose splitting Category:Maltese Queen's Counsel to Category:Maltese lawyers and Category:King's Counsel

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge; only one article. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge but more specifically to Category:20th-century King's Counsel. Merging to Category:Maltese lawyers is not necessary because the only article is already in Category:Chief justices of Malta. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
That is better, I agree. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Sandžak

Propose deleting Category:Sandžak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:History of Sandžak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic. Regional name Sandžak is apparently hardly in use anymore. Even the articles in the history subcategory hardly mention it. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Considering Sandžak is very small area of Serbia, there is really not that much to write but it deserves to have a separate category. I'm not sure if there are rules involved as in how many articles should category have in order to even be considered but I believe that the amount written so far is good enough to keep it. Боки ☎ ✎ 07:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Size isn't the issue here, WP:DEFINING is. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Template:Sex-documentary-film-stub

Propose deleting Template:Sex-documentary-film-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Stub template of unclear utility. It's only used on three articles total, which obviously isn't enough to give it its own dedicated category -- so instead it just sorts the three articles directly into Category:Documentary film stubs, where it just represents duplicate categorization because all three films are also in the Category:1960s documentary film stubs subcategory alongside it, and Category:Sexuality stubs, which is too broad and overgeneralized to be a useful place to look for films. So all this is really adding is superfluous stub categories that the three films don't really need to be in. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Cricket administration in North America

Propose deleting Category:Cricket administration in North America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Cricket administration in South America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory each. It is sufficient to have Category:Cricket administration by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Former Muslims turned agnostics or atheists

Propose renaming Category:Former Muslims turned agnostics or atheists to Category:Converts to atheism or agnosticism from Islam

Nominator's rationale: Parent is Category:Converts from Islam and the sibling category is Category:Converts to Islam from atheism or agnosticism Mason (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Manually merge to Category:Former Muslims, Category:Agnostics and Category:Atheists per earlier discussion halfway on this page. (Not sure why this doesn't link to the right section.) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award

Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OCAWARD Nayyn (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Comic Book winners

Propose deleting Category: GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Comic Book winners

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OCAWARD and as there is a list article already Nayyn (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Historical geography

Option 1: rename Category:Historical geography to Category:Geographic history.
Option 2: rename Category:Geographic history by country to Category:Historical geography by country.
- Added to option 2 on relisting:
  - rename Category:Geographic history of Brazil to Category:Historical geography of Brazil (undoing cut-and-paste rename)
  - rename Category:Geographic history of China to Category:Historical geography of China
  - rename Category:Czech geographic history to Category:Historical geography of the Czech Republic
  - rename Category:Geographic history of France to Category:Historical geography of France
  - rename Category:Geographic history of Germany to Category:Historical geography of Germany
  - merge Category:Geographic history of Iran to Category:Historical geography of Iran
  - rename Category:Geographic history of Scotland to Category:Historical geography of Scotland
  - rename Category:Geographic history of the United Kingdom to Category:Historical geography of the United Kingdom
  - rename Category:Geographic history of the United States to Category:Historical geography of the United States
  - merge Category:Geographic history of the United States by state to Category:Historical geography of the United States (unnecessary layer)
  - rename Category:Geographic history of California to Category:Historical geography of California

I can't imagine that these are fundamentally different concepts. I have tagged both categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 Main article is Historical geography, while Geographic history redirects to History of geography. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding a representative sample of subcats to encourage further participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 09:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am going to tag all of the subcats; if there is no further participation I would expect this to be closed as option 2.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 01:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Afghanistan to Category:Historical geography of Afghanistan
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Albania to Category:Historical geography of Albania
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Algeria to Category:Historical geography of Algeria
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Argentina to Category:Historical geography of Argentina
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Armenia to Category:Historical geography of Armenia
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Australia to Category:Historical geography of Australia
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Austria to Category:Historical geography of Austria
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Azerbaijan to Category:Historical geography of Azerbaijan
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Bangladesh to Category:Historical geography of Bangladesh
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Belarus to Category:Historical geography of Belarus
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Belgium to Category:Historical geography of Belgium
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Historical geography of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Bulgaria to Category:Historical geography of Bulgaria
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Canada to Category:Historical geography of Canada
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Croatia to Category:Historical geography of Croatia
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Denmark to Category:Historical geography of Denmark
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Egypt to Category:Historical geography of Egypt
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Estonia to Category:Historical geography of Estonia
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Ethiopia to Category:Historical geography of Ethiopia
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Finland to Category:Historical geography of Finland
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Georgia (country) to Category:Historical geography of Georgia (country)
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Greece to Category:Historical geography of Greece
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Hungary to Category:Historical geography of Hungary
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of India to Category:Historical geography of India
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Iraq to Category:Historical geography of Iraq
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Ireland to Category:Historical geography of Ireland
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Israel to Category:Historical geography of Israel
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Italy to Category:Historical geography of Italy
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Japan to Category:Historical geography of Japan
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Laos to Category:Historical geography of Laos
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Latvia to Category:Historical geography of Latvia
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Libya to Category:Historical geography of Libya
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Lithuania to Category:Historical geography of Lithuania
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Malaysia to Category:Historical geography of Malaysia
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Mexico to Category:Historical geography of Mexico
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Moldova to Category:Historical geography of Moldova
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Mongolia to Category:Historical geography of Mongolia
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Montenegro to Category:Historical geography of Montenegro
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Morocco to Category:Historical geography of Morocco
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Nepal to Category:Historical geography of Nepal
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of the Netherlands to Category:Historical geography of the Netherlands
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Norway to Category:Historical geography of Norway
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Pakistan to Category:Historical geography of Pakistan
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Poland to Category:Historical geography of Poland
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Portugal to Category:Historical geography of Portugal
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Romania to Category:Historical geography of Romania
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Russia to Category:Historical geography of Russia
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Serbia to Category:Historical geography of Serbia
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Slovakia to Category:Historical geography of Slovakia
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Slovenia to Category:Historical geography of Slovenia
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Somalia to Category:Historical geography of Somalia
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Spain to Category:Historical geography of Spain
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Sweden to Category:Historical geography of Sweden
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Switzerland to Category:Historical geography of Switzerland
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Syria to Category:Historical geography of Syria
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Tajikistan to Category:Historical geography of Tajikistan
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Thailand to Category:Historical geography of Thailand
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Turkey to Category:Historical geography of Turkey
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Ukraine to Category:Historical geography of Ukraine
Propose renaming Category:Geographic history of Uzbekistan to Category:Historical geography of Uzbekistan
Added on relisting; no opinion on whether this is a good idea or not (I simply tagged the categories). House Blaster (talk · he/they) 01:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support for Geographical History to be changed to Historical Geography. JarrahTree 01:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Bengali–Assamese script

Propose renaming Category:Assamese scripts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Bengali–Assamese script
Propose renaming Category:Bengali script (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Bengali–Assamese script

Nominator's rationale: There is a single Bengali–Assamese script shared between the two languages, even though they use different alphabets. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Wrong, there are multiple scripts for both languages (note the plural "scripts"), and the Bengali–Assamese script is one of these scripts used and shared by both languages (with minor differences), but there are other scripts (like Naoriya Phulo script). Look at the category content, they clearly cannot be merged as their listed scripts are not the same. They are not all the same single script. Only the Bengali-Assamese script (just named "Bengali script" in Unicode and also named "Eastern Nagari") is unified; the other scripts are distinct. As well within the "Bengali alphabet" and "Assamese alphabet" (which are relevant parts of the shared script specific to each language) are not the same (just like there are multiple Latin-base alphabets). verdy_p (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

There are only two articles about scripts in both categories, the rest has been added as a matter of loose association. Propose to move these two articles to the two parent categories and then delete the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 01:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03 and Verdy p: what are your thoughts on partially merging the category? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Cricket organizations

Propose deleting Category:Cricket organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Serves no purpose, as the only contents are a subcat that is in the same parent cat as the category being discussed. Gjs238 (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment, I think it is not Category:Cricket administration that should be a subcategory of Category:Cricket organizations, but rather three particular subcategories of Category:Cricket administration should be subcategories of Category:Cricket organizations. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I have boldly reorganized the category to illustrate my point. Feel free to revert and discuss. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep per Marco. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment, The category seems to have a history of folks not knowing what to make of it. The new categorization scheme is an improvement, but inconsistencies remain. For example, two subcategories are Cricket umpiring associations‎ and Cricketers' associations‎. Yet over at Category:Cricket administration, the subcat Category:Cricket administration stubs is loaded with articles of "associations". If we address this by consolidating all the "associations" subcats and articles together in Category:Cricket administration, then Category:Cricket organizations ends up with only 1 subcat, which is also listed in Category:Cricket administration anyway. Gjs238 (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- That will require nominating Category:Cricket umpiring associations and Category:Cricketers' associations for merger. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
The whole problem appears to have been caused by the absence of Category:Cricket governing bodies which I have now restored as a valid subcategory of Category:Sports governing bodies by sport. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are Marcocapelle's changes sufficient to keep the category?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 01:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Jesuit musicians

Propose deleting Category:Jesuit musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Non defining intersection between occupation and religion Mason (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Weak oppose, they wrote and sung (modern) Christian music, so it is not a trivial intersection. However, I could also imagine this category to become much broader (i.e. renamed) per the list in Contemporary Catholic liturgical music. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 01:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Films directed by Wayne Kramer (filmmaker)

Propose renaming Category:Films directed by Wayne Kramer (filmmaker) to Category:Films directed by Wayne Kramer

Nominator's rationale: Needless disambiguation. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 01:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Buddhist monks from the Western Regions

Propose renaming Category:Buddhist monks from the Western Regions to Category:Buddhist monks from Central Asia

Nominator's rationale: rename, for English speaking readers of Wikipedia the term Central Asia is more familiar than Western Regions. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep, as it is in effect a "former nationality" category. The article Western Regions refers to a historical period (up to 8th century CE) as well as a geographical range. All the current member pages are from that period, and renaming to "Central Asia" would lose this. "Western Regions" is named with reference to China, and its significance for Buddhism seems to be that Buddhist monks from this region took their texts into China during that period. – Fayenatic London 08:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 00:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Television series by Fox Television Animation

Propose splitting Category:Television series by Fox Television Animation to Category:Television series by Fox Television Animation and Category:Television series by 20th Television Animation

Nominator's rationale: Given Fox Television Animation is a former name/entity of what is currently 20th Television Animation since 2020, I propose splitting up this category to differentiate the two eras of this studio's works. All of its productions from 1999 until 2020 should remain here, while any works made since the 2020 rebrand, I propose be moved to a new Category:Television series by 20th Television Animation. For series made under both, both cats ought to be present. The category as it is can be misleading with the cat name using the former "Fox" brand despite the description using the rebranded one under Disney. An example that supports this, as noted in the prior RfD here, is that we have separate cats at "Category:20th Century Fox films" and "Category:20th Century Studios films". That RfD suggested a split rather than a rename as initially proposed last November, but was closed with no consensus as no one else responded. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 00:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Conscientious objector Medal of Honor recipients

Propose splitting Category:Conscientious objector Medal of Honor recipients to Category:American conscientious objectors and Category:Recipients of the Medal of Honor

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent categories per WP:NARROWCAT. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 00:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Whirly-Girls

Propose merging Category:Whirly-Girls to Category:Helicopter pilots

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge; the name is not what these women are referred to but only the name of the organization. Note that these articles are already in Category:Women aviators by nationality. Hence only single merge. Alternative suggestion: keep and rename to Category:Women helicopter pilots which would expand the scope of the category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I think renaming to Women Helicopter pilots is suitable and appropriate. There is currently a lack of categories on Wikipedia to suitably identify/locate topics/persons related to women's aviation. The current categories make it difficult to find these aviation pioneers, which are few and worthy of inclusion in a category as it is a defining characteristic. This is why I developed the category in the first place. Thank you for the measured discussion here. Nayyn (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

While there are categories for female aviators, gyro and rotor pilots have different certifications compared to fixed wing pilots and thus it is a unique and defining category. There are comparatively few women who are helicopter pilots overall, and a category specifically for helicopters is particularly useful addition to Wikipedia. Nayyn (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

as per WP:USEFUL [t]here are some pages within Wikipedia that are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument Nayyn (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

No, "useful" is entirely subjective. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge, not a defining characteristic and women can be easily traced in Category:Women aviators by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 00:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree that "women can be easily traced in Category:Women aviators by nationality." I think the suggestion to "keep and rename to Category:Women helicopter pilots which would expand the scope of the category" makes sense.

I'm not sure what the argument "not a defining characteristic" refers to above? Nayyn (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Fictional illeists

Propose deleting Category:Fictional illeists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 19#Category:Fictional illeists then undeleted out of process. Still seems non-defining. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Speedy delete per WP:G4. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

G4 doesn't fit, as it was undeleted via Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion rather than recreated. --HPfan4 (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

That is still out of process. WP:DRV would have been the right forum. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I would still support deletion per WP:TRIVIALCAT. I just don't see this as a defining characteristic. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep: the characteristic is defining enough to be covered by and discussed in reliable sources (see, for example, Mantis (Marvel Comics), Elmo, Hercule Poirot). See also the discussion of Category:Illeists. --HPfan4 (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete per WP:TRIVIALCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep This is a defining trait, and often discussed in sources. Dimadick (talk) 08:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 00:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion

July 6

QTPOC

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

Not mentioned at the target page, or at List of LGBT-related acronyms. Un assiolo (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Santjordia

Santjordia → Jellyfish (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Santjordia pagesi → Jellyfish (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Monotypic genus and species has no mention in the article. Better off as a redlink.

Also should blocked users be notified if their page/redirect is up for deletion? 115.188.142.52 (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Kemosabe (Kesha album)

Kemosabe (Kesha album) → Warrior (Kesha album) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This currently redirects to Warrior (Kesha album). Kemosabe is the name of a record label that put out the album, but the album article does not mention anything about it being a name for the album itself. The article history also raises concerns about WP:HOAX as shown here. I do not see any value in keeping this redirect as it does not seem like a plausible search term and per the above reasons, it is confusing and unclear. Aoba47 (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:VN

Wikipedia:VN → Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Visual novels (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Retarget to either Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:WikiProject Vietnam. I would lean towards retargeting to RSN, considering WP:V/N links to it, but I can see an argument to link to WPVietnam. I don't see how an inactive task force should be the ideal target for this redirect. OzzyOlly (talk) 03:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep Most of the incoming links are intended to go to the Visual novels task force. Breaking all of those links wouldn't be optimal. It has almost no utility, so a disambig page would not be useful compared to its maintance burden. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep, per Ca. I don't know the etymology of the WP:V/N → RSN redirect, but going by the stats it's far far less used than WP:RSN (~10 monthly hits vs ~1500), so it doesn't look like a common source of confusion. Can't see a reason to change it, so keep. BugGhost 🪲👻 07:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I believe it means "verifiability noticeboard". OzzyOlly (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Oh yeah of course - thanks BugGhost 🪲👻 17:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguate create a new redirect for Visual Novels WP:VG/VN -- the task force is inactive, so it is not a productive use of this redirect, for such a common abbreviation for Vietnam. The WP:SURPRISE of landing at an inactive TF, instead of the country WPP or a dab page is overwhelming. Replace all existing incoming links with the new redirect. -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Similar disambiguation pages in WP-space include WP:PT (with WP:PT (disambiguation) redirect) and WP:1st (disambiguation), etc -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep, I'm not convinced that going back to change all the incoming links is worth it. The hatnote already takes care of people looking for WP:V/N or WP:VIET. I did create WP:VG/VN per the IP's suggestion though. Nickps (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
It's also not possible for links in edit summaries. Those will be broken no matter what. Nickps (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Crows in popular culture

Crows in popular culture → Cultural depictions of ravens (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Redirect leads to Ravens. Which is a different bird. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to Corvus#Cultural depictions, which covers this topic. - Eureka Lott 18:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Stavros Kremos

Stavros Kremos → Cyta (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

non-sense redirect InterComMan (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete Presumably Stavros Kremos is a person somehow connected to the company, but as he is not mentioned at the target article, the redirect should be deleted. --Un assiolo (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Albumoftheyear.org

Albumoftheyear.org → Album of the Year (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I am not sure the website url redirecting to a disambiguation page which does not list anything related to the website is useful. There is nothing at the target page for people seeking information about the site, and it does not appear to be notable. N Ø 09:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete. The website was mentioned at the disambiguation page, but it was (appropriately) removed in April. - Eureka Lott 13:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Siddiqui

Siddiqui → Muslim Kayasths (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Current target Muslim Kayastha is very specifically referring to a community in a region in India. Meanwhile this name found all over Pakistan and Bangladesh as well among unrelated communities. (e.g the name is listed here as a Sindhi name as well List of Sindhi tribes (in the "others" section) Kowtis (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not very knowledgeable in the subject, but I would suggest converting to disamb page here, unless there's a clear primary topic that someone can explain.
Note: this is an RfD nomination that I've helped out with on behalf of User:Kowtis who had trouble doing it themselves, they have explained to me on their talk page that this redirect should be retargeted to Siddiqui (name). — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Would it be better to move Siddiqui (name) to Siddiqui? --Un assiolo (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Rajeshwari Vilas Coffee Club

Rajeshwari Vilas Coffee Club → Zee Telugu (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target. Is a series aired on that channel, may belong at List of programmes broadcast by Zee Telugu but that page is up for deletion. Rusalkii (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Likewise Seethe Ramudi Katnam Rusalkii (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

...and very very many others, all of which created by an editor blocked for paid editing User talk:RahulBodke. Propose to delete the lot. Rusalkii (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

If it belongs there, someone needs to add an entry. (And maybe add some sources, that list article is rather light on those.) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: List of programmes broadcast by Zee Telugu is not, nor was up for deletion. Jay 💬 15:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Raymoo

Raymoo → List of Touhou Project characters#Reimu Hakurei (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

raymoo hackery is a name generally only seen in shitposts, and i'd honestly be surprised if anyone not nose deep on every touhou rabbit hole knew about it. fittingly, not mentioned in the target, implausible as an actual search (unless you're me), and google gave me nothing reliable cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Tentative Keep and tag as meme. It's plausible that someone finds one of said shitposts, doesn't know how the original name is spelled, and searches "raymoo" to find info on Reimu. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Tentative Keep. I personally believe that it is a genuine misspelling or respelling, but you would probably be hard-pressed to find a reliable source that mentions it being a meme or shitpost. Honestly, I don't even remember making this redirect in 2012, but I doubt that "Raymoo Hackery" ever crossed my mind since we would be discussing a "Raymoo Hackery" redirect as well. Regardless, the outcome doesn't really matter to me, so do what you may. — Nameless^(?) 13:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

in your defense, it's funny cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PDP

Wikipedia:PDP → Wikipedia:Protection policy#Creation protection (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Hasn't been used in over a decade, and it's much more likely someone coming here may be looking for proposed deletion patrol. I recommend converting to disamb page.

P.S. I tried adding a 'redirect' hatnote over at the protection policy page pointing over to the PROD patrol Wikiproject page, but this was rejected by someone else, who suggested in the edit summary to "convert to disamb page" as it apparently hasn't been used since 2007. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. Everyone uses WP:SALT nowadays instead. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, as MfD uses subpages for the nominations like AfD but places them within the process's main page.

Speedy deletion

See Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.

Proposed deletion

See Category:Proposed deletion as of 6 July 2024.

Copyright problems

6 July 2024

Ancient and Honorable Order of Turtles (history · last edit · rewrite) from https://web.archive.org/web/20040811225622/http://www.earthtothemoon.com/apollo_7.html. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Kate Manheim (history · last edit · rewrite) from https://whitecolumns.org/exhibitions/kate-manheim/ https://cueartfoundation.org/kate-manheim/. Foundational; I've indeffed this editor for copyright violations, all edits may need to be checked. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

[1] ttps://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/ssne/item.php?id=3876

[1]

User:Wcquidditch/wikideletiontoday

About this page

July 6

July 6

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:EBU stubs

Category:Film series characters originally introduced in a film

Category:Named roads

Category:Cricket administration in Mexico

Category:Cricket administration in Bermuda

Organisations based in Macau

Category:Independent film stubs

Category:Zimbabwean Queen's Counsel

Category:Maltese Queen's Counsel

Category:Sandžak

Template:Sex-documentary-film-stub

Category:Cricket administration in North America

Category:Former Muslims turned agnostics or atheists

Category:Recipients of the Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award

Category:GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Comic Book winners

Category:Historical geography

Bengali–Assamese script

Category:Cricket organizations

Category:Jesuit musicians

Category:Films directed by Wayne Kramer (filmmaker)

Category:Buddhist monks from the Western Regions

Category:Television series by Fox Television Animation

Category:Conscientious objector Medal of Honor recipients

Category:Whirly-Girls

Category:Fictional illeists

QTPOC

Santjordia

Kemosabe (Kesha album)

Wikipedia:VN

Crows in popular culture

Stavros Kremos

Albumoftheyear.org

Siddiqui

Rajeshwari Vilas Coffee Club

Raymoo

Wikipedia:PDP