Wikipedia:XfD today

Shortcuts

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

Speedy deletion candidates edit

Articles edit

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 26	April 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Franco Vermeulen edit

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shreyas Puranik edit

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

Fails WP:GNG, appears not notable. Bakhtar40 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and India. Bakhtar40 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the creator of the article i would like to suggest keep, as it passes WP:MUSIC. The musical artist have received full fledged coverage from independent media sources for his work such as [1], [2], [3].[4]. Further the artist also passes one of the criteria of winning or being nominated for a notable award, as he won the notable Filmfare R. D. Burman Award in the category of upcoming music talent.[5][6]

Hineyo (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above references are either paid placement or Press Releases. Bakhtar40 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Note - This account (Hineyo) is blocked. Bakhtar40 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pass WP:MUSIC, Also, there are significant reliable sources availabe which talks about the subject. Grabup (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramgopal Suthar edit

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

As noted in WP:NPOL and WP:NSUBPOL, Wikipedia doesn't normally consider municipal councillors notable enough for a separate article, unless they've received significant press coverage in that role. The rest of his roles have been low-to-mid-level party leader jobs and a political appointment as chair of Skill Development Board, Government of Rajasthan. No significant coverage of him per WP:GNG or WP:BIO in reliable secondary sources; what I can find on him in a WP:BEFORE search in English and Hindi (रामगोपाल सुथार) is routine coverage of his recent appointment as chair, and some WP:PRIMARY source quotes from his speeches. Wikishovel (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Rajasthan. Wikishovel (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:NPOL and does not appear to be otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added enough resources for Position held in Part over time, are they not sufficient for Publishing the article? Vishwakarma-anie (talk) 05:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

user:wikishovel I have added enough resources for Position held in Part over time, are they not sufficient for Publishing the article? Vishwakarma-anie (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions normally take about a week. Wikishovel (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, Washington edit

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

At a glance, this looks like a well-written and -sourced article, but it's a total WP:COATRACK. Almost nothing in the article is about the "town" of Martin, because there isn't anything to say: It was a minor railroad maintenance point that later had a station for a nearby ski area. Of all the cited sources, only reference 14 comes close to substantial coverage; many sources don't mention Martin at all. I couldn't find any additional sources that aren't already cited, and none are more than trivial mentions (e.g. photos of trains taken at Martin). I suggest a delete; I could also live with a merge of relevant content to Stampede Pass, Northern Pacific Railroad, or Meany Lodge (from which much of this article's content seems to have been copied). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Washington. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Stampede pass. I agree with nom. The newspaper record supports this is a train station near Stampede pass that had good ski properties. But there was never a town there. The nearest towns were Easton and Weston. I don't however understand why there was a siding and a station there. Refueling, or maintenance maybe? Here are news clips that are helpful in understanding the place. Describes it as remotest place in county. [7] Stranded Skies spend the night in Meany hut. [8] People ski at Meany SKi hut [9]James.folsom (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable railway complex rather than as a populated place (although some railway workers must have lived there). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Martin Ski Dome, which appears to have been expanded by the same author. There's enough here for an article, but I think the ski dome is a better target. SportingFlyer T·C 17:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mutta (tribe) edit

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

I couldn't find sources to show notability - I am aware this isn't my area though or language. Boleyn (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 5 results show up if you search "Mutta people" on Google Books. [10] They do exist, but maybe they are a small community (I don't know) and not much has been written about them. However, I found 5 results on Google books alone. I haven't checked other venues like Scholar etc. If this is a keep, maybe changing it to Mutta people.Tamsier (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bintan Lagoon Resort edit

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

Fails WP:CORP. Weak independent significant coverage. The resort in question closed down due to COVID/bankruptcy. Uhooep (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Closed or not, it easily passes requirements and is well sourced. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per WP:PROMO. The article and all references on that article seems to be promotion material of that resort. Also, the main contributor of the article, MozaicHotels&Resorts, is an employee of that resort and has been previously blocked for adding promotional content. Ckfasdf (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not true at all, the promotional content they added was reverted. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of reliable independent coverage. I see nothing promotional in the article. The LEED ccertification is noteworthy in itself, and the new conference center got attention too. Being closed is irrelevant, although the closure also got coverage [11]. Perhaps it will reopen. But once notable, always notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gates and Partners edit

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

Unclear that notability has been established. Beland (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Business. Beland (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, Belgium, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the available coverage falls well within WP:ORGTRIV. I was not able to find anything more substantial. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect into Kennedys Law into which Gates was dissolved. Why wasn't this suggested upfront? gidonb (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jensen Monk edit

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an English rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Draftification would be an option, but this is a re-creation of an existing draft. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Professional rugby league footballer who made his professional debut in 2023, played the other day against fellow top level side Warrington in the Challenge Cup. Multiple sources within the article.Fleets (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources 1 and 2 are stats databases, while the next four are trivial mentions of the subject. BLPs require strong sourcing, which is why I draftified it the first time. JTtheOG (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Currently playing in the top tier with five appearances and will likely gain more. Currently borderline on notability for me but will likely be recreated if deleated. Mn1548 (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. He might be notable in the future but that would be speculating. Re-create if and when he plays a few more games and more sources are likely to exist. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are exclusively namedrops, zero coverage here. Arguments to keep based only on his appearing in a particular league are strictly invalid per SPORTSBASIC. JoelleJay (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of London Broncos players. Fails GNG as there is no SIGCOV. References are routine coverage and stats databases. Frank Anchor 01:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - two further news sources added referencing academy days, move into first team, and first appearance of the 2024 season.Fleets (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Young player, will likely have more written in the near future, 8 refs already. Mn1548 (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from repeating your !vote on a new bulleted line. Thank you. JTtheOG (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@J Mo 101: @JoelleJay: Would y'all consider a redirect to List of London Broncos players to be a better alternative? JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Software law edit

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

This has been sitting here unsourced and stubbed for years and years. If there is anything notable about "software law", it could just be a section in information technology law or similar article. ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Software. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 03:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG easily and by an exceptionally wide margin. Has signficant coverage in Google Books, Google Scholar and elsewhere. There are entire books [12][13] [14] [15] [16] [17], and even entire periodicals (such as the Sofware Law Journal [18]), on this subject. There are also many entire periodical articles. The article is not unsourced now. The topic is very easily independently notable from information technology law, of which it is only part, and not even the majority. Being a "stub" is not a policy or guideline based grounds for the deletion of a topic that satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for editing it, I remember seeing it a few months ago and being shocked how short it was. -1ctinus📝🗨 11:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the sources uncovered by James. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Information technology law as a section. Even with improvements, this is still minimal stub quality, and can be expanded within the broader context of information technology law until there is something to break out into a more complete article. BD2412 T 01:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That approach violates the guideline WP:PAGEDECIDE, which says "an article may be a stub even though many sources exist, but simply have not been included yet. Such a short page is better expanded than merged into a larger page". GNG creates a presumption that this topic should have an article, and in view of the language of PAGEDECIDE, there would have to be at least a policy or guideline to rebut that presumption in this case. That approach also goes against the advice of all three criteria of the essay WP:NOTMERGE. The most likely outcome of that approach will be that information technology law, which is already a large and unbalanced page, will become too large (violating WP:TOOBIG) or more unbalanced (violating WP:PROPORTION) or will omit relevant material (and the recent removals of content from that article probably already violate WP:PRESERVE, due to the removal of entire countries that ought to be included, such as the UK and India). James500 (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 17:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulla Bin Mohamed Bin Butti Al Hamed edit

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

Procedural nomination for deletion under WP:BIODELETE per request on my talk. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Arab Emirates. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (recuse/abstain), neither advocate nor oppose deletion, please do not consider my nomination a !vote. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Jean Patrick edit

AfDs for this article:

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

(Renomination: the discussion from 2010 closed as "no consensus.") I don't believe that Brenda Jean Patrick fulfills the notability requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. She is (was? I think I found an obituary) an educational consultant who touted the idea of "customer care" in school districts. Most of the information I can find about her consultant work is in the form of press releases in local papers when she held workshops for a district. I don't see independent coverage outside of her PR. Joyous! Noise! 17:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Joyous! Noise! 17:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elwood Middle School edit

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

No indication school passes WP:NSCHOOL and written entirely as a WP:PROMO for the school. Was previously redirected to Elwood Union Free School District but reverted more than once. Unless notability can be established, seeking consensus for restoration of the redirect. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and New York. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XXXDial edit

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

No evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Critique of Impure Reason edit

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

Fails WP:BOOK, only 5 citations in google scholar, none of which are reviews and 3 of which are by the author himself. Appears to be a vanity page. Psychastes (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Psychastes (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Oviedo edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Probable UPE advertisement for non notable individual. Just another working photographer. Refbombed to primary source showing he has done work but there is a lack of independent coverage about him. None of the claimed awards are major awards or are specifically for him. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Advertising, Colombia, Georgia (U.S. state), and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Duffbeerforme,

Thank you for your input. I appreciate your concerns and have made extensive revisions to address them.

I have reduced references to primary source in order to address concerns about over-reliance on self-published materials and lack of independent third-party coverage. The revised article now only cites reliable secondary sources when discussing Oviedo's photography work, clients, awards, and publications his work has appeared in.

While Oviedo may not be a household name, the secondary sources demonstrate he is a professional photographer who has done notable work for advertising campaigns and brands like Altoids, Coca-Cola, Virgin Voyages and others. His photography has received recognition from respected industry awards like the Clio Awards, The One Club's ADC Awards, and his work has been featured in publications such as Lürzer's Archive covering advertising and design.

By removing the recurring primary source references and ensuring all claims are backed by independent third-party publications, I believe the revised article adheres more closely to Wikipedia's guidelines on biographies and neutral tone. I'm open to further improving the article if you or other editors have specific concerns. Unless other editors have substantive concerns about the sources or information provided, I believe this article meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines for creative professionals who have played a major role in significant or well-known bodies of work as outlined under WP:PHOTOGRAPHER. PagePatroller (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PagePatroller is the creator of the article.

Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. There are no sources to support independent notability. What we have, and, on top of it, what one can find, are typical listings, such as this; interviews, which, by themselves, are not enough to support notability (see WP:OR, note #d), such as this; self-written bios, such as this; presentations of ads in which a lot of people contributed and our subject is mentioned, such as this and this; advertorials in trade publications, e.g. here and here; self-published sources, like this; and simply more of the same.

As to WP:ARTIST, which has been invoked, here are the prerequisites: The article's subject must be (A) an important figure...widely cited by peers or successors; (B) originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique; (C) created -or played a major role in co-creating- a significant or well-known work; (D) [his] work has become a significant monument, been part of a significant exhibition, won significant critical attention, or been represented within permanent collections. I'm afraid our subject meets none of the four. --The Gnome (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French ship Gapeau (B284) edit

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

The only reliable source for this fishing ship / unarmed military transport ship is a massive 10-book encyclopedia of all German warships no matter how small or insignificant. The other source, netmarine.net, is more of a large hobby site / semi wiki than anything else ("Si vous souhaitez compléter ces pages par des récits, illustrations ou autres documents, écrivez nous."). Fram (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Transportation, France, and Germany. Fram (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have always kept commissioned naval vessels. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we haven't, and is in any case not a reason to keep things. "We keep because we always keep" is ignoring things like Wp:CCC and the stricter standards we have for establishing notability instead of assuming some inherent notability across many topics. Fram (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You tried the exact same argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-316, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-422 and the like, which ended in redirection, with the closing admin noting the particular weakness of your argument. Fram (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you discount my argument because you disagree with precedent but then cite a closer's remarks (which did not refer to my argument specifically, incidentally) as some sort of precedent? You've got to laugh! But, other than those numbered vessels, which are all pretty much the same, and some static accommodation barges, would you like to cite the AfDs where commissioned military vessels were deleted. Just so we know. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have if they got more than routine coverage. A fishing vessel pressed into navy service isn't the HMS Ark Royal or USS Missouri, so it won't have that level of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Reading the article for 2 seconds shows that it was requisitioned for service as a military ship during World War II, so stating fishing ship / unarmed transport ship, is technically correct but is a misleading strawman. I'm not arguing for or against deletion because I don't know if there is a separate method for assessing the notability of ships, but that statement just irked me. Curbon7 (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant "unarmed military transport ship", otherwise my addition of "unarmed" would make little sense, but I agree that not including "military" was involuntarily misleading. I've added it now, I hope that's better? Fram (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Much appreciated Curbon7 (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The vessel served with two navies and two commercial fishers. Although unarmed in French Navy service, she was definitely armed in Kriegsmarine service. If Netmarine is objected to, I can add from Janes All the World's Ships, which most definitely passes WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Lloyd's Register is also a reliable source. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - That Lloyd's mention is reliable, but it doesn't contribute to the topic's notability. See WP:SIGCOV. I'm familiar with Janes' usual entries, and while they're also reliable I'm not sure that will meet the SIGCOV bar either. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mjroots and longstanding practice. Kablammo (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Vorpostenboote in World War II. I'm not concerned with the scope of Gröner's work, but I am interested in its depth of coverage. From the article's content, I'm guessing it does check that WP:SIGCOV box (in addition to all the other points at WP:GNG). Unfortunately, that's only one source, and Lloyd's table doesn't reach that bar. If there's a typical entry in Jane's Fighting Ships, I'm guessing that wouldn't either. As a result, I think this topic can be covered in the main Vorpostenboote list, or if needed that list could be split. (Per GNG footnote 4: "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.") Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable boat/fishing trawler/transport. Wasn't involved in any heroic anti-submarine battle or any notable rescue at sea that would garner coverage. What's used for coverage is routine ship registry listings, tracing the vessel's career until being scrapped. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Added a little more history from an additional source. - Davidships (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patched (malware) edit

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

Reliant entirely on primary sources. Another one of those articles with a name so vague it's basically impossible to search for. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2012 edit

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

This is a series of unsourced lists of no encyclopedic value and we're not the Radio Times. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Radio, and Lists. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are part of the same list:

* the 2015 does have a single source, but I'm standing by the lack of encylopedic value. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beenish Chohan edit

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. Previously deleted via AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beenish Chohan —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faria Sheikh edit

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

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sukaina Khan edit

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. Previously deleted via AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sukaina Khan —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anumta Qureshi edit

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erum Akhtar edit

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. Furthermore, majority of cited sources fails WP:RS. No evidence indicating significant involvement in notable films, TV dramas, etc. being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. Previously deleted as per AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erum Akhtar —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XOFTspy Portable Anti-Spyware edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Per attempted 2021 PROD by Bwoodcock

Upon reading the talk page, it appears that this was malware disguised as antivirus. Which is a thing. But that sockpuppetry back in the day kept the article itself from actually saying so. So I think the main problem with this article is that it's substantially misleading, but that there's no practical way to clean it up, because it was of such minor significance that it left no footprint in the media... just a few bloggers arguing about whether it was malware or just antivirus software so bad that it didn't do anything. In any event, now, with the benefit of hindsight, it probably should have been dealt with differently, and it seems utterly un-note-worthy.

Although they were later blocked for unrelated sockpuppetry, I see no reason to doubt their knowledge on this specific issue, which means we've been lying to our readers for 17 years. What a disgrace. Anyway, it's time for this article to go. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Searching online I could find only press releases/copies of press releases, forum posts, download mirrors, and a couple of barebones reviews with no context (example). I couldn't find any reliable sources showing it is malware, but I also couldn't find any reliable sources showing notability either. - Aoidh (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RunScanner edit

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

Neither cited source even mentioned the topic. Source searching is finding only software download websites. No evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence, or claim to, notability. Canterbury Tail talk 16:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HijackThis edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Reliant entirely on primary sources. No evidence of notability. Previous AfD was kept due to people sharing their own testimonials of how it helped them, which is just not how notability works. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Optimizer edit

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

Sources are all just database entries. No evidence of notability. Not eligible for proposed deletion due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dyfuca * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Bell (figure skater) edit

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; ineligible for PROD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United Kingdom. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Yadav edit

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Press Releases and announcements. Most of the news is about his firm. The news are about the company. Or it will be better to Redirect this article on Housing.com. Bakhtar40 (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Bakhtar40 (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwinder Singh edit

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. A Google search brings up more such paid PR publications. Bakhtar40 (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, and India. Bakhtar40 (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fakesysdef edit

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

Run-of-the-mill malware with no evidence of notability. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Defender edit

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

Run-of-the-mill malware with no evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of rogue security software edit

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

Inherently against WP:NOTDIR/WP:NOTDATABASE. Wikipedia is not a malware database. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough notable entries to justify a list. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really? A large number of the bluelinks are duplicates pointing to the same set of articles, and a large number of the remainder are themselves undergoing deletion processes as non-notable.. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Security Shield edit

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

Run-of-the-mill malware with no evidence of notability. PROD previously contested by the now-banned Neelix with "try Google News search" - I did, and I found either nothing or unrelated topics * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ByteDefender edit

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

The fact that BitDefender is sometimes impersonated by malware probably deserves a mention there, but I'm really not seeing how this software is notable. The references are just how-to-guides from malware-removal companies, which will presumably publish such guides for every bit of malware to come to their attention, but this seems very run-of-the-mill to me. Yes, this is an indictment of society, but it is what it is. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen Brown (artist) edit

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

WP:BLP of an artist and writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for artists or writers. As always, creative professionals are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists -- the notability test doesn't hinge on sourcing their work to itself as proof that it exists, it hinges on sourcing their work to external validatation of its significance, through independent third-party reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work in media and/or books.
But this is referenced almost entirely to directly affiliated primary sources -- the self-published websites of galleries that have exhibited her work, "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations she's associated with, etc. -- and the only footnotes that represent any kind of third-party coverage are a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person and a single article in the local newspaper of her own hometown, which doesn't represent enough coverage to get her over the bar all by itself.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Women, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: subject of a 16 minute segment on CBC radio, holds a residency, has exhibited in many exhibitions. Plus, this well-referenced article seems to be the work of a new editor participating in an editathon, who submitted their work to AfC and had it approved, and has since created another well-referenced biography of a different artist; to delete this would be a slap in the face for a serious new contributor to the encyclopedia. (I was initially suspicious of COI or paid editing because I noticed that the editor had made 10 varied edits a little while before starting this article, but I note that the artist's name was on the list of "Suggestions for notable artists / writers / curators / contributors, etc. without articles:" at Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver/ArtAndFeminism 2024, so I believe this art historian is a genuine enthusiastic new editor in the field of artist biographies.) PamD 11:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artists do not become notable for having exhibited in gallery shows by sourcing those gallery shows to content self-published by those galleries (as was done here) — artists only become notable for having exhibited in gallery shows if you can source the gallery shows to third-party content about the gallery shows, such as a newspaper or magazine art critic reviewing said show, but not a single gallery show here has cited the correct kind of sourcing to make her notable for that.

And the CBC source is an interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, which is a kind of source that we're allowed to use for supplementary verification of stray facts in an article that has already passed WP:GNG on stronger sources but not a kind of source we can use to bring the GNG in and of itself, because it isn't independent of her. And no, articles aren't exempted from having to pass GNG just because they came out of editathons, either: editathons still have to follow the same principles as everybody else, and the articles resulting from them still have to properly source their notability claims. Bearcat (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the CBC radio piece is an interview, surely her selection as the subject of an interview in a series on a major radio station is an indicator of notability? As is her selection for two residencies: the organisations hosting the residencies are independent of the artist, and there are sources from those organisations. PamD 21:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The CBC interview is from one of the CBC's local programs on one of its local stations, not from the national network, so it isn't automatically more special than other interviews just because it came from a CBC station instead of a Corus or Pattison or Rogers station. So it isn't enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's the only non-primary source she has.

It isn't enough that the organizations hosting the residencies are independent of the artist — they aren't independent of the residency, so they're still affiliated sources. The source for a residency obviously can't be her own website, but it also can't be the website of the organization that she worked with or for either — it has to be a third party that has no affiliation with either end of that relationship, namely a media outlet writing about the residency as news, because the organization is still affiliated with the statement. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, reluctantly. It seems to me I've previously read something about this artist, and her work has been exhibited in well known galleries. I'm just not finding any additional independent reliable sources beyond the first one in the article. Willing to change my vote if better sourcing is found. Curiocurio (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per PamD. This was not a person-picked-off-the-street interview. BD2412 T 01:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: borderline but I think tagging the article for relying on primary sources might be sufficient without needing to delete the entry. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If primary sources are virtually all it has, then just tagging it for relying on primary sources isn't sufficient — it's not enough to assume that better sources exist that haven't been shown. Better sources have to be demonstrated to exist, not just speculated about as theoretically possible, in order to tip the balance between an AFD discussion and just being flagged for better sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not speculating, read your discussion above with PamD then made my decision. FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG as well as the four criteria set down by WP:NARTIST. The nominator's report is spot on. After discarding the interviews and the primary sources, we're left with a non-existent case for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a directory of artists, nor a collection of indiscriminate information. And the extensive discussion is rather surprising for such an evidently straightforward issue. -The Gnome (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why are you discarding the CBC interview? FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Lunn edit

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. Joeykai (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whistleblowers Australia edit

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

Changeworld1984 (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(This discussion is) Off the Record edit

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

Before search revealed little results outside of sources already in article (passing mention in variety), fr-wiki article has little else to offer too. Someone should search in dutch but subject might not have another name based off filmfonds.nl source in article. (pinging Mushy Yank de-prodded) Justi yaya 13:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Police, Internet, and Netherlands. Justi yaya 13:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping and note. I deproDed the page because I believed that what is said in Screen Daily (although presented in an interview, and brief) + screening/nomination would make an Afd more suitable. It's probably not enough. The film/piece/project are covered partially elsewhere, but it's hard to say if the IDFA grant is significant enough or if what IDFA says about the film can be considered independent. There are the Variety and BDE mentions (see above and article); Yahoo News has a similar mention; there's other overage that might be judged significant and independent about the work:

Then back to the algorithmic crime prevention Nirit Peled delved into. Not a futuristic AI fantasy, but something already very concrete. The latter also applies to the performance inspired by it (this conversation is) Off the Record. In front of a room full of audience, a police officer (actor Janneke Remmers, with texts from real interviews) and human rights lawyer Jelle Klaas explain both sides of this stigmatising technique. Concluding with Peled wondering where empathy has gone, and why the algorithm's checklist does not look at the children's positive traits. They have all been given a digital copy of themselves, but where have they themselves gone? At that moment, it slowly starts to become clear how we can see this beautiful animation with figures wandering across a hall-wide screen. They are people, youngsters no doubt, but all wonderfully distorted. Towards the end, one slowly comes closer and closer, and behind that bizarre, digitally animated mask I thought I could actually see a pair of children's eyes. An unexpectedly touching moment. It just makes the thought that we could all be relegated to digital files all the more oppressive. in Cultuurpeers
Filmmaker Nirit Peled will introduce her extensive investigative research into the development of crime prevention algorithms in Amsterdam. Peled converts information, which is otherwise invisible, or simply incomprehensible, into narratives and images. Through her forthcoming documentary film Moeders and performative lecture Off the Record she offers a vivid account of the lived experiences and emotions of mothers whose sons have been impacted by algorithmic policing. (Fotodok)

All in all (and maybe there's more), I'd rather keep this, but that's just me. There's no page about the artist so far. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russian youth edit

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

The entire article is original research, specifically WP:SYNTH. There are many instances of stating opinions as facts (WP:VOICE), e.g., "The roots of current Russian youth culture can be traced back to ancient Russia, but more readily apparent signs of modern Russian youth culture are due to the reactionary influence because of both the Soviet Union's formation and its dissolution", and riddled with weasel words, e.g., "Some observers noted what they described as a "generational struggle" among Russians". Generally, these are not the basis for an article to be deleted when the article can be fixed or tagged, but the idea of the article itself is based on collating different sources to present a personal reflection, i.e., Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Pleas note that the sources cited mostly do not support claims being asserted, with the statement being more of a conjecture rather than an encyclopaedic one. FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Delete it. I wouldn't care. I guess that the fact that I tried to write objectively and it came out subjectively shows how poorly done that the journalism I've read that inspired me to write the same is and so on. Lunavara (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD process is generally where editors debate. It is a good opportunity for you to defend your work and maybe change our minds. You can also fix the deficiencies noted by myself (an maybe other editors) and update us with a comment when you do that.

My nomination is not a unilateral decision, and I think you should care about it so you can improve your future work and learn more about policies that dictate how this place ticks. Please take it as a chance to learn, as you continue grow as editor, and also feel free to challenge it.

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to contribute for more information FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Innkeeper's Collection edit

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - four of five sources are their own website, the other a non-specific cite to an industry publication. AusLondonder (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. AusLondonder (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Cannot find any evidence of any notability, Wish I had checked for sources before wasting my time moving the article/updating logo but hey ho. Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Pacific 1269 edit

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

Disputed PROD for non-notable locomotive; fails WP:GNG as all but one available sources are user-generated or self-published. (The single published source is a 23-page photo book, and GNG requires multiple reliable source.) Also fails notability under WP:TWP/MOS; there is no evidence of this individual locomotive being superlative or recognized as historically significant. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and California. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added references from three more newspaper articles and two more books, which demonstrate that the subject meets WP:GNG. Opolito (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding citations. Unfortunately, these do not appear to support the case for notability.
- As for the Arcadia books (Niles Canyon Railway and Sacramento's Southern Pacific Shops), numerous RS Noticeboard discussions express the consensus that many Arcadia books are the equivalent of self-published material and thus to be used with caution if at all. (See [19], [20], [21].) Moreover, these books only mention No. 1269 briefly in passing or in photo captions and do not appear to provide significant coverage.
- Western Railroader is not a newspaper, it's a iarchive:western-railroader-february-1962-deep-creek-railroad/page/n7/mode/2up self-described railfan newsletter. Fan publications are generally questionable for notability. (I am not questioning it as a source for factual information, just as evidence of the subject's notability.)
- Finally, since you appear to have the source but it is not online, can you provide more details about how the coverage in the Auburn Journal is significant?
Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Redirect to List of Jeopardy! contestants#David Madden, or Delete. Case of WP:BLP1E that was previously deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) (2nd nomination), but it was recreated. Referencing is very poor (there are no quality RS that cover the subject in any SIGOV outside of being in lists of famous winners). I tagged the article a year ago and suggested it should be redirected as IPs were constantly adding badly referenced WP:PROMO material about his other business interests, but when I WP:BOLDLY redirected it a few days ago, having not had any response to my notices, User:Robert McClenon felt it was better to send to AfD. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only seeing now that it was also at AfD a third time (that AfD wasn't logged on the Talk Page) where it was kept Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) (3rd nomination). Having read the sourcing that was provided for the 3rd AfD, I think it was pretty weak, and a redirect, to his entry on List of Jeopardy! contestants#David Madden would be a better solution. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Arts, Television, and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Archibald edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Article recreated by WP:SPA following deletion a year and a half ago. I am bringing this to the community's attention. I am personally a weak delete: somewhat accomplished person, but I think it falls a little short of our notability criteria. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Canada. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Dili edit

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

Fails WP:CORP. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable historic hotel in East Timor.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Asia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WBNM-LD edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG; another diginet coatrack. Could merge with sister station WBNA. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kentucky. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chashni (TV series) edit

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

Notability issue. It's not even runed for 6 months. Xegma(talk) 07:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 07:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. TV Series ran on Star Plus and streamed digitally on Disney+ Hotstar. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NTVNATL. Reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NTV Imsaneikigai (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redirect to StarPlus would be an acceptable WP:ATD but experience shows me it would likely end up in an edit war over the next year. The issue is not that the series exists, but the referencing. Notability is not based on WP:ITEXISTS. It is based on secondary "RELIABLE" sources. In this case, the sources cannot be considered reliable as they fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. No bylines and churnalism. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A high profile tv series well sourced. Desertarun (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panasonic Connect edit

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

Deprod by @MSMST1543:. There are lots of press releases available, with announcements similar to what's already cited, but nothing in-depth about the company itself. I do not believe this article would be able to meet WP:NCORP. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wallflower (band) edit

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

Unreferenced article since 2011. Searching for refs is difficult as there is a more successful band called "The Wallflowers", but even after including band members names into the search it seems like they received no coverage. Nothing in the article writeup suggests Wikipedia notability. InDimensional (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m the original article author. Happy to have article deleted. Band came to an end in 1998 with little notable activity.

(talk) 13:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and England. InDimensional (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Timor edit

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

Fails WP:CORP. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Travel and tourism, and Asia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bintan Agro Beach Resort edit

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

Fails WP:CORP. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep (talk) 08:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For some reason, the nominator considers that all the hotels and resorts in Bintan Regency fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Brazell edit

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian cricketer player, to meet WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that I found were 1 and 2, both from the same publication. JTtheOG (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'd say there's enough in those sources to keep the article for now, given the player has only debuted this season as there will likely be more coverage in the coming future. Wouldn't be against draftifying, but also a suitable redirect at List of South Australian representative cricketers also, so two suitable WP:ATDs. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think 1 and 2 are something which cover independently about the subject, plus there are other refs in the article. These can be considered as enough, since the player debuted just in this season, more coverage is likely to come in future if he continues playing. In terms of SNGs, it meets WP:NCRIC as well. Robo^CricLet's chat 05:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The South Australian Cricket Association and Cricket Australia are not independent of the subject. The former directly administers the South Australia cricket team that he plays on, and is affiliated with the latter. Given his young age, I support draftification as an ATD, as well as the redirect suggested by Rugbyfan22. JTtheOG (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Although, they cover directly about the subject, the problem is that those are primary sources. Those contain useful information, so I linked those. However, apart from these two, I guess this is a secondary source which discusses about the topic, his education qualification and also his performance. I just wanted to say that since he debuted in this season, all these can be considered enough for a keep. Anyway, if the consensus reached by other editors is not to keep it, then I'll agree with a redirect. Thanks. Robo^Cric Let's chat 11:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~, not enough independent secondary material to meet GNG but there may be in the near future.
Redirect. JoelleJay (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inclined to agree with Rugbyfan22 on this one. AA (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep or redirect to the list of SA cricketers. Drafting this serves zero benefit really - it'll just end up getting deleted as no one will remember the draft is there. If there's not enough coverage for now then redirecting is the normal response in situations such as this - much easier to reverse a redirect and restore the page before adding the additional sources that are likely to appear if he continues to play. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is clearly no additional support for Deletion but no consensus yet as opinion is divided between Keeping, Drafting or Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To better summarize the sources in question, there are a couple sentences of coverage here, though it's mostly quotes, and four-ish sentences of coverage here. Both are from The Advertiser so they should be counted as one source. JTtheOG (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WCKV-LD edit

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tennessee. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in Tennessee#LPTV stations: a 25-year-old station is probably more likely to have the required significant coverage, but this topic area's inclusion standards are no longer based on existence and the mere possibility that there are sources — they require SIGCOV and the definitive existence of same. Unless better sourcing emerges than directories, FCC records, and non-independent sources, an {{R to list entry}} as an alternative to deletion is the best that can be done. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject has enough coverage to meet the WP:GNG, including [[22]][[23]] Let'srun (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to state list That's not SIGCOV. That's mostly regurgitated press releases. About the only substantive fact I learned was that this was once a FamilyNet affiliate. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talakayan Ng Bayan edit

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

Article unreferenced since 2009 and tagged as such since 2010. No good hits on GSearch, GNews and GNews Archives. Found several false positive as Talakayan ng Bayan means "People's Dialogue" and is used by several entities aside from DWBL. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 05:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I created the article almost 15 years ago without being aware about WP:GNG. I haven't touched the article since then. Safe to say, I barely found any source about the now-defunct radio show. ASTIG 😎🙃 13:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the creator agrees the topic isn’t notable. Mccapra (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K21JQ-D edit

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Washington. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. If it is a rebroadcaster, merge to the parent station. Otherwise, merge to the owner. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to merge to. The owner doesn't even have an article. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. I don't see any redirect or merge target. Let'srun (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KAJS-LD edit

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Nebraska. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: It had been a while since the last nomination of a run-of-the-mill 2010s-established nothing-local DTV America/HC2/Innovate station that nominally survived a 2023 bulk nomination; as ever, the amount of significant coverage and the likelyhood of SIGCOV are the same (i.e. zero). No reason to have anything more than an {{R to list entry}}. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K32NM-D edit

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Iowa. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of over-the-air HSN affiliates: It's another run-of-the-mill Ventana Television station that has only ever carried HSN, HSN-related networks, QVC and its related networks (after they became sister networks to HSN), and a random .6 Dabl affiliation. This has never really warranted anything beyond an {{R to list entry}}. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KRLB-LD edit

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Washington. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough SIGCOV in Tri-Cities paper. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

François Mathieu edit

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:NARTIST. Gedaali (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Arts, and Visual arts. Gedaali (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are other potentially notable people with this name, including fr:François Mathieu, a French senator, as well as a Quebec sculptor. I don't see an article about this painter in the French Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imre Vallyon edit

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

As per the notability guidelines for authors, an author is notable if: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

None of the preceding apply in this case and almost all the sources in the article are not independent. There are almost no reviews of his work and the awards he has won are not notable. The only significant coverage is of his legal issues. Ynsfial (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Spirituality, Hungary, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Stuff article certainly establishes that he's notable, although the focus of it is on his child molestation convictions. The award from the Ashton Wylie Charitable Trust might be notable given that it's in conjunction with the New Zealand Society of Authors, which is definitely notable.-Gadfium (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the Stuff article establishes his notability as an author. It's mostly about his convictions as you said. I'm struggling to find any reviews or analysis of his work. Even if the award is given in conjunction with the NZSA I don't think it's enough to confer notability. Do you think it is? It might also be worth noting that Vallyon himself is a member of the New Zealand Society of Authors, a membership he pays for.~~~ Ynsfial (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gadfium is not arguing that he is notable as an author. Gadfium is talking about GNG. Schwede 66 17:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I misunderstood, sorry. What other sources do we have for GNG then? We would need multiple. Will we be establishing his notability as a criminal if not as an author? or as a spiritual guru and leader? The only significant coverage in general seems to be that Stuff article, which focuses on his history of sexual assault. It's not unusual for a local newspaper to cover local criminals and crimes.

The article consists of primarily sourced biographical information, a list of books with no analysis or reviews and a mention of a minor prize. If we were to remove the Scoop article, a local paper detailing his criminal convictions, what would his notability be based on GNG or otherwise? Ynsfial (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Source 6 is a book review in a RS, this in a Seattle newspaper discusses the author and his work [24], should be at basic notability. Discussed here [25] in a RS from New Zealand. Oaktree b (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider Horror News Net a reliable source, see How to Get Your Book or Comic Reviewed on (HNN) Horrornews.net? and How to Expedite your Film Review? Their About us states:
"HNN simply is a means for your film, product, book or studio to have existence on the internet. Whether bad or good, a product without existence in the search engines is simply without relevance. You work hard to create something, while we work hard to create a site that provides existence for your items."

It's used as a reference on dozens if not hundreds of articles, so this should be brought up on the WP:RSN.

The review in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is a republished one from Blogcritics. Archived discussions on WP:RSN seem to indicate that it hasn't really been considered reliable the times it was brought up since it seems to accept content from any blogger. The website's About us states:
"Blogcritics gives writers the opportunity to gain an exponentially higher level of visibility (and thus, traffic and search rank) than they could ever achieve through their home blog or website alone." Mooonswimmer 01:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. The two reviews mentioned above by Oaktree b (the only ones I could find) are published in unreliable sources and are likely paid pieces. I'd say the Stuff article counts towards WP:GNG, but it's all I could find. The two awards he's won are minor and of debatable notability. Mooonswimmer 03:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women's roles during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre edit

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

Although the title of the article is "Women's roles during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre", it actually only lists the deeds of four women during the Tiananmen Incident, without summarizing the role of women as a whole in the Tiananmen Incident, this article is more like talking about the experiences of these four women during the Tiananmen Incident. 日期20220626 (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Politics, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is on a viable-looking topic and is well referenced, and can be improved. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre. There are a couple of articles that talk about gender in the Tiananmen Square protests and massacre, the Feigon article cited in the artile and there is an article from Radio Free Asia on the forgotten legacy of women and the protests. I agree with the nominator about how the text does not match the title of the page, and I do not think there is sufficient information for a stand-alone page, especially as the women mentioned in the article all have a stand-alone page, so no information will be lost. --Enos733 (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nominator, the article is more like a compilation of the acts of some individuals rather than discussing the role of women. The article 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre is already very large hence I would oppose a merge. I think relevant information not appearing in the stand-alone articles should be copied across, for example the section on Wang Chaohua.

Golem08 (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of East Timor, London edit

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

One sentence-stub that completely fails WP:GNG. Sole source is a government list of diplomatic missions in London. AusLondonder (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. Article merely confirms it exists. LibStar (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London. Not notable enough for an article but notable enough for a list entry and redirecting to that is better for readers. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on redirecting this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 06:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Installer VISE edit

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

The article does not align with the English Wikipedia's criteria for both WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSOFT. The sources used in the article are mainly either primary sources or focus on the company rather than the software. An earlier attempt in 2011 to remove the article was made due to the lack of detailed and in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Currently, there is still a lack of widespread coverage in reliable sources for this article. Barseghian Lilia (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Articles that have been proposed for deletion cannot be soft deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shadow311 you relisted this saying that articles that have been proposed for deletion cannot be soft deleted, yet this exact soft deletion has already happened for two other articles for which the deletion has been proposed by the exact same user: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EMCO MSI Package Builder and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zero Install, so how is it at the end of the day?!? Thanks! --Vlad|->

@Vlad: We're at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, which is different from Wikipedia:Proposed deletion.

Comment - After looking at the nominator's edit history, I'm a little worried that there is some sort of vendetta, ulterior motives or conflict of interest going on here where aside from creating a couple of Armenian articles this editor appears to just be trying to delete installation technology-related articles. Many of the articles that the nominator has suggested for deletion have been on Wikipedia for many years - in the case of the WiX article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WiX) it must rank among the oldest articles having been started in 2004, so my question is why are these all being nominated for deletion all of a sudden? TubularWorld (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. It is easy to find independent WP:RS of very reasonable quality. For example, here is an article in an IEEE publication reviewing a different installer and using Vise as a reference point for comparisons: [26]. --Викидим (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Any suggestions in keeping this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 06:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Rajya Sabha election in Tamil Nadu edit

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

This was an indirect election, fails WP:Notability. I suggest it be either merged or redirected to the page, 2013 Rajya Sabha elections. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 01:40, 13 April 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 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 06:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid Chevallier edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted at AfD many years ago, and nothing of substance seems to have changed: my WP:BEFORE search didn't find anything that would meet the GNG (just a handful of blogs, interviews, etc.), and none of the WP:NARTIST criteria appear to be met. Not notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and France. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any good sources that show notability. The article itself has a lot of sources, but they are basically all low quality and/or primary. Cortador (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeds of Hope Publishers edit

AfDs for this article:

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

The organization does not appear to pass WP:GNG The only references not published by the organization itself is a trivial mention in the NYT and a profile of the editor, Katie Cook, in bpfna.org, who was (at the time) an editor of bpfna.org as well. While there is a list of articles under the "Further Reading" section, one of the articles was written by a student newspaper, one from Baptists Today, and the others all seem to be limited to the Waco Tribune-Herald. They are mostly from the 1990s- and I have been able to find no significant coverage since.

This is the second deletion debate this article will go through- but editors should note that the only two "keep" votes came from new accounts that did not edit anything but their own user page and the deletion discussion. While that has no bearing on the organization's notability, new Wikipedia editors will want to read the policies on canvassing and recruiting people off-Wiki before they contribute. (Unless you want to provide more sources- please, if you have them, I would like them very much) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Texas. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Montgomery mayoral election edit

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

Only a single source, not enough to demonstrate notability. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:34, 5 April 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 April 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Alabama. Owen× ☎ 17:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable mayoral election (in fact, this is the first I ever heard of it). TH1980 (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:POLOUTCOMES. I tried several searches and yet found nothing at all. In the past, we have generally redirected individual non-notable candidates to the election article, and I see no reason why we can't do vice-versa to Bobby Bright. Bearian (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear more points of view on whether the proposed redirect and its target article are acceptable. I've never come across an election article being redirected to a candidate's page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only one source and it's an excel file, only a city election, nothing to ATD here. SportingFlyer T·C 01:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that other mayoral elections in Montgomery have articles, thus I suggest all these articles should be Merged to a new election overview article, Mayoral elections in Montgomery, Alabama. Possibly something similar to Mayoral elections in Chattanooga, Tennessee or Mayoral elections in Evansville, Indiana? Samoht27 (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes for 2009 and 2011 (those should have been included here), but 2015 feels that it has decent coverage Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a newly-created Mayoral elections in Montgomery, Alabama as that's the general practice for mid-sized American cities. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, merge or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 05:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Boss (Metal Gear) edit

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

The current sources at reception were just listicles and rankings. I tried to find any sources about this character per WP:BEFORE, but I cannot find any sigcov. Relying mostly with this single journal here [27] wouldn't help notability. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 22:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 22:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Science fiction and fantasy. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 23:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Conyo. This article isn't meeting notability as of right now. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Characters of the Metal Gear series#Introduced in Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater as an WP:ATD. I found a GameRant article [28] but not sure if this would really count. I'm also not sure if GameRant is reliable or not. Conyo14 (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is situational as a source, but Valnet sources does not help notability according to WP:VG/RS. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 03:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, half a source. But my !vote shall remain merge. Conyo14 (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:ATD. There is some sourcing but it's questionable whether it reaches WP:SIGCOV. This can be covered at the main game article. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] She has also been discussed with sigcov in these lists: [34] [35] [36] [37] I have not looked into any book or scholar sources yet, nor have I checked Japanese sources. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think the Kotaku and IGN looks good, thou other sources doesn't really help GNG, but can also he used to improve the article further. So, I feel like the article is barely notable for now but is still in weak state. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 01:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After checking further, I felt like I'm satisfied a bit with the sources that were brought here now. But, I'll let afd stay here let others state their opinions here. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 01:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've decided to create a source analysis of Cukie's sources, and it has changed my !vote:

Source analysis by Conyo14

Source assessment by User:Conyo14
The Memory Card .15: Snake pulls the trigger	Plot WP:SUMMARY/brief routine mention of a plot. N
[38]	Brief analysis, but uncertain of reliability. Partial otherwise.
Breaking Down my Favorite Boss Fights of all Time	WP:BLOG N
Best Metal Gear Solid Boss of All Time Face-Off: The Winner Revealed	Although it is a ranking, there is enough to meet WP:SIGCOV Y
La legendaria soldado The Boss]	Meristation is considered reliable and the article does not read like a blog. Y
The 10 Greatest Final Bosses in Video Games	Brief mention, not in-depth analysis.
The best boss fights involve getting picked on by someone your own size	WP:BLOG N
Seven Video Games Where You Beat Up Your Dad	Brief, but maybe on the line between partial and full. I'll put it as good. Y
The 25 most inspirational female characters in games	WP:ROUTINE N

Not that it matters to affecting your !vote, the Game Developer blog is one that was chosen as a featured blog by GD editorial staff, and the author is a published SME in gaming. As far as The Mary Sue goes, it is listed as a reliable source on WP:RSP. I also do not believe that the use of WP:ROUTINE is appropriate; none of the citations I listed are news sources, all of these sources were posted years after release, written (presumably) because the author wanted to write about it. The Destructoid source, for example, is written as part of a series of significant parts of video games for their staff, with the author saying things like "Shooting The Boss, while over in a blink of an eye, really is a pretty innovative and surprisingly memorable moment. While it could have easily been incorporated into the always impressive cutscenes, making one, small creative decision to have the player perform this final killing shot makes the scene infinitely more powerful" as well as discuss the relationship between the player, Snake, and The Boss, their musing over whether the player is required to kill her or just let her die, and speculation on what Kojima was intending to depict by making the player execute her. I would strongly dispute the notion that ROUTINE applies in any capacity here. WP:SUMMARY also applies to an extent, but not to the entirety. The source is being utilized not for the description of the plot of The Boss, but for the author's feelings on her and her death. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide the thread for The Mary Sue? Conyo14 (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions should be linked on the perennial sources page in The Mary Sue's entry - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found it [39]. I will update the source analysis. Conyo14 (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on the keep !votes?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 05:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Little Rock tornado edit

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

Article was not at all ready for mainspace and it currently fails WP:LASTING. Practically the entire article is a direct copy and paste from the meteorological synopsis and damage summary for this tornado in Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023. This article was created by me, in draftspace, doing a direct copy/paste of the damage summary so I could locate LASTING impacts (14,000 bytes). In this edit an anonymous user copy/pasted the entire meteorological synopsis section from the outbreak article (11,000 bytes). To note, the article is only 26,000 bytes. The entire article is a CONTENTFORK copy/paste, which was not ready for mainspace at all and was being edited by SOCKS. Either delete or draftify back like it was, but it clearly should not be an article right now. As a second note, the draft was submitted to AFC by a user who had not edited the article at all. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to draft Why didn't you just move back to draft? This was unnecessary. ChessEric 06:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChessEric: If it was moved rather than deleted, I would want it as a userspace draft not actual draftspace. The issue here is in the draftspace, SOCKS (both Andrew5 & Lokicat) find it and try to "improve it", plus even if it wasn't pure anonymous SOCKS involved, there is copyright issues involved (due to the copy/pasting mess) and people were able to get it through AfC from draft-space into mainspace without me, the original draft creator, even being aware. With all that, this is more of a TNT method (i.e. delete it and then redo it in userspace). Heck, the whole thing as it is right now is a copy/paste from the outbreak article so in 5 seconds, I could redo it in userspace. So yeah, don't think of this AfD as a true "delete it due to lack of notability", but more of a TNT request that is also using notability and the dang copyright and copy/paste issues as the backing for that TNT request. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why you should have just put it in draft and rewritten or paraphrased some of it. Plus, the event details are fine and the section on the main page can be shortened. Plus, believe it or not, the SOCKS have actually made some helpful edits. The AfD was not the way to go. Plus, this tornado inflicted significant damage along its path in a major metropolitan area, so I think it will easily meet WP:Lasting. I'm not saying an article is guaranteed though. ChessEric 13:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t doubt that and again, I’m not saying this won’t get an article. For reference this entire edit is a copyright violation. Making it a draft again will not get rid of that. The SOCk reverted edit is also a copyright violation, as both are just a copy/paste of another Wikipedia article without any reference that content came from another article. That could be easily solved with an inter-wiki link, but it just makes the edit history weird and talk page weird. Legit, the history itself needs to be TNTed and then as this is at this point a near 100% direct copy/paste, I could create User:WeatherWriter/2023 Little Rock tornado with a copy/paste of the damage summary and basically restart the whole thing before the SOCKs came along. Did they help? Sure. Did they save maybe 5 minutes of work only though? Yes. It is better to literally TNT this, get rid of the copyright violation and just restart. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a courtesy ping for ChessEric. Just for reference look at User:WeatherWriter/2023 Little Rock tornado. The new draft, made in minutes, is already 3,000 bytes larger than this article and doesn’t involve the SOCKs in the edit history nor the two very large copyright violations. The TNT is basically to clean-up the SOCKs and copyright violations from the edit history, since chances are high, the draft was pushed into mainspace by one of the two SOCKs well before any clean-up edits could occur. So yeah, don’t think of this AfD as anything with notability. This is truly a WP:TNT to remove the SOCKs from play. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the section in Tornado outbreak of March 31–April 1, 2023. We are becoming way too lax in giving individual tornadoes article. In no way should this, 2023 Pasadena–Deer Park tornado or 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado have standalone articles. Stand alone articles should only be if the information absolutely cannot fit in the section, such as the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado. I highly doubt that this article can be much more than a WP:CFORK of the section. The readable prose is around 53,000 bytes, which per WP:ARTICLESIZE puts it in a grey area if a split is needed. But I don’t think this is the tornado, given its limited impact. A redirect to the section is a good idea because it’s highly unlikely this tornado will achieve notability outside of the tornado outbreak. 148.76.84.29 (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC) (Confirmed and now-blocked SOCK) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Due to the copyright violations as mentioned above, we could either do a delete and redirect closure, or WP:RD1 the copyright violations. 148.76.84.29 (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)~~ (Confirmed and now-blocked SOCK) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For some laundry-free discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'm confused by the nominator's stance here. You state "Either delete or draftify back like it was" but in the discussion comments, it looks like you are arguing against a move to Draft space. Please be clearer because if draftifying (to any previous version) is acceptable, then we can close this AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per usual, WeatherWriter is endlessly yapping about irrelevant crap that makes the discussion impossibly hard to follow. His rants can be found in numerous AFDs and discussions, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midwestern U.S. floods and tornado outbreak of June 2021. User should likely be topic banned for disruptive editing at this point. 99.196.129.143 (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC) (SOCK strikethrough.) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just semi'ed it so we reach a consensus without socks. I have relisted this but don't consider myself involved. Star Mississippi 00:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Any thoughts from more independent editors?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 05:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seekda edit

AfDs for this article:

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

No independent reliable sources about this niche software company in the article, and I am seeing nothing in a search that is not promotional. BD2412 T 00:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 00:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management, Travel and tourism, Internet, Software, and Austria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barlaston Parish Council edit

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

Lowest-level local government authority in England - there are more than 10,000 parish councils and they are rarely notable. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. No secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Barlaston I agree small parish councils generally don't need separate articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The parish council is already covered at Barlaston, so there's nothing to merge from what I can see. AusLondonder (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Representative of Anguilla, London edit

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

Contested PROD. No sources at all other than a listing of diplomatic missions in London. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third party coverage to meet GNG. Article merely confirms it exists. LibStar (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#British Overseas Territories. That already contains the address so there is nothing to merge, but given the list does exist there is no benefit in deletion over redirection. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe a redirect is necessary here, this is not a very plausible search term. AusLondonder (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I firmly disagree, we have content about this topic so it benefits us to make that content easy to find. If the topic was notable enough for an article it would be at this title, so this is a search term people will likely use to find it, and the presence of the redirect will discourage recreation of an article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Park Harriers and Tower Hamlets Athletics Club edit

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

Unable to locate significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. AusLondonder (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't have remotely enough coverage here to meet NCORP. JoelleJay (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khadija Mbowe edit

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

WP:BLP of a YouTuber, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for YouTubers. As usual, YouTubers are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them and their work -- but three of the seven footnotes here are the subject's own self-published content about themself on YouTube or their own website, and one more is a "staff" profile on the self-published website of an organization they've been directly affiliated with, all of which are primary sources that are not support for notability at all.
Meanwhile, the other three footnotes are a Q&A interview in which they're talking about themself in the first person (which would be acceptable as verification of additional facts after GNG had already been covered off by stronger sourcing, but is not itself contributing to passage of GNG as it still represents the subject talking about themself); one brief glancing namecheck of their existence as a provider of soundbite in an article about something other than themself, which isn't support for notability; and just one source that's actually represents third-party analysis about Khadija Mbowe in any meaningful sense, but is too short to singlehandedly clinch passage of GNG all by itself if it's the only strong source in the mix.
Obviously this is without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when an article can be sourced better than this, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to be better than this. Bearcat (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, nominator said it all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Standard telegraph level edit

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

Another WP:DICTDEF. I couldn't even find any usage of this phrase outside dictionary definitions. Not sure if there is a reasonable redirect target; maybe it could be moved to Wiktionary. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Traders Company edit

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

Article about a company, not properly sourced as passing WP:NCORP. As always, companies are not "inherently" entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they existed, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH -- but the only source cited here is a single book in which this company gets mentioned but is not the principal subject, which is not enough all by itself, and the article has existed in this state since 2013, and been tagged as single-sourced since 2018, without ever having a second source added. And on a WP:BEFORE search, I found a few brief glancing namechecks of its existence in The Globe, but nothing substantive or detailed enough to make up the difference: mostly what I found was coverage about sick or dead people who had been employees of the company, not coverage about the company. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per the included source, the company seems to have been more commonly called Northern Trading Company. I got some more hits, especially newspaper hits, under this name. Ravendrop 05:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvan Grove, Indiana edit

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

This was back-entered onto the maps from GNIS, which cites an 1876 atlas of the state. Baird's History of Clark County, Indiana on p. 100 has a very brief reference to it as a post office, and I found nothing else of relevance other than that there was a school there at some point. I just don't see that there was ever a settlement here. Mangoe (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No information found; furthermore, the coordinates don't match the description in Baird's, which says Sylvan Grove was one quarter mile south of Memphis, while the coordinates are for a site about a mile southeast of Memphis. Someone made a mistake somewhere, and we might be able to figure out where if we had information, which we do not. Thus, delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital (Daet) edit

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

Reliant entirely on primary sources. No evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no good hits on GSearch, GNews and GBooks. GNews Archives gave an article about the family of doctors who founded the hospital from a small clinic. However, I'm not sure that that is enough to warrant notability. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Glen edit

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

The only reference for this stub biography of a footballer is a database entry, so this stub no longer satisfies sports notability and does not satisfy general notability. Draftification will provide six months to find significant coverage.

Draftify as nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: while I am aware of the changed notability criteria, seems a bit odd to go straight to AfD for a subject like this where the article already existed for some years under the old rules, would it not be more appropriate to tag for verification first, then move up from that if not acted on? It seems very likely this player will appear in the British Newspaper Archive and there are far more 'deserving' nominations from this era than an international player and cup winner? I have added refs that indicate his prominence, but appreciate they would not satisfy SIGCOV. Crowsus (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Absurd nomination. This player represented his country and won national competitions. If that doesn't satisfy notability then this place is a complete waste of time. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable. 200 professional appearances in England and Scotland, a Scotland international, there is coverage out there including in Paul Smith's book about Scotland players - silly nomination. Good work by Crowsus and JM on expanding. Giant Snowman 09:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Again the Keeps make n:football arguments despite it being abolished in 2022. I struggled to find coverage of him let alone significant coverage. The book is one source (if that) meaning he fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reproduction speed edit

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

Per WP:NOTDICT. Since this term seems to be used in several different contexts, it can redirect to Reproduction (disambiguation). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFL Tables edit

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

Fails GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. A search for "AFL Tables" will show up thousands of webpages which reference statistics from this online database, but no references which actually give significant coverage about the database as a subject, which is the benchmark which must be met under WEBCRIT. Google searching "paul jeffs afl tables" is a better search term to look for SIGCOV about the database (since any genuine SIGCOV would include Jeffs' name as the site's creator), and the best that shows up a few appreciative one-liner posts in public forums and on other stats databases - nothing which meets GNG's requirements of significance and independence. I don't see any valid alternative to deletion; there's no merge or redirect target that makes sense, and issue of lack of references can't reasonably be solved by draftifying. Aspirex (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Websites, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a longstanding draft at User:Teratix/Australian rules football analytics which I really, really need to finish and move into mainspace at some point. I did a bit of searching for sources covering AFL Tables as part of my research, and it does get a mention in James Coventry's Footballistics (p. 265):

[...] there are also a few publicly curated databases, the best of which is the brilliant AFL Tables maintained by Paul Jeffs. Jeffs' database includes, among other information, results from every AFL/VFL match since 1897, detailed player statistics dating back to 1965, and round-by-round Brownlow voting records from 1984 onwards. "It's a nice dataset, I can say that," said Dr Lenten. "It gives me good bang for my buck because it's possible to look at a number of problems."

(Aside: Footballistics; amazing book, excellent source of information on modern Australian football. Doesn't have a fucking index. I had to skim through all 362 pages to find that paragraph the first time.)

As to what should happen to the article... I agree it probably doesn't meet the GNG. That paragraph's not enough. I also agree there's no mainspace target for redirection or a merger. But I think an article on Australian rules football analytics ("statistics"? I'm still undecided) would be an obvious place to briefly discuss AFL Tables. So, uh, this may be a bit unorthodox, but how would we feel about merging it to my draft? I would be happy to move it into draftspace proper if Gibbsyspin preferred. – Teratix ₵ 12:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would work. It would need to be its own fairly standalone subsection within the analytics article, to ensure that the thousands of wikilinks which may be put in article reflists are directed somewhere specific rather than to a general analytics page. As long as that's achievable, I think that's a valid option. Aspirex (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News Bites edit

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

Unreferenced since its inception in 2010. No notable hits in GBooks, GNews Archives, and GNews. Be prepared for a lot of false positives in your search due to how common "News Bites" is as a phrase. Weak Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Studio 23 as plausible target per WP:ATD. Weak as there are a lot of similarly named programs/media entities found during my Google Search. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced and also not notable enough to be on wikipedia ^48JCLTalk 00:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News 23 edit

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

Tagged as unreferenced since 2012. No notable hits in GBooks, GNews Archives, and GNews. Be prepared for a lot of false positives in your search due to how common "News 23" is as a phrase. Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Studio 23 as plausible target per WP:ATD. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Studio 23 Yet another rebadged ABS-CBN newscast whose only difference was its demographic. Nate • (chatter) 02:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraman Tregear edit

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

Most of it were just primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. AfD'ing it to end the edit war. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reject: you have no reason to delete this article!! Harimua Thailand (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? 2605:B40:13E7:F600:1566:1FAC:A05C:22B9 (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harimua Thailand: We need coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject (in this case, Ultraman) to have an article. This article has none of that, and should therefore be deleted. Characters as popular as King Dedede have been redirected for this reason. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except King Dedede is a different topic entirely and have some decent sources unlike this one (Full of primary sources).The Worst part is, there are other 3 Ultraman articles that are all sourced as primary. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 00:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, I was using him as an example of how notability is not popularity or being a well-liked character. The fact that he is in a better position than this character helps my point. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is literally no reception in reliable sources either in this article or on the web, so it does not meet GNG. If there is a good redirect target available, redirect it there. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reject: Redirect is not allowed and the article must be keep!! Harimua Thailand (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? 2605:B40:13E7:F600:6938:8399:70DC:2892 (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You made the article, you have serious bias ^48JCLTalk 00:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are people allowed to vote twice? Cooper (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was about to say redirect but if you search by the Japanese name, ウルトラマントレギア, a lot more sourcing comes up. Cooper (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 01:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Entry on Japanese Wikipedia. Cooper (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its a primary source. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 01:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two quick searches brought me these two. Cooper (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable. See WP:RS, if there's a reliable source then it helps GNG. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know it's unreliable? Just because you aren't familiar with a website doesn't make it unreliable. I'm not familiar with those website either, but both of those websites are used dozens to hundreds of times on Wikipedia. And they look fine to me. Cooper (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they are not unreliable, but a situational source. Then it couldn't even help WP:GNG. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG says that reliable "sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language." Let's not discriminate Japanese media. Cooper (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even proven as a reliable source. But, lets drop this and move on since we have different perspective. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like you're just trying to deny that any source is valid, for whatever reason occurs to you at the moment. I don't think there is such a thing as a "situational source". Toughpigs (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because its just a reveal source. For the character it says only about this "Among the many Ultraman, Ultraman Taro is the one for whom I feel a powerful, powerful affinity" thats it. But, I don't see any point of making this discussion much longer. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, what is a "reveal source"? Cooper (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I meant that the source is a Character reveal only. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ebb and Flow edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced article. I couldn't find any significant coverage on the web; it's tough to search for them as their name is shared with a few other groups, but by including band members I found only a very brief Q&A on sfgate.com and an album review on aural-innovations.com, neither of these seem like WP:SIGCOV and nothing in the article suggests notability per WP:BAND InDimensional (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. InDimensional (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as they do have a staff written AllMusic bio here which states that they had a nationwide tour which is one of the criteria at WP:NMUSIC. Haven't done a full search yet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's just not enough to pass WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Pentecostal Mission edit

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

Fails WP:NORG - I could not find significant coverage of this church in reliable sources independent of the subject. HenryMP02 (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, Sri Lanka, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep am finding some reliable sources coverage such as this, I haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep have added references and is a century old church founded in 1923 feel the resources will be offline. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I see where you are coming from. This is probably a case where the sources do exist, but may be difficult to find initially. HenryMP02 (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lion mask edit

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

Long-time unreferenced article. I am not sure if there is an overall concept/topic of 'lion mask' or sources to show its notability. Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This does seem to be a recognized motif in art. That was just from the first few hits for "lion mask" + "motif" on Google books, there are quite a few more. I wouldn't oppose it being merged into something but there does seem to be discussion and analysis of lion mask motifs. Admittedly there isn't a lot of useful content here, but something can be said about the topic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a nice base article to work from. A stub, but an encyclopedic stub. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if we're going to keep it, could we at least find some sources to cite? This article has gone entirely unreferenced since its creation almost twenty years ago. Any decent sources would at least demonstrate that it's a distinct topic worthy of inclusion somewhere in Wikipedia. This AfD would seem to provide a good opportunity to locate some. P Aculeius (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and section redirect to Cultural depictions of lions. Noteworthy, possibly notable, but better off as a section of a larger relevant article. BD2412 T 01:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no issue with the suggestion to merge. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The lion mask seems to be a notable concept in art/history as per sources cited above. Cortador (talk) 07:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files edit

File:Deftones - My Own Summer (Shove It) Disc 2.jpg edit

Using two cover art not compliant with WP:NFCC#3a. Preferring other cover art... George Ho (talk) 08:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, accidentally used FFD rather than PROD. --George Ho (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mixed-Up Mother Goose cover.jpg edit

A freely licensed version of the image with VRT permission has been made available at File:SierraOnLine-Box-MixedUpMotherGoose-Original.jpg on Commons. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories edit

NEW NOMINATIONS edit

Category:Israeli Arab Jews edit

Propose merging Category:Israeli Arab Jews to Category:Israeli Mizrahi Jews

Nominator's rationale: The term 'Arab Jews' is politically contested, often by Zionists or by Jews with roots in the Arab world who prefer to be identified as Mizrahi Jews. This category may inappropriately label persons. Aldij (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. The small amount of articles in this category illustrates the point. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Accountability software edit

Propose deleting Category:Accountability software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not enough content to warrant a category. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the spirit of WP:C2F. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scareware edit

Propose merging Category:Scareware to Category:Rogue software

Nominator's rationale: Given how much overlap between the two categories there is I don't think these concepts are distinct enough to warrant both. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Continental Army soldiers from North Carolina edit

Propose deleting Category:Continental Army soldiers from North Carolina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete; this seems to be the only category by state (colony?) for Army soldiers. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative: if there is enough support for the idea, this category should be expanded and similar ones should be created too - in which case it would be a tree similar to Category:Continental Army officers from the Thirteen Colonies. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now to Category:People of North Carolina in the American Revolution and Category:Continental Army soldiers per nom, without objection to full diffusion if someone likes to go ahead with that. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Estonian numismatists edit

Propose merging Category:Estonian numismatists to Category:Estonian collectors and Category:Numismatists
Propose merging Category:Latvian numismatists to Category:Latvian historians (because missing of Category:Latvian collectors) and Category:Numismatists
Propose merging Category:Lithuanian numismatists to Category:Lithuanian collectors and Category:Numismatists
Additional one person categories. Mason (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Pakistani numismatists to Category:Pakistani collectors and Category:Numismatists
Propose merging Category:New Zealand numismatists to Category:Numismatists and Category:New Zealand collectors
Propose merging Category:Jordanian numismatists to Category:Numismatists
Propose merging Category:Slovak numismatists to Category:Numismatists
Propose merging Category:Czechoslovak numismatists to Category:Numismatists
Propose merging Category:Belarusian numismatists to Category:Numismatists

Hi! How are you? I added a couple of Belarusian numismatists, based on be-tarask:Катэгорыя:Беларускія нумізматы, where there are 11 more. Best wishes,--W (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Azerbaijani numismatists to Category:Numismatists and Category:Azerbaijani collectors
Propose merging Category:Armenian numismatists to Category:Numismatists and Category:Armenian collectors
Propose merging Category:Algerian numismatists to Category:Numismatists
Propose merging Category:Albanian numismatists to Category:Numismatists
Propose merging Category:Sri Lankan numismatists to Category:Sri Lankan collectors and Category:Numismatists
Propose merging Category:Serbian numismatists to Category:Serbian collectors and Category:Numismatists

Nominator's rationale: 1-member. Little potential to grow Estopedist1 (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge for now without prejudice per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge for now per nom. I've added the rest of the single person categories. @Nederlandse Leeuw and Estopedist1:Mason (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison I'm not sure if Estopedist would appreciate it that you changed their nomination. It makes sense, but I think it's better to ask the nominator to include other categories to their nomination than to do it yourself without their prior consent.

If Estopedist agrees, however, I also favour upmerging the additional categories for now without prejudice. NLeeuw (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1 @Smasongarrison @Nederlandse Leeuw thanks very much for the work here, I was looking at these last night but then had to go to sleep! I've done a little more tidying:
- Category:Czechoslovak numismatists is empty (with one moved to Czech
- Category:New Zealand numsimatists is empty (the one classed as numismatist is really a coin designer, so moved to that category)
- Category:Belarusian numismatists - I can't seem to locate the proposal for it?
There are some more things I had in mind that I will try to get to, today Lajmmoore (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As stated, Category:New Zealand numismatists is empty. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now, without objection to recreate any of these categories when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: by nominator. Excellent job, mates! Thanks for modifying my original nomination!--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to know you didn't mind. Personally I usually don't appreciate it when other people change my nomination without asking, but not everyone is the same way. NLeeuw (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - Categories: Belarusian, Estonian, Lithuanian and Pakistani numismatist are no longer single person categories. Lajmmoore (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They have only two or three articles so they can still be merged. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think for the discipline it's useful for catgeories that reflect more than one article to be separate, and I believe the nominations were made prior to the addition of more people to the categories Lajmmoore (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These categories also show users which articles still need to be created in the English Wikipedia based on the categories in other language Wikipedias. For example, I was surprised by how many articles we are still missing for Estonian numistamists in enwp. Obliterating the categories won't help people with that.

On a side note, I was also surprised by how few of the people in the same category in other language wps had properly filled out items in Wikidata that could be used to query numistamists from these places, even when they are in the properly titled categories in other wps. To me, this looks like a very good reason to get people together to expand and create articles on these people in enwp, filling out the categories, instead of deleting the categories. - Yupik (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Albanian, Algerian, Azerbaijani, Czechoslovak, Jordanian, Latvian, New Zealand Serbian, Slovak, Sri Lankan, but ...
Leave - Belarusian, Estonian, Lithuanian Lajmmoore (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leave... what? Leave out? Leave in? NLeeuw (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw - apologies for the late reply. My opinion is that all the numismatist by nationalisty categories should remain, but I also recognise that compromise is important, so I would would suggested that the Belarusian, Estonian and Lithuanian categories are kept (since they have more than one person in each), and the others deleted if need be Lajmmoore (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you merge the Jordanian, Slovak, Czechoslovak, Belarusian, Algerian, and Albanian numismatists, you also need to put them into categories for their nationalities, like Category:Jordanian people or a subcategory. It would be wrong to take these people out of their nationality categories entirely. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are not taken out anyway, the articles are also in nationality trees in other ways, e.g. Shpresa Gjongecaj is in Category:21st-century Albanian people. So a dual merge isn't needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 12:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Habitats Directive Species edit

Propose renaming Category:Habitats Directive Species to Category:Habitats Directive species

Nominator's rationale: While "HD" is a proper noun, "HDS" is not. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a defining characterstic. If kept, rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of ♡ | speak 19:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Marcocapelle: "Species described in year" and "IUCN vulnerable species" categories are not defining characteristics, either, but those are widely used. How are those acceptable but this isn't? For the record, I oppose deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG: the tree of Category:Species by IUCN Red List category is also very questionable, as species may easily be moved from one list to another in the course of time. At least IUCN is a global organization, while the category we are discussing is only regional. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 12:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award edit

Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Assamese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Bengali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Bodo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Dogri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in English (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Gujarati (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Hindi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Kannada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Kashmiri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Konkani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Maithili (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Malayalam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Marathi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Meitei (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Nepali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Odia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Punjabi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Rajasthani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Sanskrit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Santali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Sindhi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Tamil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Telugu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Urdu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. Corresponding lists already exist. PepperBeast (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: It looks like the nominator has no understanding of the importance of Sahitya Akademi Awards in India. While List article may exist, it is important to have this category for the recipients. The award is presented every year to writers of the most outstanding books of literary merit published in any of the 22 languages separately. Nobel prize list articles also exists, as well as categories for recipients of each categories of Nobel prizes.
-- Tinu Cherian - 11:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 12:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Its standing isn't like that of the Nobel Prize. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Volodimerovichi family edit

Propose merging Category:Volodimerovichi family to Category:Rurikids

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Rurikids. "Volodimerovichi" is rarely used in comparison to "Rurikids", also does not follow the title of the main article. Mellk (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ This category is fine as it is. It is part of larger tree of princely clans and branches of Kievan Rus'. During several renamings and recategorisations last year, it was agreed to be cautious with categorising anyone as a "Rurikid", as the historicity of Rurik (as well as Sineus and Truvor) is disputed as a possibly a founding myth (similar to Remus and Romulus etc.), and there is no concept of a "Rurikid dynasty" in historical sources until the 16th century. However, Volodimer' (Vladimir, Volodymyr, Uladzemir) is a well-known historical figure, and his family / descendants are commonly known as "Volodimerovichi" in English-language reliable sources. Just like, for example, Category:Sviatoslavichi family and Category:Olgovichi family. It is preferable if there is a main article with the same name for these families, but so far, there are only redirects to the founder of each princely branch, e.g. Olgovichi redirects to Oleg I of Chernigov, Sviatoslavichi to Sviatoslav II of Kiev, and Volodimerovichi to Vladimir the Great. It's also much better for navigation not to lump all these people into one big category, but by commonly recognised princely branches. NLeeuw (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW if the main article title is important, shouldn't this be WP:C2D to Category:Family life and children of Vladimir I? (I wouldn't be in favour of that, but that would make better sense according to the rationale). NLeeuw (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As there is no article Volodimerovichi yet, it would be helpful to add a source in the header of the category page indicating that this is a common name among historians indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Sounds like a good idea. NLeeuw (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no such branches at this stage, this comes later and we already have cats for those as they are widely accepted Rurikid branches. The term "Volodimerovichi" is used by a couple of historians instead of "Rurikids". Whether Rurik existed or not is irrelevant because the term "Rurikid" is widely used by later historians (similarly to the term "Kievan Rus" even though the state was not called as such then), hence this is POV to use an uncommon term that has not been widely accepted (yet). Mellk (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm now I'm beginning to doubt. Christian Raffensperger seems to use it for all members of princely clans of Kievan Rus' in general, as a replacement "Riurikovichi", rather than just Volodimer' and his descendants. One wonders about the predecessors of Volodimer' (Yaropolk, Sviatoslav, Igor, Oleg and the alleged Riurik), who could hardly retro-actively be called "Volodimerovichi". I'll think about it some more, I'll get back to this issue. NLeeuw (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the literature more thoroughly, and I think it might have been a mistake to name this category in this way. Since the early 2010s, scholars including Raffensperger, Ostrowski, Halperin and others have been using "Volodimerovichi" as an alternative to "R(i)urikovichi" or "R(i)urikids" altogether, and not as a specific branch within the larger clan structure of Kievan Rus', like the later -ovichi families. Theoretically, "Volodimerovichi" could still be used that way (and sometimes it is), but this is not widespread in historiography yet.

I do think it's useful to keep it as a separate category, but it's better to change the name according to our conventions. As both nom and I have suggested, it is useful to follow the main article title wherever possible. However, the current main article title is Family life and children of Vladimir I. The last part probably should be Vladimir the Great instead of Vladimir I, given the Vladimir the Great biography title. (I myself prefer Volodimer I of Kiev, which is common amongst modern scholars, but not (yet) the WP:COMMONNAME in all English-language literature). The first part is also unusual; there is no other enwiki article title with Family life and children of X. The common formula is Family of X. So per WP:TITLECON, it should be Family of Vladimir the Great.

Therefore, I would like to propose the following:

Defer decision in this CfR, and initiate Requested Move of Family life and children of Vladimir I to Family of Vladimir the Great. Done. If the RM is approved, then

Rename to Category:Family of Vladimir the Great. Does that seem like a good solution? NLeeuw (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I would prefer merge as nominated. We could hypothetically create a "family of" for every grand prince but it would just overlap with Category:Rurikids. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle Family life and children of Vladimir I is the only "Family of" main article of a (grand) prince of Kiev. So I'm not worried about having to create a "family of" category for every grand prince as long as there is no "family of" main article for every grand prince. Moreover, it arguably merits a category on account of his many wives and children, and subsequent princely branches directly and exclusively descended from him. That is quite uncommon in Kievan Rus' history. NLeeuw (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have initiated the RM at Talk:Family life and children of Vladimir I#Requested move 10 April 2024. I'll ping the relevant users. NLeeuw (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So far everyone seems to be supporting the RM. We'll see what happens. NLeeuw (talk) 06:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Main article was moved to Family of Vladimir the Great by unanimous consensus (thanks for your participation). Therefore, let's also Rename the category to Category:Family of Vladimir the Great. NLeeuw (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the article exists, with this name, does not mean a category should also exist. I still think it is rather arbitrary to split off one particular "family" from Category:Rurikids. Ultimately Rurikids is the family. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 11:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Intersex transgender people edit

Propose deleting Category:Intersex transgender people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose merging Category:Intersex gay men to Category:Gay men and Category:Intersex men
Propose merging Category:Intersex transgender men to Category:Intersex men and Category:Transgender men
Propose merging Category:Intersex transgender women to Category:Transgender women and Category:Intersex women
Propose merging Category:LGBT intersex men to Category:Intersex men and Category:LGBT men
Propose merging Category:LGBT intersex women to Category:Intersex women and Category:LGBT women
Propose merging Category:LGBT intersex people to Category:LGBT people and Category:Intersex people

Nominator's rationale: Redundant, as all intersex people are LGBT. Editor has been warned about their alternative definition of LGBTQI+ User_talk:Bohemian_Baltimore#Category:Pansexual women#Aromanticism_and_Asexuality_are_the_A_of_LGBTQIA+_and_Intersex_is_the_I_and_is_inherently_an_LGBTQIA+_identity Mason (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like the other comments, I support this merger. These categories were erroneously created and this needs to be corrected. Historyday01 (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As proposed (disclosure, I was the user that warned them about their misinformed interpretation of LGBTQIA+ at User_talk:Bohemian_Baltimore#Aromanticism_and_Asexuality_are_the_A_of_LGBTQIA+_and_Intersex_is_the_I_and_is_inherently_an_LGBTQIA+_identity). Raladic (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but manually merge because articles may already be in a subcategory of a merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with exception of "Intersex transgender men" and "Intersex transgender women," as those can be useful categories and don't have the same issue as the other proposed categories for deletion.ForsythiaJo (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the last three (LGBT intersex categories), keep the rest per ForsythiaJo. All intersex people are categorized as LGBT, but are all intersex men gay men or transgender men? The rationale doesn't apply to these categories. --MikutoH ^talk! 23:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question for the keeps, I don't think the 3x intersection is supportable in terms of category size or under EGRS. Can somebody point to some literature that supports these intersections? Mason (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison:

Dr. Small Ela Luk is an intersex transgender woman.

Interview: We talk to intersex person Dr Small Luk about her gender struggles

Kristian Ranđelović is an intersex transgender man.

Kristian Randjelovic is Championing Trans and Intersex Rights in Serbia | OutRight - LGBTIQ Human Rights

There are many more intersex transgender people around the world, and their struggle for notability is hindered by oppression faced by them. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 07:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm not disputing that these people exist or that they experience hardships, but what I haven't been able to find is academic literature that would support this as a defining intersection, which is typically the benchmark for EGRS intersections. Mason (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I strongly oppose the erasure of asexual and intersex people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender and the subsequent eradication of any categories that mention LGBT intersex and asexual people. Being both LGBT and intersex or LGBT and asexual is a relevant and defining intersection of two oppressed groups, a minority within a minority. Likewise, there are many intersex people who identify as cis/hetero or straight and many asexuals who identify as cis/heteroromantic or straight. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not erasure of people who are asexual and LGBTQIA. It is literally in the acronym already. Mason (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison Yes, it is erasure. And "LGBT" is the standard acronym used for articles and categories for Wikipedia. Not all asexual people are gay, lesbian, bi, or transgender. Gay asexual men exist. Lesbian asexual women exist. Biromantic asexuals exist. Transgender asexuals exist. Just as there are asexuals who identify as straight and/or hetero. There needs to be a way to describe and acknowledge the reality of asexuals who are LGB and/or T. A marginalized group within a marginalized group. As a compromise, I'd be fine with merging the LGBT categories but keeping the L, G, B, and T subcategories. Those are undoubtedly valid. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bohemian Baltimore: I totally agree. I hope we can gather more support and achieve consensus from a neutral point of view to oppose deletion of this of category. I left a message on your talk page for the same. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 16:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "All intersex people are LGBT" is a blatant assumption made without listening to all intersex people, and made on basis of only the acronyms LGBTI+, LGBTQI+, LGBTQIA+, LGBTQIAP+, LGBTQIAP+, LGBTQ2SIA+, LGBTQ2SIAP+, etc.

Many intersex people are not LGBTQ+, such as Betsy Driver, Lisa Lee Dark, Sally Gross, Esther Morris Leidolf, Dan Christian Ghattas, Sarah Gronert, Phoebe Hart, Bonnie Hart.

Bonnie Hart has herself said:

"I’m Bonnie Hart, I’m a woman, and I’m kind of straight-ish. Being intersex has nothing to do with gender identities or presentations, or sexual orientation. Intersex people identify as female, male, both, and all sorts of identities between the binary. It’s a lived experience"
— at the 2014 Sydney Mardi Gras Parade^[1]

The LGBQIAP+ acronym includes only those intersex people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer (non-binary, genderfluid, agender, polygender, pangender, and so on) and/or polyamorous, asexual, graysexual, ace-spec, aromantic, grayromantic, aro-spec, and so on. Intersex people who are straight, monoamorous, cisgender, binary, and/or allosexual and so on, and rest of the non-LGBTQ+ intersex people have constantly stated again and again that they are not lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer, and hence they are not LGBTQ+.

Just like there are many overlaps between and among all groups of people everywhere, there are many overlaps between groups of LGBTQ+ people and non-LGBTQ+ people, whether they are intersex or endosex, cisgender or transgender, binary or non-binary or agender. All ethically good people's sexualities, biological sex, and genders must be respected. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 09:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CrafterNova: what you arguing is that Intersex categories should not automatically have LGBT parents. Whether one agrees with that or not, for the merge discussion it is not really relevant. The merge proposal is about avoiding trivial intersections. E.g. there does not have to be a micro category for people who are intersex and gay man simultaneously, instead articles may well be put in an intersex category and in a gay men category independently of each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: There do have to be subcategories and microcategories. There are many examples where secondary, tertiary, and quaternary categories are required, such as:
Tertiary categories: Category:Nigerian women film directors‎, Category:Ethiopian women fashion designers‎, Category:Kenyan LGBT artists

Quaternary categories: Category:2nd-century BC Chinese women writers and so on.

The people, whose articles are in such subcategories and microcategories, have criteria that makes them eligible to be placed in such categories.

These are not "trivial intersections", rather intersections of various forms of oppression and discrimination, various professions, eras and time periods, nationalities, genders, biological sex, sexualities, etc.
Representation of people at these intersections is important, especially people who face long-term discrimination based on genders, biological sex, sexualities, nationalities, race, ethnicities, and so on. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 07:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This sounds like we categorize just because we can, not because it serves any purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Marcocapelle: People's recognition and representation are some of the purposes of such categories. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 07:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @CrafterNova: no that is not the purpose. The goal of categories is to allow easy navigation between related articles for readers, and by creating many layers in categories we merely make navigation more difficult. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Marcocapelle: by creating many layers in categories we merely make navigation more difficult.
  
  Yes, and Category:Intersex transgender people is just another layer in categories.
  
  How is navigating such categories difficult for readers?
  
  What is the purpose of quaternary categories such as Category:2nd-century BC Chinese women writers?
  
  According to your understanding of easy navigation of categories, wouldn't quaternary categories be more difficult to navigate than teritary categories such as Category:Intersex transgender people in this case?
  
  Readers can navigate through secondary, tertiary and quarternary categories just as easily as all categories. Ease of navigation does not depend on subcategorization and microcategorization. Rather, ease of navigation depends on accessibility features, and whether category naming criteria, intersection criteria, and rest of relevant criteria are met or not. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 07:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Readers do not have to navigate in the tree at all if they find a sufficient amount of content in the category that they find at the bottom of the article that they are reading, it then suffices to select every article in that category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep transgender intersex people category (at least this one isn't a triple intersection, as much as Category:Intersex non-binary people isn't too). I'm neutral on merging the others. --MikutoH ^talk! 22:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CrafterNova and Bohemian Baltimore. 59.152.195.28 (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 11:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indian massacres edit

Propose merging Category:Indian massacres to Category:Massacres of indigenous North Americans

Nominator's rationale: merge/redirect, it looks like the scope of the two categories coincides. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom Mason (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge given that main article is List of Indian massacres in North America. I don't think that title is very helpful though, as the scope is both of and by "Indians". But that should be discussed at its talk page, not here. NLeeuw (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there have been massacres in India... so the category name is ambiguous. This category name should be salted, so that India cannot use this category name either. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that "Indian" is ambiguous, so I'd rather stick to merge as nominated rather than reverse merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcocapelle (talk • contribs) 06:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose full merge because half the contents are "massacres by" rather than "massacres of". Partial merge and disambiguate between the merge target, the two "massacres by" categories, and the unrelated Category:Massacres in India. The subcats are now part of the appropriate military history categories Category:Battles involving Native Americans and Category:Indigenous conflicts in Canada, and it's WP:SHAREDNAME that puts them together. – Fayenatic London 15:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge on the grounds "Indigenous" should be capitalized in accordance with WP:INDIGENOUS and MOS:RACECAPS. --ARose Wolf 11:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a reason to oppose the merge. If you think Category:Massacres of indigenous North Americans should be renamed, you can just nominate it separately. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The target has now been nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can someone tell me what is the difference between Category:Massacres of indigenous North Americans and Category:Massacres of Native Americans? (Please ping me when replying - TIA). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: "Native Americans" is used as in Native Americans in the United States. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 11:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States edit

Propose renaming Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States to Category:Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes

Nominator's rationale The category should be renamed to match the main article, List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For sure "Native American tribes" is clearer than "tribes in the United States". However "unrecognized" is clearer than "self-identify" because tribes that are recognized also self-identify as such but that is obviously not in scope here. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle They aren't tribes though. They are organizations. To incorrectly call them "tribes" implies that they are indeed tribes but are merely waiting to be recognized. That's a POV. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed -

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I am writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed amendment that seeks to rename the category “Unrecognized tribes in the United States” to “Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes.” This change not only misrepresents our tribe but also undermines the historical and cultural recognition we have long held.

The Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe of Wampanoag Nation has a well-documented history in Plymouth, Bourne, Massachusetts dating back thousands of years. We still have care and custody of our sacred places, burial grounds and our 1838 Meetinghouse, one of 3 built for the Tribe after the arrival of the colonizers. Our continuous presence and stewardship of these lands are recognized by historical records,deeds and treaties and so on. Additionally, our status is acknowledged by the two MA federal tribes, the Commission on Indian Affairs, Plymouth, Bourne and the Commonwealth which affirms our legitimacy beyond mere self-identification.

The proposed renaming of the category on Wikipedia is not only inaccurate of many but also insulting. It disregards the deep cultural and ancestral ties we have to our land—ties that are integral to our identity and existence. Labeling us as an organization that self-identifies as a Native American tribe fails to recognize these ties and the acknowledgment we have received from authoritative entities.

Mislabeling our tribe and any other legitimate Tribes in this manner can lead to the spread of hate, misinformation and further marginalization. It is crucial that platforms like Wikipedia, which serve as a global source of information, ensure the accuracy and integrity of the content they host.

Tribes without legislative recognition often face significant administrative hurdles to gain federal recognition, and being labeled as "self-identified" can add to these challenges by casting doubt on our legitimacy.

We face persistent disparagement on platforms like Wiki All the while we are still walking the path to recognition.

The lack of recognition does not protect tribes from discrimination or persecution, and the term "self-identified" can perpetuate these issues by invalidating their identity.

The term "self-identified" can be problematic for tribes like the Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe, especially in states like Massachusetts that lack a legislative recognition process, for several reasons: diminished sovereignty, historical erasure, legal implications, administrative challenges, discrimination and persecution.

It's important for platforms like Wikipedia to use terminology that accurately reflects the status and history of tribes, especially those with longstanding recognition by other tribes and federal entities, rather than terms that can lead to misinterpretation and misrepresentation of their identity and rights. The Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe's situation exemplifies the need for careful consideration of how tribes are categorized and described in public and legal contexts.

We urge you to consider the implications of this change and to seek a category name that respects and reflects the recognized status of tribes like the Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe. We are open to dialogue and collaboration to find a solution that honors the truth of our history and existence. Goldendragonfly77 (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per WP:C2D. NLeeuw (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think that this rename has major negative connotations that are unwarrented. Category:Unrecognized tribes does the same thing without the connotation. Mason (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What negative connotations? "Unrecognized tribes" doesn't work because these organizations are not actually tribes. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mason and Marcocapelle. While I understand the idea behind the "self-id" part, I think it should be on a case-by-case basis, rather than a blanket statement on all unrecognized groups. Self-ID also carries highly negative connotations, as Mason stated, and I don't think that warrants being a blanket statement. "Unrecognized" is also by far the most common term in literature, afaik, however I don't have any data to back that up. PersusjCP (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is self-id a negative? It is simply describing that we don't have a citation to support their claims. I disagree with the statement that recognized tribes self-identify. The process to gain recognition is rigorous and recognized tribes, at least those federally recognized, have to document their continuous direct connection with the original tribes that were here prior to and during colonial contact. With no direct proof connecting them they are therefore self-identifying. They may very well share a heritage and be descendants but they cannot verify by showing a direct connection. That is only a negative because people on Wikipedia and even some of those who self-identify are trying to push that perspective to distort reality. At no point are we saying they are "pretendians". That would require reliable sources stating it through investigation. Self-identify does not equal "pretendian". --ARose Wolf 13:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying someone "identifies" as something vs "being" something very much does have a negative connotation. It implies it is only in their head. There is even a famous transphobic joke (I identify as an attack helicopter/whatever) about how one's self-ID is meaningless. PersusjCP (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot declare every one of these groups to be tribes; that's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Is there a term you see as more neutral than "identifies"? I don't mind if "self" is removed. Re: transphobia, a Native American tribe is a collective political identity, while a person's gender and sex is an individual identity; the two concepts are completely different from each other. Yuchitown (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
It's wordy, but I would think along the lines of "claims descent/to be the successor from historical tribe/the aboriginal ___ people" or something like that. Maybe "Organizations that claim descent from Native American tribes." Since "descent"or being the "successor" is generally the more politically accurate idea to what modern day tribes are to historical entities. PersusjCP (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry, but I believe that would be original research since not all the groups claim descent from Native American tribes, like the Una Nation of Mixed-Bloods from Eugene, Oregon, who see themselves as a completely new entity (that is somehow still Native American). Just as a reminder, the corresponding article is List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes, so this proposal isn't charting new territory but trying to bring the category inline with the article. Yuchitown (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah that's a good point, I forgot about them... Okay, I support the current/future wording of "Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes," unless someone else can think of a more neutral, all-applicable wording. Maybe alternatively: get rid of the "self" in "self-identify," but I don't know if that makes it more neutral. Or like, "Orgainzations not recognized as Native American tribes," although that's kind of broad. Unfortunately I think because it is such a contentious topic that it is hard to be truly "neutral" in this. PersusjCP (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how "self-identifying" could be regarded as problematic, as if they could be somehow "delusional" (although I must say this is the first time I've heard it having any negative connotation).

But so can "unrecognised", right? Doesn't this imply that that these people are in fact tribes, but the U.S. government is just being 'stubborn, uncooperative and discriminatory' in 'refusing' to recognise them as such? The word "unrecognised" arguably carries a subtle WP:POV in it in favour of recognition, and arguably an implied criticism against the government that has so far not extended it to the applicants. NLeeuw (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All we can substantiate is that these organizations have collectively have identified as being Native American tribes. We cannot go further and do not have that authority; an outside authority having nothing to do with Wikipedia would have to make that distinction. Saying they identify does not mean none of the groups have Native American ancestry or that none of the groups are respected as successors of historical political tribes. But to collectively say all these groups are "tribes" is WP:OR and beyond our capacity or what we can support through published sources. Yuchitown (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

That does not solve the problem that recognized tribes also identify as being Native American tribes. The question is what distinguishes the two groups and the answer is that one group is recognized and the other group not. Not recognized is the key descriptor here. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above the article is already named List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. There are already List of federally recognized tribes in the contiguous United States, List of Alaska Native tribal entities, and State-recognized tribes in the United States, which are cross linked in the introduction of List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. Several federally recognized tribes are also state-recognized, but the general pattern is to go from broadest category into more specific classifications. Yuchitown (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes but this does not address the objection. The objection is not about recognized, it is about unrecognized. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  What about "Organizations not recognized as Native American tribes" as I said in another thread here? The only problem is pretty much this applies to anything except federally-and-state recognized tribes, but maybe it is clear enough with context. PersusjCP (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That would include almost every organization on the planet. I’m not being facetious. “Identifying as Native American tribes” is a necessary component. Yuchitown (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I've watched this discussion for a few days and tried to understand or see all the perspectives. I disagree with the negative connotation many are trying to place on self-identification and I think that term should defined somewhere on Wikipedia much like other terms have. The fact that it can be negative or potentially be negative shouldn't be considered because anything can be negative depending on who is defining it. What we should be looking at is the literal meaning of self-identification. These entities are the ultimate source of their identification. I know, some will say, The most notable ones did get recognized by reliable sources or government resolutions. But ultimately the source of their legitimacy when you dig into it is the subject entity itself. If they had proof of their connection to the original people they would have gotten federal recognition. So we are left with an entity that identifies itself as Native American. This may be true and it may not be true, it's still self-identification at its foundation. I support the change in title on that basis. Calling them "unrecognized tribes" places a legitimacy on these groups that cannot be verified. It is wholly non-neutral for Wikipedia to be the one conferring legitimacy. Many don't even call themselves tribes. --ARose Wolf 12:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just following up, "self-identified" is as broad and neutral as possible because a vast range of entities are in this category, including many with verified American Indian ancestry such as the Verona Band of Alameda County, Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, and the Yuchi (who are almost all enrolled in the Muscogee (Creek) Nation). Yuchitown (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per what Mason and Marcocapelle said, which is that self-ID can have a highly negative connotation and "unrecognized" is the common term in literature. I've already encountered the issue of self-ID violating BLP in an article. If the category was changed as proposed, it's likely we'd have many more BLP issues in individual articles about people. This may seem like a minor word change, but there are strong negative connotations to saying someone who is Native "self identifies," because the inference is that they are Native in name only or falsely claiming to be Native. A change like this will impact countless articles covered by BLP because articles about Native people typically link to their tribe's article. --SouthernNights (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus in any discussion you can point to that says "self-identification" is considered a BLP violation. If I remove anything that I believe "can" be considered negative from every BLP on Wikipedia how long do you think it would take before I was community banned? Yet that's what you did based on your own personal opinion, not consensus. That is the worst obvious and most ridiculous example of POV pushing I have ever seen and quite frankly what I consider very much a misuse of the admin tools. It calls into question your neutrality, not on a personal level because we are all biased to some degree, but your willingness to use the tools you were granted to support your bias despite other good faith editors objecting. --ARose Wolf 13:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLP guidelines state that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced — whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable — must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." In the case of the article I'm referring to, the recent edits that her tribe supposedly self-identifies absolutely qualified as such which is why I removed them. And I'm hardly the only one who sees it this way -- several editors raised concerns in this very category discussion about such descriptions being seen as negative. For more perspectives on this topic, check out this 2021 research paper published in the American Sociological Association journal (pdf download). Finally, your personal attacks here cross a definite line and violate Wikipedia policy. I strongly advise you do not continue with such attacks. SouthernNights (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Her self-identification as Lipan Apache is not unsourced. We know that her non-profit organization has neither state nor federal recognition. That is a fact, not an opinion. Their identity as a Native group comes purely from their own self-identification, not from government recognition. You referring to "her tribe" is itself a POV and also factually untrue, because it isn't actually a tribe. It's a non-profit organization. There's nothing supposed about it. That's what it is. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If my statements were attacks then so were yours when you attacked good faith editors by declaring us POV pushers. What does that make you pushing your personal point of view? --ARose Wolf 12:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are a number of reasons why this conversation about Native American identity should not be renamed self-identify. Here are the top four in my mind:

1. The term self-identify as proposed is unmistakably negative, intentionally so. It’s negative in that it’s divisive, exclusionary, and demeaning. It attacks a significant part of Indian Country, like Lily Gladstone, by claiming they’re not real Native Americans, only pretending to be ones (of course there’s a page for that). No, it’s not racism, certainly not colorism. It’s crude chauvinism. It says that on one hand there are normal real Native Americans and on the other there are abnormal people who illegitimately and with no more foundation than their own volition identify as Native Americans, on no better basis than folks who identify as attack helicopters (credit Persus). Everybody hates attack helicopter wannabes. Native American, normal, positive. Self-identify Native American, abnormal, negative. The dots connecting the term as proposed to its pejorative roots couldn’t be drawn closer.

2. It effaces the concept of indigeneity. It says Native American is an identity established, not by self-identity, but by the US govt through a CDIB card. It says that Native Americans are creations not of thousands of years of independent existence and identity, but of the power that recently in their history came to occupy their land. Further, that occupying power can take back the identity only it, nobody and nothing else, can confer, as it has demonstrated in the past it can do.

3. The question is much bigger than this discussion setting can possibly do it justice. It’s not just a matter of slightly adjusting the name of a WP page. It’s a matter of possibly stumbling into a big philosophical and political decision due to a slight of hand; that self-identity is just a clearer way of saying not acknowledge by the US. No scholarly citations. No peer-reviewed article(s), it would never cut muster in that environment-- that's why there's none (I checked). Just the argument that, you know, it’s neater to say self-identify than non-recognized. And should it be done, a micro-minority POV has been imposed on a long-settled question of who decides who's Native American. From that point on, Native American identity means US citizenship and a CDIB. Born and raised in Paris and just found out you had a % grandparent with a CDIB, you're in. Born and raised in a historical Indigenous community in, say, Guatemala or Canada and migrated to an enclave of your community in Miami or LA where everybody still speaks your native language, you're out. Of course, it's a settled question that Indian Country is no bigger than the United States and Native American identity is entirely a Unitedstatean question. Not.

4. It goes against a vast and longstanding consensus on the concept of indigenous identity. This discussion has already been had over a much longer period, involving many many more participants, in a much more transparent and deliberative fashion. And a consensus was reached. Then instead of being shelved or secreted away, it was announced to the world and has been in place for years, known today as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UN). This widely publicized consensus speaks directly against the proposal to change the name of this page by declaring that indigenous identity is necessarily self-identify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsideh (talk • contribs) 05:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC) There are more, but I'll stop here for now. Tsideh.:Tsideh Tsideh (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC) — Tsideh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Could you share where on Wikipedia this conversation took place? “It goes against a vast and longstanding consensus on the concept of indigenous identity”: I’ve never seen such a conversation on Wikipedia. Yuchitown (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't see any BLP violation or anything objectively negative about the term self-identify. I do see a big NPOV problem with the current category name as it uses the word "tribes" suggesting in Wikivoice that these are actual tribes in the context of indigenous American tribes. Doug Weller talk 11:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that is my biggest concern even more than the self-identity argument that seems to have developed. Some of these are organizations that have filed for 501C3 status with the same government they decry as holding them back from recognition. While some are heritage groups trying to bring awareness to Native American topics. Others may have legitimate claims. Still others are pretendian organizations seeking financial gain on the backs of Native Americans. The one thing that is common between them all is they cannot provide evidence which link them to the sovereign nations they claim to be part of with any continuity. Had they been able to do so they would have gained the political recognition from the US government to be able to speak for the respective nation they associate with. Without a doubt Wikipedia should not legitimize them in Wiki-voice as Native American/American Indian tribes, recognized or unrecognized, self-identified or otherwise and even if reliable sources that are not owned by legitimately recognized nations identify them as such. --ARose Wolf 17:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. The proposed renaming would result in very awkward-sounding categories that thousands of readers and article subjects could find to be inaccurate, biased, or even offensive.

"Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes" is not wording that is typically used in academic literature.

Federal recognition is a controversial topic that should be discussed in the article text itself. It should not be forced into category names.

Category names should be based on serious non-biased anthropological and sociological research, and should not be based on decisions made by bureaucratic governments that may not always be fair.

I primarily focus on ethnic groups in the Middle East and Balkans, and categorizing thousands of individuals and entire clans as "self-identified" would be extremely offensive. For example, what if Serbia, Iran, or others do not officially recognize certain ethnic groups that Western anthropologists would certainly recognize as genuine ethnic or ethnoreligious groups? For example, if we were to label Yazidis or Alevis as self-identified minorities, that would be completely unencyclopedic, POV, and totally unsuitable for Wikipedia.

There are also many unrecognized ethnic groups in China, since the Chinese (PRC) government officially recognizes only 56 ethnic groups. Should we also categorize every single individual from those unrecognized minorities as "self-identified minorities"? Certainly not, as that would be very awkward, controversial, and out of line with what Wikipedia categories should really be all about.

Another good reason to oppose this renaming is the WP:CONCISE guideline. We shouldn't make category names overly long and complicated.

The same should apply to Native Americans, First Nations, and other indigenous peoples in North America.

I would also suggest taking a look at this book which discusses this issue in detail: Forgotten Tribes: Unrecognized Indians and the Federal Acknowledgment Process.

Equiyamnaya (talk) 06:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NDNID was written by members of the Indigenous peoples of North America Wikiproject. It was thoughtfully constructed and thoroughly discussed to aid non-Native editors on Wikipedia gain an understanding of what being Native American is. Native American identity is not a matter of race or ethnicity. There is not a unified "Native American" ethnic identity. So the ethnic groups mentioned would not be an accurate comparison. This should not be a one-size-fits-all approach. --ARose Wolf 13:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To label all of the entities in the category tribes is definitely original research. The article was renamed to accurately and honestly include groups such as the Kaweah Indian Nation, Ani-Stohini/Unami, and Vinyard Indian Settlement as well as the Mississippi Choctaw Indian Federation, Brothertown Indians, and Verona Band of Alameda County (i.e. those with no demonstrated connection to historic Native American communities to those with well-documented connections). I've cited Miller's book, but it was also written in 2006; many of these groups have formed since then. This lengthy discussion will probably result in "No Consensus"; however, all of the editors who actively contribute to and improve Native American topics on Wikipedia have voted to "Support" the renaming. Yuchitown (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any opposition to using "Native American" instead of "in the United States" so we seem to have a minimal consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would absolutely be opposed to changing the category to "Category:Unrecognized Native American tribes" which is what seems to be implied here. --ARose Wolf 12:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 11:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Mason and Marco. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism by year edit

Propose deleting Category:1514 in Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:1576 in Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:1624 in Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:1657 in Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:1735 in Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:1749 in Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:1773 in Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:1789 in Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:1795 in Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:1796 in Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:1510s in Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:1550s in Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:1570s in Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:1580s in Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:1620s in Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:1650s in Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:1690s in Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:1700s in Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:1730s in Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:1740s in Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:1760s in Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:1770s in Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:1780s in Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:1790s in Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: A previous discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_23#Category:Post–World_War_II_synagogue_architecture brought to light that there was a coding error in {{Synagogues completed in year category header}}. After fixing, synagogue categories by year only populate "Judaism in 19XX" from 1800. Likewise, {{Synagogues completed in decade category header}} now only populates the decade categories in Judaism by decade from 1700. I suggest moving the decade cutoff to 1800, and making similar changes to {{Jewish organization establishment category}} and {{Jewish organization establishment category by decade}} with the same cut-off date. This will empty the nominated categories, as there are no other contents. I looked through Pogroms and categorised some missing ones in Judaism by date, but did not find enough to make the nominated categories useful. – Fayenatic London 11:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this will leave three subcategories and two articles in the 18th century so it does not require very granular diffusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shipwrecks of North Asia edit

Propose merging Category:Shipwrecks of North Asia to Category:Shipwrecks of Asia and Category:History of Siberia

Nominator's rationale: merge, currently only one article in the category, which is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, in the absence of humorous comments about shipwrecks and navigation. – Fayenatic London 11:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Hazard to navigation. Herostratus (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British people by descent edit

Propose renaming Category:People from Northern Ireland by ethnic or national origin to Category:People from Northern Ireland by descent
Propose renaming Category:Scottish people by ethnic or national origin by Category:Scottish people by descent
Propose renaming Category:Welsh people by ethnic or national origin to Category:Welsh people by descent

Nominator's rationale: rename for consistency, the subcategories are "by descent". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cornish people by descent edit

Propose merging Category:Cornish people by descent to Category:Cornish people

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional animals by taxon edit

Propose merging Category:Fictional animals by taxon to Category:Fictional animals by type

Nominator's rationale: No reason has been given why this unnecessarily WP:NARROWCAT has been created. It only contains two taxons which is not enough to justify an entire separate category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category:Fictional animals by taxon, but merge Category:Fictional invertebrates and Category:Fictional vertebrates into Category:Fictional animals by taxon. AHI-3000 (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately doing that is just shuffling around deck chairs and makes no real difference. But I think the more longstanding categories (since 2006) should take precedence over your new 2024 category, not things be merged just because you want your category to be prominent. You have just stated an opinion but not provided a reason to back why taxon is better than the vertebrate/invertebrate split. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both the nominated and the alt proposal could be an improvement, but I prefer the alternative, in order to keep taxa together as a recognizable attrribute. I have tagged the two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American politicians who are the most recent member of their party to hold statewide office edit

Propose deleting Category:American politicians who are the most recent member of their party to hold statewide office (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Overcategorization. This is not a defining characteristic for any of these individuals, it's trivial, and narrow. Its also temporary. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Let’s consider what Wikipedia:Overcategorization defines as non-trivial characteristics: “For biographical articles, it is usual to categorize by such aspects as their career, origins, and major accomplishments. In contrast, someone's tastes in food, their favorite holiday destination, or the number of tattoos they have would be considered trivia.” It is indisputably a major accomplishment and notable career event to have been the very last member of a political party to win a statewide election. These people were alone and remain alone as members of their parties with statewide power, reflecting ideological transitions and resource disparities. That is why this trait is noted in the introduction of almost every biography under the category. It does not remotely compare with arbitrary preferences or traits, and you have failed to elaborate about why it should. You have essentially conceded that there is no formal rule whatsoever against categories which are so-called “temporary.” Of course elections and generational turnover mean that pages will eventually be swapped out. In many cases in this category, this will likely take years to decades - underscoring how the category is illustrative of partisan leans and relevant to understanding both the unique "maverick" identities of some politicians as well as the electoral geography of the United States. Wikipedia is updated to reflect current events. This category, along with many other categories and biographies, is no different. Finally, it is hardly narrow to cover 23 politicians from 23 22 different states and multiple decades. 1Matt20 (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as recentism. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Guido Gezelle edit

Propose deleting Category:Guido Gezelle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This epon category has the poet and the one of their colleagues. That's not helpful for navigation, considering that they already link to each other. Mason (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OCASSOC. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects edit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia edit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia → Wikipedia (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I agree with the arguments presented in 2015. NotAGenious (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Red Room edit

New Red Room → Red Room 2 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
New Red Room The Broken Dolls → Red Room 2 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
New Red Room: The Broken Dolls → Red Room 2 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Red Secret Room 2 → Red Room 2 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Far too ambiguous; a redirect from new (movie name) to the movie's sequel probably isn't necessary. Throw New Red Room The Broken Dolls and New Red Room: The Broken Dolls in there as unnecessary, and Red Secret Room 2 as no sources discuss the movie with this title. I'll try to learn the batch nomination thing. NotAGenious (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese title is New Red Room: The Broken Dolls. The article about the film on the Italian Wikipedia is Red Secret Room 2.--LadybugStardust (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harley Quinn (pornographic actor) edit

Harley Quinn (pornographic actor) → Bailey Jay (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I can't determine why this redirects here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airport route edit

Airport route → MRT Line 1 (Dhaka Metro Rail)#Airport route (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Airport Route → MRT Line 1 (Dhaka Metro Rail)#Airport route (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

It's impossible to associate this term with a single article, and I doubt a dab will be useful either. Propose retargeting to somewhere like Airport#Access_and_onward_travel or deleting. NotAGenious (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone merge Airport Route with this nomination? NotAGenious (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WorldAntiSpy edit

WorldAntiSpy → Rogue security software (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PSGuard edit

PSGuard → Rogue security software (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fatthew Randy edit

Fatthew Randy → Fat Randy (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unclear why this redirect is needed - there's a listing at urban dictionary but no sources referring to the dab page entries using this name. NotAGenious (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not mentioned anywhere. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, if you wish to delete it, that is OK with me. I made a mistake, thank you for checking with me. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Independent MPs edit

Template:Independent MPs → Template:Independent MPs in Canada (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Template:Independent MPs in Canada used to be at this pagename until I moved it to clarify its scope and avoid potential confusion with other navboxes, e.g. Template:Independent MPs in the United Kingdom. Now that the Canadian navbox is transcluded directly through its new name, I suggest that the old name be deleted to avoid any future mix-ups, e.g. being added to a British MP's biography by mistake. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 20:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate make a template-space dab page (yes, those exist). It would show an error message when transcluded. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the IP editor who says to disambiguate (although the resulting disambiguation page could potentially get very long, couldn't it?) Bwrs (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, the only other relevant template is the UK one linked above. In most other countries with members of parliament, laws forbid anyone running or sitting in parliament without affiliation with a registered party, or independents sit so rarely that a template is moot. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! I didn't notice the word “independent”; probably all the independent members of US Congress and independent sitting state legislators in the United States put together would fit in a single infobox, as they are so rare. All the more reason to disambiguate. Bwrs (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, US legislators are not "members of parliament". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as noted above there are only two Independent MPs templates, Canada and United Kingdom. The redirect already has zero transclusions, deleting it is cleaner than a template dab - they exist but they're clunky. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for a disambiguation - nobody will expect either country-specific template to be at this title. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate or Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kafka-trapping edit

Kafka-trapping → List of fallacies#Kafkatrapping (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Kafka trap → List of fallacies#Kafkatrapping (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

List of fallacies#Kafkatrapping no longer exists because "Kafkatrapping" isn't a recognised fallacy described in the literature about logic. The list violated WP:LISTGLOSSARY because "Kakfatrapping" does not have a Wikipedia article (and does not qualify for one), just a Wiktionary entry. There has been a prior deletion discussion for Kafka-trap which ended with User:Guarapiranga undoing my removal of List of fallacies#Kafkatrapping and starting a Talk page discussion, which involved getting a third perspective. Since that third perspective was emphatically in favour of removing the entry, I've removed it again. MartinPoulter (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nutrient Recovery and Reuse edit

Nutrient Recovery and Reuse → Resource recovery (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention of "Nutrient" at the target page. Was created as a redirect without mention at the target. Afterward, the creator proceeded to link this term in the See Also sections of high profile pages that had very stringent connections to the "Recovery and Reuse of Nutrients". Seems to be an effort to establish notoriety to this term, which appears nowhere on Wikipedia in an academic context, sans the randomly piped See Also mentions. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 07:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonstop Sampler edit

Nonstop Sampler → Bonez MC discography (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention of Nonstop Sampler at the target discography, does not seem to be a likely search term without any content pertinent to it. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 07:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not mentioned anywhere. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open Floor edit

Open Floor → 5Rhythms (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No information about "Open Floor" at the target, which is noted in the edit history as being an "entirely different school than 5Rhythms". Was blanked for a moment in 2021, but was restored as a redirect due to no content being added. In any case, this title is ambiguous with Open floor plan which is a redirect to the article of Open plan, who's content is directly pertinent to open floors. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open Floor is a style of modern dance, as is 5Rhythms. The two are not the same so the redirect (from a dance point of view) should go to Modern dance, with a brief mention of the approach to be added there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 07:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any mention in enwiki of this capitalisation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OperaMail.com edit

OperaMail.com → Fastmail (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Neither Opera mail nor "OperaMail" are mentioned at the target, much less its supposed .com domain. This domain currently exists on the web as a redirect to opera dot com, and as for Wikipedia, without a mention of operamail this does not seem to be the most helpful currently. (Even if it's a mail site that was acquired by Opera from 2010 to 2013. Notably, this redirect was created in 2011 when the "opera" description was accurate, but Fastmail became independent again very shortly after and has been so for the last decade.) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 07:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hekt edit

Hekt → Bohlen–Pierce scale (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at the target. External searches don't pull up anything related to this scale, although it appears to be an alternative name for Heqet, says Google. However, it does not appear at Heqet (our page on Wikipedia uses "Heket", but Google's definitely uses "Hekt"). In any case, "Hekt" is short enough to have a surplus of other mentions on Wikipedia as a word, appearing across the board in terms of viability as a redirect. Also sometimes short for "Hektor" and several others. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per this source, Heinz Bohlen, one of the namesakes of the Bohlen–Pierce scale, described the hekt in this paper (cited in the original German as source 2 in the article) as an alternative measurement to a cent, such that 100 hekts divide each step in the Bohlen–Pierce scale. I found a couple of other sources using the hekt measurement searching Google scholar: [40] and [41]. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be open to disambiguation to Hektor and Bohlen–Pierce scale, as well as Heqet if sources can be found establishing that Hekt is an alternative transliteration. It also appears that there is a HEKT cell line that might be related to HEK 293 cells. If it just ends up being Hektor and BP scale, then I would support keeping with a hatnote to Hektor. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as ambiguous. Mention may be added to the target using voorts' sources however. Jay 💬 11:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 07:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qwik Crisp edit

Qwik Crisp → Susceptor (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 20:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 07:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not mentioned anywhere. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Na Sé Contaethe edit

Na Sé Contaethe → Northern Ireland (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not a plausible search term. Also not mentioned in target (I tried ctrl+f/F3) JuniperChill (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 07:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not mentioned anywhere. Also delete Na Se Contaethe. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

El Loco (Los de Abajo song) edit

El Loco (Los de Abajo song) → Los de Abajo (band) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 07:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unverified without a mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

El Loco (wrestler) edit

El Loco (wrestler) → Sami Zayn (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 07:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Various MAR characters (2) edit

Phantom (MÄR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Phantom (MAR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Halloween (MÄR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Halloween (MAR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Peta (MÄR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Peta (MAR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Chimera (MÄR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Chimera (MAR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Rolan (MÄR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Rolan (MAR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Ian (MÄR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Ian (MAR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Ash (MÄR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Ash (MAR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Candice (MÄR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Candice (MAR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Diana (MÄR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Diana (MAR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Rapunzel (MÄR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Rapunzel (MAR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Kouga (MÄR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Kouga (MAR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Pano (MÄR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Pano (MAR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Snow (MÄR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Snow (MAR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Princess Snow → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Loco (MAR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Loco (MÄR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Discussed at target ones or twice in passing but without enough substance to warrant a redirect. Most of these have prior article history but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of MÄR characters establishes sufficient agreement from AfD that there's no need to restore. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 07:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Various MAR characters edit

Team MÄR → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Team MAR → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The War Games (MAR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The War Games (MÄR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The war games (MÄR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The war games (MAR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Zonnens (MÄR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Zonnens (MAR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Ghost Chess (MÄR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Ghost Chess (MAR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Kaldea's Orb → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Vidar (MÄR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Vidar (MAR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Magical Lou → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Galian → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Pinocchio (MÄR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Pinocchio (MAR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target at all. Most of these have prior article history but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of MÄR characters establishes sufficient agreement from AfD that there's no need to restore. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 07:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nanashi (MÄR) edit

Nanashi (MÄR) → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Separating this out from the below because there is an episode of the manga titled just "Nanashi" so this could justifiably be thought of as a redirect for that. But really people typing this are likely to be looking for the character, on whom there's not enough substance to warrant a redirect. Has prior history but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of MÄR characters establishes sufficient agreement from AfD that there's no need to restore. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 06:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor characters in MÄR edit

List of minor characters in MÄR → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
List of minor characters in MAR → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
List of MÄR characters → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
List of MAR characters → MÄR#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The target contains no such list. Both of these have prior article history but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of MÄR characters establishes sufficient agreement from AfD that there's no need to restore. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that nobody has imported any information in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, perhaps that can be done by somebody if they can provide an attribute to it while also suggesting it to the other MÄR articles as I had suggested in the AFD that was mentioned. Any objections? Rtkat3 (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 06:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Penny station edit

Penny station → Jasper–Prince Rupert train (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unlikely a flag stop is the primary topic for this generic term. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not only is this the primary topic according to my research, it's the the only notable topic with this exact name - the only other thing that might be notable (but I'm not convinced it actually is) is called Copper Penny Station and there is no content about that on en.wp anyway. Additionally, this redirect is the result of a BLAR so it should be taken to AfD if you want it deleted, but as previous AfDs for Canadian flag stops resulted in a consensus to redirect we'd likely be back here anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 06:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rape of Nancheng edit

Rape of Nancheng → Zhejiang-Jiangxi campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete: neither rape nor Nancheng are mentioned in the article, the term has virtually no views and I only found it when trying to find other articles known as 'Rape of X'. I did contact the creator of the redirect but he didn't respond Traumnovelle (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Doolittle Raid#Zhejiang-Jiangxi campaign, where it is discussed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny cochrane edit

Jonny cochrane → Johnnie Cochran (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

honestly, i feel like it could refer to both Johnnie Cochran or Johnny Cochrane. Probably even more to the latter since the redirect uses the exact last name. Okmrman (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate with links to both. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for 2 errors (from whichever target is intended). There's no justification for any further disambiguation: both targets have a hatnote. 16:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Shhhnotsoloud (talk)

SuperCops Vs Super Villains edit

Task Force:Khatarnak Khalnayak → SuperCops Vs Super Villains (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Khoonkhar - SuperCops Vs Supervillains → SuperCops Vs Super Villains (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
SuperCops vs Supervillains → SuperCops Vs Super Villains (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Hum Ne Li Hai...Shapath → SuperCops Vs Super Villains (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Hum Ne Li Hai- Shapath → SuperCops Vs Super Villains (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Supercops vs Supervillains → SuperCops Vs Super Villains (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Hum Ne Li Hai - Shapath → SuperCops Vs Super Villains (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Misspelled alt titles. Someonewhoisusinginternet (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 12 edit

Windows 12 → Microsoft Windows (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Windows 12 is a purported future version of Windows that hasn't really been officially announced by Microsoft yet. There is also a draft article at Draft:Windows 12, but that article is currently built off of rumors and speculation. This redirect can be recreated and/or an article can be written sometime after Microsoft officially announces Windows 12, but right now, WP:CRYSTAL. AKK700 17:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules edit

Template:Cite Victoria County History edit

Template:Cite Victoria County History (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per the talk page, this template has been obsolete for several years. It is a specific-source citation template, but the website's URL format has changed. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country data Kingdom of Cochin edit

Template:Country data Kingdom of Cochin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per concerns given by User:Ishatmypants123 on File talk:Cochin flag.svg, the flag provided in this template is fictitious. For convenience, I will repost his comment here:

I would like to start off first by talking about this image's sources. http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/in-cochi.html - This source, FOTW, says the following about the flag:

Keralan nationalists resisted inclusion in India and attempted to declare the region independent in August 1947. Nations Without States calls a horizontal tricolor of red, yellow and turquoise "the Keralan national flag, the traditional flag of the state."

It clearly mentions Keralan, referencing Keralites, but this is a flag for... Cochin. If you read the last part, it talks about it being "the Keralan national flag, the traditional flag of the state", not Cochin's flag. I looked into it's source and found that it is mentioning Kerala's secessionist movement specifically, not Cochin's. I will be quoting what was written on the source below:

FLAG: The Keralan national flag, the traditional flag of the state, is a hori-zontal tricolor of red, yellow, and turquoise.

This can all be found in page 295 of the source "Nations Without States" by James Minhan, on a section specifically dedicated to Kerala, not Cochin.

I believe this flag to be quite dubious and misinformative, being a literal misattribution, I hope sufficient action can be taken on it. Thank you for considering my message. Koopinator (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany edit

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan/Pakistani sources edit

This page was created by a now blocked sockpuppet who has a history of writing paid BLPs, potentially as an attempt to WP:GAMING. Given this context, this is not a legitimate and does not reflect community consensus. Deleting it would prevent any confusion and ensure that unreliable sources are not mistakenly defended using this page as a reference. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's a much less ample duplicate of Draft:Colourblocks. Cooper (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sean Grieve Sr edit

Fictional short story? Cooper (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Shaheedallll edit

I think someone wrote a short story here... Cooper (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review edit

^ "Intersex inclusion in the 2014 Sydney Mardi Gras Parade". Organisation Intersex International Australia. 3 March 2014. Archived from the original on 2023-04-11.

[1] "Intersex inclusion in the 2014 Sydney Mardi Gras Parade". Organisation Intersex International Australia. 3 March 2014. Archived from the original on 2023-04-11.

[1]

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

v t e Hotels and resorts in Bintan
Nikoi Island Banyan Tree Bintan Club Med Ria Bintan Angsana Resort & Spa Loola Adventure Resort Mayang Sari Beach Resort Pelangi Hotel Bintan Agro Beach Resort Comfort Hotel & Resort Tanjung Pinang Hotel Sadaap Hotel Laguna
Hotels portal