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]

Candidates for speedy deletion

ATG (abbreviation)

Talk:Daniel Attard

Draft:First Manjhi ministry

User:Johnny Vegas/sandbox

David Maas

Draft:Nenjamellam Neeye

Talk:Peter Agius

Talk:Thomas Bajada

Talk:What is zoro .to website ?

Youda Games

Articles[edit]

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 11	June 13 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Reasoning: Other AfDs including for the multi-list AfD against Damon Hill Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Damon Hill have established the precedent that these lists are both WP:CRUFT and fail WP:LISTN as being needless forks of existing lists, they also have no notable group or set presence within discussions as shown by a lack of these such sources in the articles. Discussion also on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Max Verstappen centres on the WP:NOTSTATS argument. Consensus exists that such lists are not notable, and on the argument for the Verstappen AfD is clearly made that such lists regardless of win number are not considered notable. This deletion request is to reflect the latest consensus. The same discussion has also been ongoing on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One and Talk:Max Verstappen

When creating this deletion request, articles

Should also be included for the same reasons. It is the second AfD request for the Senna article, the original is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Ayrton Senna. I would appreciate if someone could create this AfD as it is important for the motorsport category and part of wider ongoing discussions (please if I am unable to can this be added to the motorsport project AfD)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. 159.242.125.170 (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination by IP: 159.242.125.170 (talk)

I vote delete per the discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Damon Hill and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Max Verstappen — Iadmc ♫^talk 15:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Lists. — Iadmc ♫^talk 15:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, this is also consensus on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One 159.242.125.170 (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K35DG-D[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; merge with University of California, San Diego#Student life. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Education, and California. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not Merge it with a merge tag instead of an AFD tag then? Still think it should be merged, it’s just a weird choice not to use the tag. Danubeball (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No support for delete, just a vague comment on merging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Engel[edit]

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

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

No real indication of notability, only sources are routine 'match reports' on poker news sites and a stats database. No rule about number of bracelets won to determine notability. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Games, and Canada. UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Article was previously created by blocked user, deleted, then re-deleted as G5. New article is fresh and not a G5 candidate. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose based on potential impact I will not disagree about there not being a rule about what is notable in the poker community around here but there is much inconsistency. If Engel is deemed not to be notable, then probably at least over half of legacy poker articles on here need to be wiped. I noticed the nominator's other tagged deletions, which I agree with because they do not bring much to the table. Bracelets are considered the gold standard in the poker community and three is nothing to scoff at. The circuit rings record alone should warrant merit but that is justm y opinion. Major titles won, money earned, or major impact historically on pop culture through the game should be what merits a player's notability in my opinion. It would be nice to have a set standard on what is deemed worthy so time on improvements is not wasted. Red Director (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have been around the poker community on here for years so although it would be sad to lose legacy articles, some of these do not warrant merit existance at all if this is the standard we want to place. Engel has more accomplishments of note than most of these on a quick glance. Red Director (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, I found this [1], a primary source where the subject talks about himself. I still don't see enough in RS to build an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dilly Braimoh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of any notability. The BFI source which would have been useful returns a 404 error. The other from IMDB is unreliable. Searches reveal very little, certainly nothing that adds to notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is the archived version of the BFI dead link. Lubal (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. However, having seen the source, it does not actually add anything to notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Radio, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This book briefly confirms that he grew up in foster care. This news article briefly says he attended Croydon College (not in the article) and did "Dilly Dines Out" (not cited in the article). Overall, I'm not finding many sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A prior AfD discussion ended in soft delete, so I would like to get a bit more input and get firm consensus to delete or keep the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Ali Khan (subedar)[edit]

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

Outside of a road being named after this person in an Indian town, I can find nothing to indicate this person meets notability guidelines. Even looking up the naming of the road seems to have been done at the request of the foundation created by his immediate family. The page has been consistently edited by members of the family and those admitting to clear COIs. Article is an orphan as well. Lindsey40186 (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Besides the coverage in the Indian times, I could not find any other coverage to justify inclusion per WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skirmish at the Chukchi Peninsula[edit]

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

Seems like a non-event where the vast majority of the page is about things before and after which are largely unrelated to the skirmish. A misunderstanding, some shots, no casualties, that's it. A very minor episode in the Vega Expedition, not even mentioned there until you added the "see also" for it. Fram (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Russia, and Sweden. Fram (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What if it was re-named to "Stay at the chukchi peninsula" Dencoolast33 (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "Incident at the Chukchi peninsula" skirmish might exaggerate the events while "Incident" does not. Gvssy (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the name doesn't solve the lack of notability; the whole incident isn't even mentioned in the first source, a description of the expedition[2]. Nor is it described in the more extensive second source about the expedition[3]. I can't find it at page 10 of the third source[4], which was the page given as the reference. It seems to appear at page 19, where one crew member describes it, while the "skirmish" is missing from the diaries of two other crew members who just say that they encountered the local people. Fram (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayoralty of John Moran[edit]

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

No justification for creating this page. Most of it is copied without attribution from other pages across Wikipedia (in violation of WP:CWW). The page for John Moran himself was created just yesterday, if that ever gets too long, per WP:SIZE guidelines, we can consider a split. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:SIGCOV and WP:TOOSOON. The titular subject (the "Mayoralty of John Moran") has not yet commenced/occurred. And there has been zero coverage of that topic as a subject in its own right. As noted, if Moran's future activities (and coverage of those activities) becomes too much to be covered in the biographical article, then we can split it. Otherwise it is far (far far) WP:TOOSOON to have a standalone title like this. WP:ATDs (like incubation as draft or redirection to the brand new bio article) seem unnecessary and less-than-appropriate. Guliolopez (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Guliolopez. Spleodrach (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The editing of this new user - Chancellorship - seems to be very similar to that of the blocked user - Quayshires/Cartoons2022/BreadSuperFan36/WeenieSquirrel61 - I wonder if it is worth opening an SPI? Spleodrach (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m working off my mobile, and was planning to do so when I was on my laptop later. I was suspicious of that before this new article creation, I’m convinced of it now. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Useless fork and the position has not even started yet. Barring anything out of the ordinary, give the fellow a chance to actually do something in the position before creating an article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of eBay[edit]

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

Duplicates the content at eBay#Criticism, goes against the advice at WP:CRITS to not generally create separate articles for criticism in particular. The sourcing, meanwhile, shows examples of individual instances of criticism, bu does not cohesively discuss "criticism of eBay" as a topic. This should redirect to eBay#Criticism, as already previously proposed by way of WP:BLAR. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Choice Lab[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was nominated for deletion 10 years ago but didn't really address the lack of reliable sources covering this research group (the few that were linked to just mention it in passing). Also not addressed was the fact that the entire article was a copy-and-paste of the official media release, which makes this self-promotion. In 10 years the article has gotten no content edits or inbound links, so it's still that official release word-for-word. The Choice Lab seems to have largely rebranded as something else but I still can't find any real sources actually about it. Details like who founded it and who the members are, what its funding is and who provides that funding, where it's specifically located - the core of an encyclopedia article on this topic would be - it just doesn't seem to exist in reliable sources. Combined with a decade and no real encyclopedia editing occurring on the article makes me think this just isn't an encyclopedia topic. Perhaps it should redirect to Norwegian School of Economics but I didn't want to do that unilaterally. Here2rewrite (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

X (demoparty)[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The name of the event makes it more difficult to search. I was only able to find mentions, such as "One of the most traditional and largest events still running today is demoparty X, a specific event for the Commodore 64 platform with the first edition held in 1995 in the Netherlands (POLGáR, 2016)." (machine translated from Portuguese) in a paper about the demoscene in Brazil. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Video games, Visual arts, Events, Computing, and Netherlands. toweli (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umpiring in the 1946–47 Ashes series[edit]

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

My fourth afd in this Anglo-Australian cricket fancruft deletion drive I have taken on. We have articles on cricket umpiring, seriously? I dont believe this should exist on Wikipedia, and I also am against a merge because all that really needs to happen is a mention of this on the respective tour pages Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Pharaoh496 (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Switch 2(Focus)[edit]

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

Not sure if WP:R3 applies, but this is for a topic that's only been discussed but has no official announcement and only cites an article based on "a rumour". I'm not sure what the "Focus" is, but "Nintendo Switch 2(Focus)" is missing a space. This is not a casual type-o someone would make. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. It's indeed too soon, and right now, the "Successor console" section of the Nintendo Switch article is sufficient. Cortador (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, it's not even enough for a viable article right now and the name is not believable as a redirect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Windsor (businessman)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NCRIC. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 04:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cricket, and England. LibStar (talk) 04:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Simple search seems to bringing up GNG passing coverage such as this. Looks to be plenty out there. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article is out of date. He's no longer at Aviva. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article has been updated. JP (Talk) 10:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Animaker[edit]

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

I'm doubting that the software is notable based on the sources cited. -- Beland (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
USNews lists it as "Best Basic Web-Based Animation Software", which is something, I guess Aaron Liu (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find tutorials on how to use the software, nothing about critical reviews or discussions in RS. None of the sources in the article now are RS, some appear to be PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death's Domain[edit]

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

No reviews or commentary found after a search, one or two passing mentions, and a single sentence in an article from The Canberra Times found on ProQuest: "A minor Pratchett Discworld spin-off is to be found in Death's Domain (Corgi, 27pp, $14.95), by Pratchett and Paul Kidby, which is essentially a Discworld map of Death's house, garden and golf course. Only for Pratchett completists.", which is not enough to sustain its own article.

Could probably be redirected to another Discworld article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge: Discworld and the Disciplines, p. 63 (and a bit on 59) has almost a page of coverage, The Magic of Terry Pratchett has brief commentary on how it did not sell so well, Reactor Magazine has a sentence of commentary on the fictional location of Death's Domain. So with The Canberra Times that may just be enough to write a non-stubby article, fullfilling WP:WHYN. It might also be little enough to merge, and the obvious target would be Discworld#"Mapps", for the time being. For something as weighty as the Discworld series this individual commentary might be a bit much, though. A good solution could be to spin that section out into an article covering all the Discworld Mapps (Discworld and the Disciplines also has more to say on the other Mapps, and I am sure there is more commentary out there), but such an article does not yet exist. Daranios (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zugara[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Some days ago, Wikilover3509 (talk · contribs) tried to nominate this article for deletion, but ended up editing a previous nomination for a previous article at this title. Their rationale follows:

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. The sources are almost entirely PR-based or non-independent. No actual in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, just press releases and blog posts.

This is mostly procedural on my part; I offer no opinion or further comment beyond noting that this has been tagged as, among other things, a possible WP:CORP failure since 2012. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this company not noteworthy for inclusion when other similar advertising/technology companies such as The Barbarian Group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Barbarian_Group) and AR software companies such as Metaio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaio) and Total Immersion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Immersion_(augmented_reality) seem to be fine? MHSzymczyk (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism (book)[edit]

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

I feel like there should be reviews for this book, but I am unable to find more than one, which I have added to the article after an extensive search. My search was confused by the fact that the author has written eleven books, all of which have the word Fascism in the title, and also a journal called Fascism. This one is just titled Fascism, which makes searching for sources a nightmare, but I did try.

If there is not another review, redirect to author Roger Griffin. If there is another substantial one I can withdraw. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA: As you mentioned, finding reviews for this books was extremely annoying, and it doesn't help that there was another author with first name Roger writing about facism at the time, but I did manage to find one other review from the London Review of Books. I would've preferred more coverage on the book itself, but that's all I could find. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise[edit]

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

I have found no mentions of this book that aren't passing mentions in publications about Star Trek. Enough to verify that the book exists, but not much else. There's probably a good merge/redirect target somewhere but I can't think of one. Author Lora Johnson, maybe? PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Star Trek technical manuals as WP:Alternative to deletion as suitable target for a topic which does not fullfill the notability requirements but does appear in a number of secondary sources (e.g. TV Zone #22, with a minor comment on canonicity beyond acknowledging its pure existence). Daranios (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Equatorial College School[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing much found to consider against the WP:GNG JMWt (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Uganda. JMWt (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enhanced network selection[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. Not clear what the topic really means outside of GSM, not clear that sources exist to show notability JMWt (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saimir Kasemi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The subject made two appearances in the German fifth tier in 2007 but it appears they have made no professional appearances at all. A web search finds a few articles about an ice cream parlour they have been running after their retirement. But there's no WP:SIGCOV relating to their football career. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albania and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toyen (band)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BAND criteria. The article is also long-time unsourced and has other issues. FromCzech (talk) 07:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 07:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Ferguson[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, only sources are a database, a blog, and a local interview about the club, not an article about her. Fram (talk) 07:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Scotland. Fram (talk) 07:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warwick Police Department[edit]

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. WP:FAILN - organizations local to a city, town or country maybe added to respective article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warwick,_Rhode_Island Wikilover3509 (talk) 6:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: I have fixed spacing in the header that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ward Thomas Removals[edit]

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGSIG. The FT article is an interview with the founder. Wikilover3509 (talk) 6:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: I have fixed spacing in the header that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jirahs[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines. Tried to do a WP:BEFORE search, but found zero sigcov. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:00, 12 June 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. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ultraman or a to-be-created villains/characters article where individually NN fictional elements like this can be curated appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gomora (kaiju)[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines. Tried to do a WP:BEFORE search, but found zero sigcov. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 05:59, 12 June 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. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 05:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Smith (rower)[edit]

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

Not notable. I have been unable to find enough reliable references. TheSwamphen (talk) 05:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Bibliographies, and New Zealand. TheSwamphen (talk) 05:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next Assam Legislative Assembly election[edit]

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

WP:NCRYSTAL. Nothing about the election has been declared yet, no WP:RS are currently talking about it. Should be recreated closer to the election, once actual sources start discussing it.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Soni (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Assam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is the second AfD on this topic. I previously nominated this article, and the consensus was to keep it. I continue to support the previous decision. For reference: Previous discussion.Hitro talk 22:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Next elections pass WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not sure what makes this one different. SportingFlyer T·C 23:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I waited for the 2 other AFDs from this month to close, just to be sure this was not a one-off of me misevaluating Crystal. But mainly -

If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2044 U.S. presidential election and 2048 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research.

I searched and found no sources talking about the election. I didn't find any consensus about next elections in any notability guidelines I could see. I found 5 (+2) AFDs that suggested deletion is the correct approach, and just 1 that didn't.

This topic also needs a talk page notification and/or a higher level consensus established somewhere (I don't know where), otherwise each AFD will end at a different inconsistent place. But until I see such higher level consensus, my read of both Crystal and prior consensus says it's pretty clear it should be a delete. Soni (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, there is already coverage of this election: [5] [6] along with articles about new delineation. SportingFlyer T·C 23:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that Hindu article (published 5 days ago) is definitely talking directly about the elections.

I disagree on the livemint article, it's not coverage of the elections as much as just "BJP leader stated something about Hindu-Muslim divide in Congress". It's not significant, and they only mention it as a "in a few years".

I missed a couple other articles on my before check - [7] [8] so I do agree there is significant enough coverage for the election. Soni (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too many of these future prediction pages. WP:TOOSOON. Way down in the future and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. RangersRus (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - There are 5 connected AFDs in this - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Kerala Legislative Assembly election, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Manipur Legislative Assembly election, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next West Bengal Legislative Assembly election. This didn't seem to meet MULTIAFD as each of them are at a different level of RS reporting, but the general question (Is it CRYSTAL) would still apply. Soni (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a date has been set for each of these, then they should each be moved to reflect that. Mangoe (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I guess I support keeping this article now. See above comment. Coverage is now significant enough. Soni (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: !vote balance at this time is leaning keep, although I will note that most of the connected AfDs noted above this relist have since been closed as consensus for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In established democracies, the next election is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAl. Sourcing and existing information is sufficient. --Enos733 (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's just not enough here for an election that is almost two years off; the only substance is the date itself. Failing that, it should be moved to 2026 Assam Legislative Assembly election since this has a set date. Mangoe (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion since the previous list has not cleared things up.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Per comments Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More policy based input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided by SportingFlyer and Soni show that this meets item 1 of CRYSTAL – this election is notable and almost certain to take place. Toadspike [Talk] 04:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too much original research here and the title is inappropriate. Whilst there may be sources for notability I don't believe the current article is viable it's pretty much complete OR without any sourcing. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Jonathan Lewis[edit]

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

Coverage is not sustained and significant enough to justify this article about the manslaughter of a teen. Zanahary (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm counting 10 reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV covering this event. I think some concerns regarding WP:NCRIME, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and WP:NTEMP are warranted, but the young age and the alleged exceptional viciousness of the alleged perpetrators do make the event more than a run-of-the-mill killing. Ultimately, since there's WP:NODEADLINE, I think that at this juncture it makes sense to keep and circle back if it turns out that the notability was temporary.

Melmann 07:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think a crime's "exceptional viciousness" holds any weight over WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Nevada. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage past the event in November, no lasting notability. Sad event, appears to be only a news item at this point. NOTNEWS. Oaktree b (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Unusual amount of international coverage on this one - being picked up by the BBC. My answer comes down to WP:PERP's description of coverage of notable victims and the focus of coverage being on the event or the individual. I feel on balance, the event is covered as news much more than the victim's role is covered as a subject of personal interest. BrigadierG (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As the incident has received nationwide coverage, I've found at least 15 reliable sources for the article. I'm in agreement with @Melmann, considering the young age of the victim and brutality of this crime this is beyond ordinary even for a murder. There's not so much coverage after November, but this will probably change in the future as the suspects are brought to justice and when they find the remaining perpetrator.

Cheera L (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sadly. Murders and killing type articles go by WP:NEVENT, which this fails. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How so? This case in particular has received significant coverage in a wide variety of news outlets and the media. It's a story having been reported and impacted all over the world, not just in the U.S. Cheera L (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The non-routine coverage was for about a week. With events, WP:SUSTAINED coverage is a consideration, which this fails. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - User Melmanns rationale is the most convincing. The sourcing is within WP:SIGCOV at this time and several aspects of this this case already mentioned above makes this killing notable. I do believe WP:GNG applies as well. BabbaQ (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I definitely have 'some concerns regarding WP:NCRIME, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and WP:NTEMP". There is nothing in WP policies that makes an exception for the "viciousness" of a crime. Yes, newspapers and news TV did pick it up, undoubtedly because of how they profit off of sensationalism, but we shouldn't fall into the same swamp. I am strongly against this as WP:NCRIME. Lamona (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, the method of death is irrelevant. If there is no continued coverage it isn't currently notable. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Lucas[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP article. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:NMG. WP:BEFORE search turned up many people with the same name, but not this person. The MySpace link in the Infobox only leads to a collection of music tracks, with the rest of the page lacking content. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 04:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced BLP which should have been deleted long since. Cabayi (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lybrate[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unable to find a news which is not a PR. Funding, launches, and announcements are all they have. Even the creator came only to create the page. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, Internet, Software, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Curzon Price[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO because the WP:LOTSOFSOURCES are primary, including biographies and the like by related parties. No particular claim to notability is textually clear. JFHJr (㊟) 03:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, Politics, Economics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per The Telegraph (well beyond the Wikipedia:One hundred words suggestion for SIGCOV) and because we usually set the bar a little lower for sources that we might cite. (BTW, JFHJr, it's not necessary for an article to have a "particular claim to notability". Were you thinking about Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance, which is a WP:CSD thing?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No particular claim to notability is in regards to finding a more specific criterion than GNG. Where are the multiple independent (unrelated to the subject) reliable sources providing significant coverage? JFHJr (㊟) 03:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liberales Institut[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. It hasn't had sources since at least 2012 if ever. JFHJr (㊟) 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libertarianism, Organizations, Politics, and Switzerland. JFHJr (㊟) 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start by ignoring the WP:ITSUNREFERENCED claim by the nom, since that's one of the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. This is a difficult subject to research because this report indicates that there are two organizations with the same name and similar views, which makes finding sources more challenging than usual. Also, it's Swiss, so you really need to search under four different names (German, French, Italian, and English). This is time-consuming, so it's not surprising that people might do a cursory search, find nothing, and give up.
I think it might make more sense to treat this subject like a scholarly publisher than like a business or a social club. I would particularly consider WP:NMEDIA's "frequently cited by other reliable sources" as a possibility. As for sources, this Swiss-German article looks potentially useful, and I notice that the article at the French Wikipedia cites five sources (none of which are the org's website). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the five is plainly the subject's website in the French WP. I'll do my best to look into the others. I'm open to withdrawing my nomination if it's clear to me or to a consensus that the coverage is in-depth. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in German. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I looked at the sources in the French article [9] is an interview with a minimal description of the institute, this is about a prize given out/details on the winner [10]. The German ones I'm unable to translate as they block access while at work, might have to review at home later... Oaktree b (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weka keep: Probably enough for a basic article about this institute, in addition to the sources I explained above, [11] describes their work, but it's a few lines only. This book talks about them [12] Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imperium (film series)[edit]

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

The article is unsourced. I don't see why this topic deserves an article as there are no sources on the Imperium series, only sources on the individual movies. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, History, and Romania. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this sorted in the Romania-related discussions? Some of the production companies involved are Spanish/German/French but I see no participation of Romanian actors or producers. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the nom's implicit question is that Wikipedia:Notability, right at the top, says that we can merge up articles into a bigger subject. See also Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Should NBOOK cover series or just individual books?, which has almost 150 comments on a closely related subject. See statements like "Where a source contains coverage of one of the books in a series of books, this coverage is deemed to be coverage of the series of books, in addition to being coverage of that book" and "Articles on book series may be created in some cases where there are no series-level sources, drawing on the sourcing of the individual books." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, what outcome are you arguing for? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not wrong I'm pretty sure he's saying that keep is the answer, even though what he's talking about is the Notability for books. MK at your service. 03:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing indicates in her preferences that she would like to be referred to as she. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, last hope for some more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although the series is a loose one, the miniseries that are part of the set are all RAI productions and seem to be part of the same project indeed. I favour a keep, as the page helps navigation as a disambiguation page does. I would rename it but not sure how, because most of the "films" were broadcast as miniseries... Imperium (miniseries series) would be a terrible name! Imperium (TV productions)? Sources would not hurt either. Would redirect and merge to/into Imperium (disambiguation) be a suitable WP:ATD?? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Italy, and United Kingdom. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, France, Germany, and Spain. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institut Constant de Rebecque[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. It hasn't had sources since at least 2017 if ever. JFHJr (㊟) 03:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libertarianism, Politics, and Switzerland. JFHJr (㊟) 03:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel & Co.[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not satisfied with the reliability of sources. I could not find anything else online either. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, Lebanon, United States of America, and New York. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he company has significant notability within the jewelry industry, evidenced by extensive coverage in reputable sources such as industry publications and mainstream media. Additionally, the article provides verifiable information about the company's history, product offerings, and impact on the market that meets gng --Welcome to Pandora (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources you could find that establish notability? GMH Melbourne (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A week later and no response ... comment such as "within the jewellry industry" seems to me to indicate that it is a niche company and "extensive coverage in reputable sources" and "the article contains verifiable information" indicated a lack of knowledge of the GNG/WP:NCORP notability criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: if you are arguing to Keep this article, please share source that can be used to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I have to agree wth Pandora. The sources seems to satisfy WP:GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MaskedSinger which sources meet GNG/WP:NCORP? Really appreciate if you can indicate source/page/paragraph or some other content that meets CORPDEPTH and ORGIND in particular. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did a spot check of a few references, and they read like PR/puff pieces. Lean delete, per WP:CORPDEPTH.-KH-1 (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sayed Abbas Ali Shihab Thangal[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. References are trivial mentions or don't mention subject. Can't find anything on Google/news about him. C F A 💬 02:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Islam, and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep proved WP:GNG and WP:NPOL,He is a community leader, a politician who holds positions, As such, he belongs to the category of a Sayyid of major denominations have generally been held to be notable ~~ User:Spworld2 (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most definitely does not pass GNG. This is exactly the sort of BLP our policies are intended to prevent. It’s essentially a promotional profile for a party official based on passing mentions and his relationships with people who are actually notable in our terms. Mccapra (talk) 06:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a problem that could be solved through editing, rather than deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't seem like a promotional, with many relatives, it was reflected in the scholar's family, the person holding the posts of the largest legally functioning Islamic youth organization in India. and He is a member of the family circle of Prophet Muhammad in India(Sayyid ) Spworld2 (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would help to get a review or analysis of existing sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics education in New York[edit]

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

Almost entirely unsourced and out-of-date. Insufficiently distinct from Mathematics education in the United States. Possibly could be redirected to New York Regents Examinations. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and New York. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is true that the present article is very poorly sourced (I am not sure about the datedness but willing to take the nominator's word for it). However, the content looks to me like it's all true and sourceable in principle. Indeed, it's clear that this is a notable topic: there were major changes to the structure of New York State's mathematics courses and exams in the last 25 years, and they received widespread coverage at the time. For example, here's one article about the 2007 change to Algebra-Geometry-Algebra 2 [13], here's an article about aligning math requirements to Common Core, and here's an article about one particular administration of an exam that spends several paragraphs discussing various changes to state policies over time, as in the article we're discussing. These various changes described in our article were mostly specific to New York State, making Mathematics education in the United States an unacceptable merge/redirect target, and I see no advantage to merging them into an article about Regents exams in general (better would be links out from that article to separate articles on the various subject areas it covers, when there is sufficient sourcing to permit that). --JBL (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps merging this with some material from New York Regents Examinations and renaming would be an improvement? Walsh90210 (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't understand this proposal/question; what content do you want to merge where, and rename what to what? --JBL (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The text needs citation and probably cleaning, but it's not beyond repair, and the topic is an encyclopedic one. Redirecting to the Regent Examinations would be a bad move, because math education is more general than just the Regent Exams in algebra and geometry (for example), and likewise, they have Regent Exams on topics other than mathematics. XOR'easter (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Florencio Badelic Jr.[edit]

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

I'll admit that I'm a bit unsure about this article. There are a lot of citations in the article, but all of them are routine and/or match reports. There seems to be little or no WP:SIGCOV here. Anwegmann (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Decent coverage in local media, even though it is from a not very popular football center, the article seems sufficiently based. Svartner (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree. There seems to be a lot of match reports in the mix, though, and little of substance. That said, I'm still unsure about the article as a whole. Thanks for the vote. Anwegmann (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adarsh Liberal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Years ago this term was circulated once on social media by right wing trolls, but there is no significant coverage of this non-notable term in any reliable sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Internet celebrity. Although, that seems to have a potential move afoot to rename it "Influencer". IMO, "Influencer" and "Adarsh Liberal" have a lot in common - they're both flash terminology of the moment, used to define any number of personalities. — Maile (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Popular culture, Internet, and India. Skynxnex (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Article cleary fails WP:GNG. Written in POV and fan voice.च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ Message 12:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wouldn't merge, the term is too area specific to be known outside the area. Oaktree b (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The term gained some traction online [14] and [15]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable term from social media and memes. WP:DICDEF. RangersRus (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanghamitta Balika Vidyalaya[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Buddhism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ursula Münzner-Linder[edit]

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

Delete: Fails NMUSICIAN and reliable sourcing to confirm notability. Tkaras1 (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only reliable and accessible sourcing I could find by Google search was this link, which alone does not seem sufficient. Her name is apparently not even spelled correctly! Tkaras1 (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of the Covenant Monastery[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The article is predominantly reliant upon primary sources. It is also not clear as to whether the monastery relates to the structure, which fails the requirements of WP:NBUILDING or the religious order, which fails WP:NORG. Dan arndt (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, Iraq, and California. Dan arndt (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chaldean Catholic Eparchy of Saint Peter the Apostle of San Diego#Monasteries, convents and seminaries. I found nothing in NewspaperArchive.com via WP:TWL, and the local newspaper for El Cajon, California doesn't have anything obvious online (though I doubt that they have older papers online). Searching is difficult because the literal translation of the much larger organization, B'nai B'rith, is the same as the name of this monastery. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Potter[edit]

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

Biography of a politician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is that he was a county executive, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- it's a role where he would have to pass the second clause of NPOL ("local political figures"), where the inclusion test hinges on the depth and volume of reliable source coverage about him that can be shown to support an article with. But except for one obituary upon his death, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with no other reliable or GNG-building sources shown.
As his career was several decades ago and thus might not Google well, I'd be perfectly happy to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived Arlington-area media coverage from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s than I've got can find enough to salvage it -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Virginia. Bearcat (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: Try https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ > https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/27/ > his name in Maryland newspapers. The Frederick News-Post seems to carry the most coverage, with hundreds of articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- based on his position as a county executive, I expected to give a delete opinion as that's the normal outcome for such roles. But a staff-written obituary in the Washington Post suggests he was considered notable beyond the typical holder of such a position. The other details (Plaza named for him) wouldn't generally be enough on their own, but together with the obit pushes above the bar for GNG keep. (would not pass WP:PROF on its own). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington County is literally suburbs of Washington DC, so the existence of a staff-written obituary in the Washington Post just suggests the exact same purely local notability that any county executive in any county could always show, and is not in and of itself enough to singlehandedly determine that he's more notable than the norm. So we would need to see a hell of a lot more than just that alone. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I thought of that, but the Washington Post is not a local newspaper in the same way that say that Arlington Sun-Gazzette is. It was written by their same obituary staff as their other obituaries. I think that a look at their current obituaries will show that obituaries in the paper are dedicated to people whom they believe have more than local notability. I don't see, for instance, other local officials or former high school sports coaches there, except in the paid death notices section. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eljan Mehmetaj[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The subject made five appearances in Kategoria e Parë, the Albanian second tier, then disappeared from professional football. [16] mentions a hospitalisation as a 17-year-old. It's not enough for WP:SIGCOV. Robby.is.on (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Robby.is.on (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 09:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Domaine Ylang Ylang[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to have enough coverage in references, so does not pass WP:NORG or WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, and Mauritius. UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before you jump the gun and delete it which appears to be your specislisation, I suggest you give this plant the time to grow and for it to be properly documented. Thank you. Stockbroker369 (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a food, drink place LOL. This is a famous Domaine in Mauritius, close to Mahebourg. Stockbroker369 (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We'd maybe look at CORP notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources identified by Rosguill in the last AfD seem to be enough to keep the article (I'm not listing them here, they can be seen by clicking on the prior AfD in the box at the right). That editor's analysis is fine. Oaktree b (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would accept draftification as an WP:ATD since appropriate references have not been added since the previous AFD. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG, how about you add the sources yourself instead? Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a game of Mother, May I? Articles do not need to get sent back to the beginning just because someone didn't follow the directions perfectly. It would probably take you less time to copy and paste those sources over than has already been spent in this AFD.

There isn't actually a requirement in any policy or guideline to cite sources. Our rule is that a subject can qualify for a separate article if sources exist in the real world, even if none are cited in the article. As a long-term project, if you want to be able to delete or hide articles because they don't contain at least one source, then I suggest that you propose that. There was some effort to extended WP:BLPPROD rules to all articles earlier this year. The consensus went the other way, but perhaps if you read that discussion, you'd be able to find a path forward towards your goal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, but I see no reason to change my course. Good day. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Stockbroker369 This is an interesting article. It would be to your advantage if you could add a couple of more inline sources. Preferably in the first two paragraphs. Also images need to have the description on them like I just added. — Maile (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for MetroWest[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Coverage is mainly local and not wider as per WP:AUD. Only one article links to this. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Massachusetts. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If coverage is "mainly" local, then it is "at least one non-local", which is all that AUD requires. This appears to be a community foundation, and my inclination is to merge it into MetroWest (=the geographical area it serves). We probably could find sources to demonstrate separate notability, especially since one of the already-cited sources is about "National Recognition For Rigorous Philanthropic Standards", but I think that merging it up will help people understand its purpose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kali Raat[edit]

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

fails general notability guideline. search only turns up a song of the same name and the phrase "kali raat". ltb d l (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. ltb d l (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hindi films of 1977: notable cast and musicians, is verifiable (see Books) not opposed to keep if sources can be found to expand this. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see it has an entry in Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema. It needs expansion, not deletion. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Shahid, notable. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List_of_Hindi_films_of_1977#A-Z. No sources with enough coverage and reviews. Fails WP:GNG and fails to warrant a standalone page on the film. RangersRus (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denice Zamboanga[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An article on this mixed martial artist was deleted three years ago after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denice Zamboanga as failing to meet either mixed martial arts notability or general notability. At the time, there were also multiple drafts, probably because someone was trying to game the system. The originators were then blocked for sockpuppetry. This article does not differ materially from the deleted article. The subject still is not top-ten-ranked, and so does not meet mixed martial arts notability. The article does not speak for itself and explain how the subject meets general notability. The subject's association with the ONE Championship is now verified, but "so what?", participation in the ONE Championship is not grounds for notability. The article has been reference-bombed, but nothing in the article refers to significant coverage in an article that does not speak for itself. This article differs enough from the deleted article so that speedy deletion is not in order; but it does not differ enough from the deleted article to avoid deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Martial arts, and Philippines. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 4, 8, 9, 20 and 24 are all RS that talks about her, the article seems to meet notability. Oaktree b (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source #4 is her brother talking, and the subject is only namedropped. Source #8 interviews her, and almost entirely consists of quotes from the subject. Source #9 ... inquirer.net is a reliable source, but that's a scanty article consisting of five sentences aside from quotes from the subject, and that barely scrapes by if at all. #20 looks like a good source. #24 is scanty routine sports coverage. I'm not digging deeper one way or another, but they're weak reeds to hang a keep. Ravenswing 02:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments She has never met WP:NMMA. The first source mentioned above is an article about her brother, she is mentioned in passing because she was on the same fight card. The next three are pre-fight articles about her first match in the promotion's Grand Prix tournament (which would be typical coverage for any fighter). The final reference is a report on that fight, which she lost. Even if you believe that coverage is significant, it is all about one event. Didn't check other references, so I'm not voting yet. Papaursa (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In addition to the sources already in the article, there is [[17]] and [[18]]. Not sure if it is enough to meet the notability guidelines though. Let'srun (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject does not meet criteria for WP:MMA. Passing mentions, quotes, interviews, event announcement and results are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files[edit]

File:Hyderabad skyline durgam cheruvu.jpeg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#1 — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 10:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a picture of the Durgam Cheruvu Bridge in Hyderabad, but article on the Durgam Cheruvu Bridge has an entirely satisfactory image of the bridge. The rationale given for non-free use is for the article on the city of Hyderabad, and says For visual identification of the object of the article. The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work. Any derivative work based upon the artwork would be a copyright violation, so creation of a free image is not possible. The file will be used only in the Infobox. None of which is relevant to its possible use in the infobox on the article on the city of Hyderabad.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hyderabad skyline Khajaguda.jpeg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#1 — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 10:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a picture of the skyline and the Khajaguda Lake in Hyderabad. The rationale given for non-free use is for the article on the city of Hyderabad, and says For visual identification of the object of the article. The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work. Any derivative work based upon the artwork would be a copyright violation, so creation of a free image is not possible. The file is used only in the infobox to depict city landscape. This has little relevance to its possible use in the infobox on the article on the city of Hyderabad. There are far more good photographs of Hyderabad on Commons than we could possibly use in the article on the city. As for the article on the Khajaguda Lake; it already has an entirely satisfactory photograph in the infobox.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HavocinHeaven1964.jpg[edit]

The copyright of this film or TV work expired in 2015. Please use {{PD-China-film}} to replace the original fair use label. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luang Pu Bunleua Sulilat as a young man.jpg[edit]

Unsure if PD but definitely not a CC-licensed file. Seems a tad redundant to File:Luang Pu Bunleua Sulilat.png to be converted to a fair use file. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 15:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Legendary creatures[edit]

Propose merging Category:Legendary creatures to Category:Folklore creatures

Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, largely overlapping categories. I will tag both categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. "Legendary" supposes that there might be some truth to it, but all contents here seem to fall outside of the realm of serious modern biology. NLeeuw (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At the moment, "Legendary" sits above "Folklore" and "Mythological creatures" - rather a lot of the contents of the first two should probably be moved to the last. As a matter of English meaning, I don't think "Legendary" supposes that there might be some truth to it" is at all true. "legendary" suggests to me a literary source(s) somewhere quite early on, & I think there is a distinction, if a rather vague one. Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment "legendary" sits above, but the hierarchy could just as well be reversed because there isn't a clear distinction. The fact that the above two editors disagree on what Legendary means illustrates the confusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not necessarily opposed to merging related folklore/legend/mythology categories together, I don't know which goes where. AHI-3000 (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I assume a redirect would be needed after merging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Painters of the Holy Land pre-1948[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Painters of the Holy Land pre-1948 to Category:???????

Nominator's rationale: I'm not really sure what to do with this category name, because it isn't particularly helpful/descriptive. Is this painters from after 1948 who painted the "holy land" or is it painters of what the "holy land" looked like after 1948. Mason (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, among Category:Painters by theme this concerns an extremely narrow theme. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Landscape painters for now, with prejudice, as "Holy Land" is a WP:POV term. If anyone wants to revive the catname in the future, it needs a compelling justification. NLeeuw (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Holy Land is very much a pov term. Mason (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on deletion/merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/him) 15:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' The nomination seems confused, perhaps fatally - the category is "PRE-1948" so it is not for "painters from after 1948 who painted the "holy land" or is it painters of what the "holy land" looked like after 1948." In the 19th-century context "Holy Land" is certainly the term that would have been used by the artists and their publics, & I don't think it is POV. If people want to delete it on those grounds they should think of alternatives, as it seems a valid category. Rather than being "an extremely narrow theme", it saw a big boom in the 19th century, partly as a branch of Orientalist painting. The category misses the most famous people, at least in the Anglosphere - where are William Holman Hunt, Edward Lear, James Tissot and many others? Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orientalist painters is a good point, the articles should be added to Category:Orientalist painters if applicable and if they are not in that tree yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see only one of the 5 described as "Orientalist" (and Marcocapelle just categorised then as such). James Tissot is indeed a name I recognise as painting events from the Hebrew Bible, though not necessarily "the Holy Land". E.g. File:Tissot The Women of Midian Led Captive by the Hebrews.jpg supposedly took place in southern Transjordan in what is now Saudi Arabia.

Moreover, a lot of them were apparently Jewish, while "Holy Land" is a Christian term. It's really difficult to shape a category around such a vague concept with the people currently and proposed to be in there.

I should add that "Holy Land" can be an appropriate term if the subject in question is entirely Christian, for, by and about Christians, e.g. Recovery of the Holy Land. No other phrase will describe that late medieval Christian literary genre that aptly. But for these painters...? I'm not convinced. NLeeuw (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's highly unclear where the events of Numbers 31 took place (if anwhere), but it seems more likely to be in modern Israel or Jordan than Saudi. In any case, Tissot spent time in Palestine to get his settings right, without I think getting as far as modern Saudi. I don't think that a century ago "Holy Land" was exclusively a Christian term - it would be rather ironic if it was. Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Arabic Wikipedia ar:الأراضي المقدسة says: The Holy Land is a term used in the Christian and Jewish religions to refer to the holy places in Palestine, especially Jerusalem , Bethlehem, and Nazareth...

Hebrew Wikipedia he:ארץ הקודש says: Jews usually refer to the Land of Israel as the "Holy Land".[Source needed] However, the Bible refers to it explicitly as "holy land" in only one passage, the book of Zechariah, chapter 2, verse 16.

It doesn't seem like it is very common (at least not in the arguably main languages used by the most relevant religions and populations) to use the term "Holy Land" in Judaism or Islam. They may regard the land as sacred in some way, but calling it "Holy Land", capital H capital L, seems very much a Christian practice.

At any rate, if 19th-century and early 20th-century Orientalist is our scope, why not use the term Levant instead? It fits the period well, is broader than just Palesrael, and is not as politically and religiously charged. NLeeuw (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A fine piece of OR, & reliance on primary sources! You contradict your own research superbly there! "Jews usually refer to the Land of Israel as the "Holy Land"" and you conclude "It doesn't seem like it is very common (at least not in the arguably main languages used by the most relevant religions and populations) to use the term "Holy Land" in Judaism or Islam. They may regard the land as sacred in some way, but calling it "Holy Land", capital H capital L, seems very much a Christian practice." Wonderful! "Palestine" (much less controversial in this period, & the official name for some of it) would be better than "Levant". I don't mind splitting off the 2-3 proto-Israeli figures, who I agree are rather different. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, I'm not claiming this is in-depth research lol. Let's try something a bit more empirical:

Google Books search: landscape "orientalist paintings" "holy land": 2.110 results
Google Books search: landscape "orientalist paintings" "levant": 1.950 results
Google Scholar search: landscape "orientalist paintings" "holy land": 207 results
Google Scholar search: landscape "orientalist paintings" "levant": 223 results

Neither "holy land" or "levant" is particularly likely to be part of the title. Painting the Holy Land in the Nineteenth Century (1997) and Visions of the East: Influence of the Levant on the Italian Renaissance (2015) are two rare exceptions to this rule.

David Roberts is often mentioned, but more frequently with "Palestine" than with "Holy Land". His bio David Roberts (painter) uses the term "Holy Land" no fewer than 12 times, though usually in conjuction with other 'countries' around it: his travelogue The Holy Land, Syria, Idumea, Arabia, Egypt, and Nubia comprises about half of those mentions.

Gustav Bauernfeind (not yet in this category) is more usually associated with "Levant"; in fact, his bio has Gustav Bauernfeind#Painting the Levant, mentioning 'the Levant, the Orient, Ottoman Palestine, Jerusalem, Lebanon, Syria, the Holy Land'. Seems to me that Levant is the broadest, most encompassing and inclusive term of the two (or three if we count 'Palestine'). As it is broader, it could also include paintings of certain biblical narratives that are set in Transjordan (such as the one of Tissot referenced above), which may or may not be included under the term "Holy Land". It might be a good idea to add a catdesc that gives a description of what we mean by 'Levant', and the term 'Holy Land' does seem fitting there (amongst the other regions/countries I mention in this comment) instead of in the catname itself. Maybe that's an acceptable compromise? NLeeuw (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Something like catname: Category:Orientalist painters of the Levant

Catdesc:

Might that work? NLeeuw (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might (moving out the proto-Israelis), but I don't understand why people keep talking about "landscape" painters/paintings. Some, like Lear and Roberts, mostly were, but others, like Hunt and Tissot, concentrated on history paintings of Biblical narrative subjects, obviously many with landscape backgrounds. I'd still prefer Palestine to Levant. But I think it is important that we explicitly restrict the category to those who had actually spent time in the area, rather than working things up in Europe. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well because currently one of the parent categories is Category:Landscape painters. If that is incorrect, we should purge that parent. NLeeuw (talk) 10:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Johnbod's reasoning. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Painters of pre-1948 Palestine. Some artists in this period may have have called it the holy land, others will have not, but that term is certainly POV. It was historically and geographically known as Palestine pre-1948, and this is how academic literature presents it, e.g.: Imagined Homeland: landscape painting in Palestine in the 1920s Iskandar323 (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Palestine" could work as an alternative, certainly for the British mandate period. Johnbod also preferred Palestine over Levant. For me it's a second choice. This could work as a compromise. NLeeuw (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Polish social activists of the Prussian partition[edit]

Propose merging Category:Polish social activists of the Prussian partition to Category:Polish activists

Nominator's rationale: This category should either be merged or renamed to make it clearer how this is defining. Mason (talk) 01:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Polish activists in the Kingdom of Prussia for more clarity. "Polish" is meant as an ethnicity here. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Smasongarrison: thoughts on this rename target? House Blaster (talk · he/they) 00:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't love the rename, but it is an improvement over what's here at the moment. Mason (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Activists for Palestinian solidarity[edit]

Propose ??? Category:Activists for Palestinian solidarity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is a random mix of people who aren't activists. Purge the category and leave in actual activists. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'm not too sure about it but maybe rename to "Pro-Palestinian activists". Any other suggestion would be helpful; this one seems rather vague. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename to "Pro-Palestinian activists", if only because that new name would be shorter and simpler, yet also straight to the point. AHI-3000 (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait for some consensus here before I proceed with the subcategories. Honestly, going through them, I don't think any of these people in any of these categories were checked to see if they actually were activists for Palestinian solidarity, particularly given a number of these aren't pro-Palestinian but rather anti-Israeli. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer keeping this category, I should add, since there is a big Palestinian movement and activists who are pro-Palestinian. I just think we should be careful who to put in. Some of these "pro-Palestinian" people aren't pro-Palestinian at all. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think renaming it to "Advocates for Palestinian Solidarity" would be best. NesserWiki (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support doing something, but mixed on the alternative rename. I think that the "Pro-Palestinian activists" are indeed a more specific subgroup that are definitely nested within Anti-racist activists. Perhaps splitting or nesting/reorganizing to acknowledge that there are also activists for Palestinian civil rights etc. idk 🤷 It's really complicated.Mason (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison, it is quite complicated, you're right. I'm not too sure about myself but, IMO and as you have said yourself, "Pro-Palestinian" is less vague and more definable than "Activists for Palestinian solidarity". Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. (To be clear, I'm not opposed to the rename if that's were consensus goes. ) I've started cleaning up the ethnic/religious intersections with the group in the hope that I'll have some inspiration. Mason (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison, I only just noticed this and wanted to say thank you! Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Purge: a removal of articles about people who weren't activists is a no-brainer. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus on rename.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03, I would say leave the rename out for now. That can be done in a seperate Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Great Britain[edit]

Category:History of Great Britain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Option A: remove header and a remove a number of parent categories. Option B: nominate subcategories for merger. In any case, the current content of the category is completely out of sync with how the category creator(s) intended. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, please clarify the issue with this particular category. I don't really follow. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnis Scientia: it contains articles like Britain in the Middle Ages and Anatomy of a Nation. A History of British Identity in 50 Documents, and a huge tree under Category:History of Great Britain by period while it's supposed to be about the 18th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, Ah I see that now. Well I would go with Option B, removing any subcategories which aren't related to the period between 1707 and 1801. And also the removal of any article that does not fall between 1707 and 1801. We should try to bring it back into sync with the original purpose it was created for. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One big problem with keeping the original intended scope is: what is Category:Kingdom of Great Britain for if not the history of the Kingdom of Great Britain? It's not as if that entity still exists. Ham II (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just Delete & re-home articles as necessary. The period of the Kingdom of Great Britain - from 1707 to 1800, is not really used by historians or the public. If kept it should be more clearly named to avoid confusion with the (main) geographical meaning of Great Britain, which has clearly been taken by some adders as the intended meaning. In fact such a category might make more sense, at the top of trees with UK, English, Scottish & Welsh sub-cats. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/him) 02:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards Option A, in order to make the scope fully about the geographical area Great Britain and not the former sovereign state the Kingdom of Great Britain. Anything about the history of the latter – Category:Politics of the Kingdom of Great Britain, probably Category:Colonial United States (British), etc. – should be at Category:Kingdom of Great Britain, currently a parent category to this one. A new header stating this might be necessary, because the distinction isn't obvious (which seems to have led to the current situation). Ham II (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The new header I'm proposing could be based on the existing one at Category:Great Britain. Ham II (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman generals[edit]

Propose merging Category:Roman generals to Category:Generals by former country
Propose renaming Category:Roman generals by century to Category:Generals by century

Nominator's rationale: Uphelpful bundling of Roman people. This category contains Ancient Romans and Byzantine people. Mason (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/rename, this is redundant as we already have Category:Ancient Roman generals by century. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Byzantine people are Romans, just not ancient ones.★Trekker (talk) 08:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Byzantine Empire is generally considered to be an empire in its own right. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@StarTrekker, how is your opposition relevant to the nomination? We don't have any other categories that isolate Byzantine/Ancient Romans like this. There was a cfd (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_27#Category:Romans_who_received_the_grass_crown) that renamed Roman categories to Ancient Roman categories already to remove this kind of ambiguity. Mason (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should have. It's not accurate to consider it a separate empire, historical revisionism.★Trekker (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but that's not really responsive to nom. It's not helpful to have a Category:Roman generals by century when there's not even a regular generals by century category.Mason (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Galician animated films[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Galician animated films to Category:Galician-language animated films

Nominator's rationale: In accordance with Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_3#Category:Galician_films. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Irish films" are not the same as "Irish (or Gaelic) language films" and that's why there are two different categories (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Irish_animated_films). For the same reason, "Galician films" (or "Galician animated films") are not the same as "Galician language films". Gasparoff (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split between Category:Galician-language films and Category:Spanish-language films, dependent on the actual language of the film. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Split per Marco. NLeeuw (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Strongly Opposed to renaming in accordance with my !vote at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_3#Category:Galician_films. Create Category:Galician-language animated films, which is not a duplicate of this category, just like English animated films are not all English-language animated films, etc. Note to Marcocapelle and Nederlandse Leeuw: this Cfd is about ANIMATED films only. a subcategory of Cat:Galician films (and Galician animated film industry is a rather notable one).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles involving the Qarmatians[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Battles involving the Qarmatians to Category:Battles involving the Qarmatian state of Bahrayn or Category:Battles involving the Qarmatians of Bahrayn.

Nominator's rationale: These battles concern a specific subgroup of Qarmatians, namely those of the Qarmatian 'republic' of Bahrayn under the al-Jannabi family. This was the main Qarmatian group, but by no means the only one, and at any rate it should be distinguished. Other "Qarmatian" battles, like the Battle of Hama (even though the Qarmatian label is debatable here), are not included. Constantine ✍ 07:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor question: why Bahrayn instead of Bahrain? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Because that is the most common transliteration in the literature. It also does not refer to the modern state of Bahrain, but the whole region of Eastern Arabia (historical Bahrayn/Bahrain). Constantine ✍ 14:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nom just created parent Category:Qarmatian state of Bahrayn 4 minutes before proposing to rename this child category. But the grandparent is Category:Qarmatians, and the main article is Qarmatians. Google-Booksing "Qarmatian state of Bahrayn" yields only 5 results. "Bahrain" is evidently the WP:COMMONNAME, there is no apparent need for this renaming, nor for the redundant new layer Category:Qarmatian state of Bahrayn created by nom. I suggest reverting to the situation of 3 June 2024. NLeeuw (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Nom has actually worked on this topic and may be suggesting this move because of this knowledge, not just because of a flight of fancy. Qarmatianism is a broader phenomenon than the Qarmatian state of Bahrayn, hence the two should be kept separate, with the Qarmatians remaining as the overarching parent category/article. There ideally should be a different, dedicated parent article for the state, like ru:Карматское государство, but one thing at a time. Constantine ✍ 07:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are there "Battles involving the Qarmatians" that DON'T involve Bahrayn? Because if there aren't, I'm not sure this change is necessary. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crime action films[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Hybrid genre term that is not in common usage (unlike lets say, action comedy or even action thriller). Searching for it on google, gives one imdb list, then several lists for one genre or the other. Per the action film article, "Action films often interface with other genres. Yvonne Tasker wrote that films are often labelled action thrillers, action-fantasy and action-adventure films with different nuances." Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'd include the sub-categories within this general category again, but I suppose that is implied in this process. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas: it is not implied in this process, i.e. the bot that processes deletions only does its job for categories that are properly listed and for category pages that are properly tagged. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the best approach with this to have them all tagged @Marcocapelle? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andrzejbanas: after you listed all categories here and after you tagged one subcategory (including section title) you can ask for help at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks to have the tag copied to the other subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following:

Category:Crime action films by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Crime action films by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Crime action films by decade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:1930s crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:1940s crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:1960s crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:1970s crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:1980s crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:1990s crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:2000s crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:2010s crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:2020s crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:2020 crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:2021 crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:2022 crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:2023 crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:2024 crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Bangladeshi crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:British crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Canadian crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Chinese crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Danish crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Egyptian crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Finnish crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:French crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:German crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Hong Kong crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Indian crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Italian crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Japanese crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Pakistani crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Philippine crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Russian crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:South African crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:South Korean crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Soviet crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Spanish crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Taiwanese crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Turkish crime action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Does this do the job @Marcocapelle:? Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - large enough and common-enough to be kept. Netflix has a "Crime Action & Adventure Movies" category. Amazon has a "Best Sellers in Crime Action Fiction" category. The category structure is well-maintained & populated: ~400 pages, all of which contain crime.action|action.crime. Also, it sounds like nom might want to rename to "action-crime", which, if there's consensus for, would be preferable to deletion. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An anonymous sorting algorithm on netflix is not really a way to seriously categorize genre, same for the Amazon section which also appears to be sorting novels, not films. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest reading Action film#Hybrid genres before responding if possible. From academic points of view, categorizing genres by hybrids is not really useful on understanding what they are about and when they are applied by fans, journalists, historians etc., the terms are used vaguely and with various connotations to what the genre means. This is why having them categorized like this is not helpful. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I would suggest reading Action film#Hybrid genres": you mean the part you added 3 hours before basing this CfD off of it? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was a section added months ago, i've re-vised it on reading the source in question, which was selectively using what was sourced. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Action films are synonymous with violence, and crime films are not complete without that. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support, I can't really imagine crime films without action. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As said above, we don't really need a hybrid form of this per Crime action film. There is no set definition of hybrid genres and trying to view films as these hybrids is basically a fools errand. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is often the case that film genres are crossed over as catgeories that are not actually reflective of legitimate and verifiable sub-genres (such as "romantic comedy" or "horror comedy", for example). So is that the case here? I randomly plucked out some of the films in the category and the genre of "crime action" doesn't appear defining for any of them. The genre for Heat (1995 film) is sourced to Rotten Tomatoes which lists the genre as "crime, drama". The "crime action" genre for The Batman (film) is not supported by sources, and whilst Allmovie lists several genres (include crime and action) it does not list the sub-genre of "crime action", unlike Pretty Woman which lists Romance, Comedy and the combination "Romantic Comedy". The genre for The Girl in the Spider's Web (film) is also sourced to Allmovie (inaccurately I might add), and whilst it does not list "crime action" it does list "crime thriller". In these cases the presence of the article in the category appears to be the product of editorial synthesis, unsupported by sources i.e. it may be possible to source "action" or "crime" but "crime action" or "action crime" is not in itself sourced. Are any supporters of the category able to provide reliable source evidence for the films in this category belonging a sub-genre of "crime-action"? It may be possible to locate sources that substantiate the existence of the genre, but membership of a category also needs to satisfy WP:CATDEF too.

Betty Logan (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Existing genre that deserves a category. I completely disagree with the idea that crime films should always include action! Just because a film contains a murder does not make it an action film (nor a crime action film, for that matter). See:

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199587261.001.0001/acref-9780199587261-e-0165#:~:text=An%20extremely%20wide%2Dranging%20group,central%20element%20of%20their%20plots.

As for films defined as CA or C-A films, at random:

https://www.michigandaily.com/arts/film/the-roundup-a-womanless-riskless-ruthless-rush/

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/art/2024/06/398_356945.html

https://oxfordre.com/criminology/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264079-e-195 (mentioning Rush Hour as a c-a franchise), for example. A GB search shows various results for crime/action, which sometimes indicate it's a new genre: The hybrid nature – and commercial success – of the Bourne films is characteristic of a new style of crime film, the crime/action^[1] but plenty with either "crime action films"(or film/movie) or "crime-action films". A note defining the genre as an hybrid could be added on the category page. (Have a look at the category in other languages).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term is without a doubt used in common place, but there is no solid definition for it, as the case for most hybrid genres. Why bother separating them? What does it add? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I can google the term and find people using it, but reading the actual article on action films it states very clearly that these types of terms are used with different values and meaning. There is no solid definition of these hybrid genres. Your Sarah Casey sources only emphasizes that yes, hybrid genres exist, but reading the wiki article, most films past the 90s are hybrids and there is no common meaning with this. As there are none, it fails WP:CATDEF. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ Benyahia, Sarah Casey (2012-02-27). Crime. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-58182-3.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional female entertainers[edit]

Propose merging Category:Fictional female entertainers to Category:Fictional females by occupation

Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT, possibly some subcategories will merit a dual merge to Category:Fictional entertainers. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional children by occupation[edit]

Propose merging Category:Fictional children by occupation to Category:Fictional children

Nominator's rationale: Nominating this again, this time for merge. Right now it is a WP:NARROWCAT with only two subcategories. It might need to be dual merged, but either way it is clearly unnecessary with so few subcategories ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Invasions of the Dutch Republic[edit]

Propose upmerging Category:Invasions of the Dutch Republic to Category:Invasions of former countries
Propose upmerging Category:Invasions by the Kingdom of Prussia to Category:Invasions by former countries

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now per WP:MFN, as both cats have only 2 items, one of which doesn't apply (Johann Friedrich von Salm-Grumbach isn't an invasion but an officer who participated). Only upmerge to Category:Invasions of former countries and Category:Invasions by former countries, respectively; Prussian invasion of Holland is already in all other parents. NLeeuw (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Invasions of the Republic of Genoa[edit]

Propose upmerging Category:Invasions of the Republic of Genoa to Category:Invasions of former countries and Category:Wars involving the Republic of Genoa

Nominator's rationale: 1 P, 0 C. Dual upmerge for now per WP:MFN. Category:Invasions of Italy does not apply, since Italy as a state did not exist at the time, and Corsica is not part of Italy today. NLeeuw (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pretenders to the Albanian throne[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Pretenders to the Albanian throne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:OR WP:NPOV. Follow-up to deletion of Line of succession to the former Albanian throne, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Albanian throne. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretenders to the throne of Mexico, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretenders to the throne of Parma, and User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Pretenders#NLeeuw category list. NLeeuw (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa, Agricolae, Balle010, Oleryhlolsson, JoelleJay, Smeat75, Johnpacklambert, Devokewater, and Hut 8.5: courtesy ping to participants in previous discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Albanian throne for follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pretenders to the Mexican throne[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Pretenders to the Mexican throne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:OR WP:NPOV WP:BLP (Maximilian von Götzen-Iturbide states: Götzen does not pursue any claim to the throne...Despite Götzen not actively pursuing any claim himself, social media users claiming to be Mexican monarchists have posted their support of his claim., therefore also WP:NONDEFINING). Follow-up to recent deletion of main article Pretenders to the Mexican throne, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretenders to the throne of Mexico. See also User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Pretenders#NLeeuw category list.

Some deceased people in this category also appear to be inappropriately labelled pretenders:

Agustín de Iturbide y Green: When he came of age, Iturbide, who had graduated from Georgetown University, renounced his claim to the throne and title and returned to Mexico. So as soon as he was legally capable, he renounced his claim.
María Josepha Sophia de Iturbide: [She inhered] the Habsburg claim on the throne. Maria Josepha was a very traditional Lady, and a devout Roman Catholic, and stayed as far away from politics as she could. Doesn't seem to have actively pursued her claim either; seems more like other people expect(ed) her to pursue it for purely genealogical reasons (but WP:NOTGENEALOGY).
Carlos Felipe de Habsburgo isn't even in this category, but still included in Template:Pretenders to the Mexican throne (apparently also only purely for genealogical reasons), so I think I'm gonna nominate that for deletion as well. NLeeuw (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra: courtesy ping for follow-up of previous discussion. NLeeuw (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 June 12#Template:Pretenders to the Mexican throne has also been nominated for deletion. NLeeuw (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Whitewashing in film[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Whitewashing in film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Populated by tangentially related films and not articles from the main topic. Gotitbro (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as I am not sure what you mean by “tangential” as all of the categorised films has an element of whitewashing that is discussed in Whitewashing in film article or mentioned in the film page itself using reliable sources. Take the film Khartoum (film), with blackface white actors which is discussed in the “Reception” section. It does not get more direct than that.

FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps should have worded that nomination better. What I meant was with categories such as these, the expectation is that there will be articles dedicated to the topic not articles mostly about films which only contain an element of the said cat.

I am coming at this from a recent discussion about a similar topic: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Subcategories of Category:Film controversies by country. Gotitbro (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional millers[edit]

Propose merging Category:Fictional millers to Category:Works about agriculture

Nominator's rationale: Does not actually contain fictional millers, just works. Basically WP:SHAREDNAME. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per rationale. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional cafeteria workers[edit]

Propose merging Category:Fictional cafeteria workers to Category:Fictional people in food and agriculture

Nominator's rationale: This is a rather small and narrow category with no real-life equivalent. We don't need a hyperspecific category for literally every job. Edit: Actually it should probably just be deleted, when you remove Chef from South Park, who is already under "Fictional chefs", there is nothing pertinent here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as Chef (South Park) is already in a reasonable subcat for the merge target. All that remains after that is a redirect and an article that should not be on the category tree. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional extraterrestrial royalty[edit]

Propose merging Category:Fictional extraterrestrial royalty to Category:Fictional royalty
Propose merging Category:Fictional extraterrestrial princesses to Category:Fictional princesses

Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT made by blocked user. The "princesses" category should also be dual merged to Category:Fictional extraterrestrial characters. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mythological male/female royalty[edit]

Propose merging Category:Mythological male royalty to Category:Mythological royalty
Propose merging Category:Mythological female royalty to Category:Mythological royalty

Nominator's rationale: Yet another WP:NARROWCAT pointless category. This is such a narrow intersection (mythical + gender + royalty) that a category is not necessary. I don't believe it should be merged to "fictional" as myth and fiction are separate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dual upmerge nominee 1 to Category:Mythological royalty and Category:Fictional male royalty.

Triple upmerge nominee 2 to Category:Fictional female royalty, Category:Mythological royalty, and Category:Women in mythology.

Nom is right that having categories with just 2 subcategories isn't very useful for navigation, but we should upmerge to all parents. NLeeuw (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction may overlap with mythology in some cases but the two are distinct concepts. Mythology can also contain embellished or rumored versions of real events. The Bible has mythological elements, but most would not agree it is a pure "work of fiction". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. NLeeuw (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms economists[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms economists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, despite what the article says this is not about an economist. It is more like a minister of finance, so the article is alright in Category:Later Tang government officials. If not deleted, then merge to Category:Chinese economists. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Buddhist monks[edit]

Propose merging Category:Later Han (Five Dynasties) Buddhist monks‎ (1 P) to Category:Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Buddhist monks and Category:Later Han (Five Dynasties) Buddhists
Propose merging Category:Later Jin (Five Dynasties) Buddhist monks‎ (1 P) to Category:Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Buddhist monks and Category:Later Jin (Five Dynasties) Buddhists
Propose merging Category:Later Zhou Buddhist monks‎ (1 P) to Category:Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Buddhist monks and Category:Later Zhou Buddhists‎
Propose merging Category:Min (Ten Kingdoms) Buddhist monks‎ (2 P) to Category:Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Buddhist monks and Category:Min (Ten Kingdoms) Buddhists‎
Propose merging Category:Wuyue Buddhist monks‎ (2 P) to Category:Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Buddhist monks and Category:Wuyue Buddhists
Propose merging Category:Yan (Five Dynasties period) Buddhist monks‎ (1 P) to Category:Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Buddhist monks and Category:Yan (Five Dynasties period) Buddhists‎

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:NARROWCAT, very detailed categorization by religion, occupation, and parallel kingdoms/dynasties in a relatively short period. The Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms lasted from 907 to 960. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all per nom for now without prejudice. Glad my suggestion some time ago is taken up. NLeeuw (talk) 09:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Socialists by occupation[edit]

Propose merging Category:Socialists by occupation to Category:Socialists

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure how helpful it is to have a socialists by occupation category. Mason (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, redundant category layer with only three subcategories. I also wonder whether we should keep two of the three subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional chimney sweepers[edit]

Propose merging Category:Fictional chimney sweepers to Category:Mass media portrayals of the working class

Nominator's rationale: Most articles in here are works of media, which don't belong here anyway, while the one character that does can be merged to Category:Fictional domestic workers. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and recategorize per nom. The category does not contain what it says to contain. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century Tasmanian architects[edit]

Propose splitting Category:19th-century Tasmanian architects to Category:Tasmanian architects and Category:19th-century Australian architects

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge this isolated category Mason (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Lithuania (1569–1795)[edit]

Propose merging Category:History of Lithuania (1569–1795) to Category:Early modern history of Lithuania

Nominator's rationale: merge, the two categories cover nearly the same period. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - early modern age in Lithuania according to my knowledge starts a century before 1569 (if we take 1453 as the starting year of early modern age). Seems a bit much to make out those to be identical.--+JMJ+ (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Around 1500 is most often mentioned as the start of the early modern age and articles about the period between 1500 and 1569 can still be put in the early modern category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 01:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Marco. "1453" is a bit arbitrary, as it takes the fall of Constantinople as the measure of world history, instead of a rather minor event that was bound to happen to a Byzantine Empire in terminal decay for centuries. "1500" may also be arbitrary as a random round number, but at least it does not assign an arbitrary value of significance to any event, and it has been a commonly used convention in historiography. For Lithuania, of course, 1569 is much more significant, but given that we've already got 2 categories and it doesn't make sense to create separate categories for 1500 to 1568, and 1796 to 1799. NLeeuw (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PAW Patrol (franchise)[edit]

Propose merging Category:PAW Patrol (franchise) to Category:PAW Patrol

Nominator's rationale: Uncategorized duplicate category. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The TV series (currently at Category:PAW Patrol), and the franchise are not the same thing. See also Talk:PAW_Patrol#Split_and_move_proposal. Gonnym (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both into Category:PAW Patrol - This situation reminds me of similar franchises like Category:SpongeBob SquarePants and Category:Avatar: The Last Airbender. This way, there is also reasonably enough articles for a category. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will note that Category:PAW Patrol is the originally-proposed merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 01:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or reverse merge, too little content for two categories. Technical note, if it is going to be a downmerge then parent categories have to be added to the target manually. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the League of Women Voters[edit]

Propose merging Category:Members of the League of Women Voters to Category:American suffragists

Nominator's rationale: Simple membership in the League of Women Voters is non-defining. User:Namiba 15:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many siblings contain (just) activists, which is much more defining than membership. We might rename and purge this one as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on renaming and purging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/him) 02:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean towards merge. Given that it's not very defining by itself. Mason (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose given that both nominee and target are very large categories, and no navigational value seems to be served by throwing them together. NLeeuw (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 01:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coke Studio (franchise)[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Coke Studio (franchise) to Category:Coke Studio

Nominator's rationale: Probably unnecessary disambiguation. This is missing a parent article about the franchise as a whole, or the original Brazilian series. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: Category:Coke Studio (the proposed rename target) exists. Do you mean merge? House Blaster (talk · he/they) 22:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please merge. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 01:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or reverse merge, it is unclear why these two categories exist next to each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Character songs[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Character songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category hardly has any entries, with Megalovania being more of a theme song than "sung by the voice actor", of which there is none. The current category members could be merged to parent categories if they aren't in them already. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

Metal (group)[edit]

Metal (group) → Heavy metal music (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Could also refer to subtopics of Chemical element or Periodic table. However, I'm thinking the bust course of action is delete since I do not believe retargeting this redirect to Metal (disambiguation) is a feasible resolution since there doesn't seem to be sufficient entries there that relate to this redirect, and I'm not sure if they belong there either. Steel1943 (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I...probably agree? I'm not entirely sure what this redirect is supposed to be alluding to. Do they mean "metal group" in the same way you'd allude to a heavy metal music band as a "metal band"? If that's the case, the disambiguation of it makes no sense. Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

बालवीर[edit]

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

A redirect in Hindi language, I don't think anyone is going to search Baalveer in hindi on English Wikipedia. M S Hassan (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom's rationale. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the Hindi name for a Hindi television series, so there is sufficient affinity that this is not a straightforward WP:RFOREIGN case. Whether it useful though, I'm undecided. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is definitely a useful redirect. I don't see any reason to delete it. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is unambigous and directs readers to the correct location. Many people use Wikipedia in Hindi-speaking countries. They may have forgotten the correct romanization in English. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ca Baalveer is a simple name and easy to remember in its romanized form. Given its straightforward transliteration, it's unlikely that users will forget its English spelling. Additionally, this article exists on Hindi Wikipedia, which caters to users searching in Hindi script. Therefore, maintaining a Hindi script redirect on the English Wikipedia seems redundant and unnecessary. M S Hassan (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wp:rlang says it's fine if something is notable in and/or originates from any given language are fine to keep so for example, "brasil" is a perfectly usable redirect to brazil, as that's its name in whatever language brazil uses, but Брази́лия wouldn't be as fine, since it's in a completely unrelated language (in this case, russian). so keep per that cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Michael Aarons[edit]

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete (G6) as unambiguously created in error

Bible Videos[edit]

Bible Videos → List of films of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Bible Videos (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

List of films of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Bible Videos doesn't seem like the appropriate target for such a broadly-named redirect. ~Awilley (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: when you search "Bible Videos" in Wikipedia the first entry was the List of films of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article, the other article that would make sense under this redirect was BibleProject, but this is an organization, and yes they make Bible videos too but they are less popular than the Church makes and they separate them as "Old Testament" and "New Testament", and not "Bible Videos", in their YouTube channel description, they dont say they make "Bible Videos", but "free resources to help you experience the Bible". Furawi (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget - The sole source for the List of films of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Bible Videos section refers to the videos as "Life of Jesus Christ Bible Videos". Bible Videos in my view should redirect to Christian media#Film and television, which is the closest generalised topic I could find, but I don't feel too strongly either way. BugGhost 🪲👻 09:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but add a hatnote. I was very surprised to find that the current target is the clear primary topic when googling for "Bible Vidoes" -Wikipedia but it is. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having thought some more about this, I think my preference would be to make Bible videos a disambiguation page that includes List of films of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Bible Videos, The Bible in film, List of films based on the Bible, and similar articles, and then point Bible Videos to Bible videos. It simply doesn't seem right to me to imply that the LDS Church has a monopoly on producing bible videos, and I think the redirect would surprise any readers who happen to follow it. My second preference would be to retarget Bible Videos to List of films based on the Bible which could include a link to List of films of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Bible Videos.
@Thryduulf: I too am surprised to see the LDS Church's webpage as the #1 result for a Google search for "bible videos" but I think we can do better than following Google's blind algorithm. ~Awilley (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules[edit]

Template:2024 Irish local candidate[edit]

Template:2024 Irish local candidate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

What little use for this is now over. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sledge Hammer![edit]

Template:Sledge Hammer! (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All linked episodes are redirects to the episode list, so no point to the navbox. --wooden superman 14:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ARR RRR worksheet[edit]

Template:ARR RRR worksheet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Procedural nomination at the correct venue. Originally nominated at MfD by User:David Eppstein with rationale: Template whose only purpose is to add a worked example to Experimental event rate in violation of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, orphaned after I removed that part of the article Nickps (talk) 09:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bduke and Robert McClenon: Pinging participants of the MfD. Nickps (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still think it should be deleted. Bduke (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FC Masr squad[edit]

Template:FC Masr squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This football squad template is 7 years out of date, and the team is now called ZED FC. If someone wants to update and move it to ZED FC, fine. Otherwise, this squad template is pointless. Geschichte (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pretenders to the Mexican throne[edit]

Template:Pretenders to the Mexican throne (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:BLP violation:

Maximilian von Götzen-Iturbide states: Götzen does not pursue any claim to the throne...Despite Götzen not actively pursuing any claim himself, social media users claiming to be Mexican monarchists have posted their support of his claim. So some guys on the Internet want him to be a pretender, but he isn't.
Carlos Felipe de Habsburgo never mentions he is claiming the throne of Mexico, and he is not in Category:Pretenders to the Mexican throne, but still included in this template anyway.

Also WP:OR WP:NPOV WP:NOTGENEALOGY. The BLPs above and two other people in the template (and the category) appear to have been inappropriately included for purely genealogical reasons, even though they do not appear to have claimed or actively pursued their (theoretical genealogical) claim on the Mexican throne:

Agustín de Iturbide y Green: When he came of age, Iturbide, who had graduated from Georgetown University, renounced his claim to the throne and title and returned to Mexico. So as soon as he was legally capable, he renounced his claim.
María Josepha Sophia de Iturbide: [She inhered] the Habsburg claim on the throne. Maria Josepha was a very traditional Lady, and a devout Roman Catholic, and stayed as far away from politics as she could. Doesn't seem to have actively pursued her claim either; seems more like other people expect(ed) her to pursue it for purely genealogical reasons (but WP:NOTGENEALOGY).

That would leave this template with just 3 people, namely the 2 emperors (Agustín de Iturbide and Maximilian I of Mexico) and the son of the first emperor, Agustín Jerónimo de Iturbide y Huarte, who is the only historically verifiable active pretender to the Mexican throne from 1824 to 1864. The viablity of this template for navigation is thus in question.

Given past template discussions on pretenders to former thrones, we should delete this one as well.

Follow-up to recent deletion of main article Pretenders to the Mexican throne, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretenders to the throne of Mexico. See also ongoing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 12#Category:Pretenders to the Mexican throne. NLeeuw (talk) 07:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tone, Pppery, TompaDompa, PatGallacher, and Mccapra: courtesy ping to participants of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 August 31#Template:Former monarchic orders of succession and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretenders to the throne of Mexico for follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 07:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mile High[edit]

Template:Mile High (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox with one blue link in body. DB1729^talk 03:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It also has a blue link to the list of episodes, but that doesn't change the fact that there is nothing to navigate between for this long-defunct TV show. Geschichte (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Docpng[edit]

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

This template hasn't been used since at latest 2018 (which is when the string docpng was added, a search for which basically turns up empty for something like this template). A gallery whether tag or template is a sufficient functional equivalent. Izno (talk) 03:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IASTText[edit]

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

Ancient template with no uses in article space but apparently intended for article space. May also not be not particularly relevant with the evolution of policy/guideline onwiki. Izno (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany[edit]

Deletion review[edit]

[1] Benyahia, Sarah Casey (2012-02-27). Crime. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-58182-3.

[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