Jump to content

User:Wcquidditch/wikideletiontoday

Coordinates: 11°06′22″N 77°45′48″E / 11.10611°N 77.76333°E / 11.10611; 77.76333
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

WIKIDELETION

TODAY

01:56, Saturday, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Page out of date? PurgeIt!™


About this page[edit]

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

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

See also: Wikideletion Yesterday

Articles for deletion[edit]

< July 05 July 07 >

Purge server cache

Bharwara Sewage Treatment Plant[edit]

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

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

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

List of Spanish musicians[edit]

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

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

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

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

1895 Pacific Tigers football team[edit]

1895 Pacific Tigers football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and California. Let'srun (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Given that every other season on Pacific's football history has an article, I think some kind of merger would probably be best so that the information on this one is not lost. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
    Do you actually have a suggestion for a merge, perhaps to a combined season article? I'm all ears, but looking at 1898 and 1899, I'm not seeing much for those seasons either...Let'srun (talk) Let'srun (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
    Not to mention, there isn't much info here to save, considering the only source. Let'srun (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
    Pacific Tigers football, 1895–99, perhaps? Or maybe extend it to include a few of their next seasons? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
    I don't see coverage to meet NSEASONS even for that range, at least from a first glance at the sources in those articles and elsewhere. 1898 has only the database and a very short recap, while the 1899 one has only the database and a long section devoted to the rules of the game in the era with no references to the actual team. Reasonable minds may differ. Let'srun (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is the first game and the first season of the team's history. The year is a matter of record and the season covered to some extent in the sourcing. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • covered to some extent in the sourcing Where? All I'm seeing is one line in a database entry here. Cbl62 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete (without prejudice). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS due to the lack of WP:SIGCOV. Pacific was a major program in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s but not so in the 1890s. Indeed, the program was practically non-existent prior to 1919 -- a grand total of five games played between 1895 and 1918 (zero wins, one tie, four losses, 11 total points scored). If someone some day wants to create an article on the early history of the Pacific football program, it might possibly be viable, but I certainly don't have the time or inclination to work on that when there are so many more worthwhile topics to pursue. Cbl62 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge to Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899. Jweiss11 (talk)
@Jweiss11: Two issues with your suggestion: 1) a closer cannot redirect to a redlink so that's not viable unless someone creates it; and (2) is there SIGCOV to support the proposed article? Cbl62 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
It's probably worth the editing time to create the proposed article, though, and merging the very small amount of information. The 1898 and 1899 articles aren't in great shape either, and it's possible the game(s) which were played were indeed covered in local papers of the time. SportingFlyer T·C 17:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Ali Sher Bengali[edit]

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

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

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

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

Vilangkattuvalasu[edit]

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

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

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

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

Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel

Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Templates for discussion[edit]

July 6[edit]

Files for discussion[edit]

July 6[edit]

Categories for discussion[edit]

July 6[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Comic Book winners

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OCAWARD and as there is a list article already


Category:Historical geography[edit]

I can't imagine that these are fundamentally different concepts. I have tagged both categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Option 2 Main article is Historical geography, while Geographic history redirects to History of geography. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Bengali–Assamese script[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There is a single Bengali–Assamese script shared between the two languages, even though they use different alphabets. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Wrong, there are multiple scripts for both languages (note the plural "scripts"), and the Bengali–Assamese script is one of these scripts used and shared by both languages (with minor differences), but there are other scripts (like Naoriya Phulo script). Look at the category content, they clearly cannot be merged as their listed scripts are not the same. They are not all the same single script. Only the Bengali-Assamese script (just named "Bengali script" in Unicode and also named "Eastern Nagari") is unified; the other scripts are distinct. As well within the "Bengali alphabet" and "Assamese alphabet" (which are relevant parts of the shared script specific to each language) are not the same (just like there are multiple Latin-base alphabets). verdy_p (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
  • There are only two articles about scripts in both categories, the rest has been added as a matter of loose association. Propose to move these two articles to the two parent categories and then delete the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Category:Cricket organizations[edit]

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

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

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

Category:Jesuit musicians[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non defining intersection between occupation and religion Mason (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose, they wrote and sung (modern) Christian music, so it is not a trivial intersection. However, I could also imagine this category to become much broader (i.e. renamed) per the list in Contemporary Catholic liturgical music. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Category:Films directed by Wayne Kramer (filmmaker)[edit]

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

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

Category:Buddhist monks from the Western Regions[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename, for English speaking readers of Wikipedia the term Central Asia is more familiar than Western Regions. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep, as it is in effect a "former nationality" category. The article Western Regions refers to a historical period (up to 8th century CE) as well as a geographical range. All the current member pages are from that period, and renaming to "Central Asia" would lose this. "Western Regions" is named with reference to China, and its significance for Buddhism seems to be that Buddhist monks from this region took their texts into China during that period. – Fayenatic London 08:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Category:Television series by Fox Television Animation[edit]

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

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

Category:Conscientious objector Medal of Honor recipients[edit]

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

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

Category:Whirly-Girls[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge; the name is not what these women are referred to but only the name of the organization. Note that these articles are already in Category:Women aviators by nationality. Hence only single merge. Alternative suggestion: keep and rename to Category:Women helicopter pilots which would expand the scope of the category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I think renaming to Women Helicopter pilots is suitable and appropriate. There is currently a lack of categories on Wikipedia to suitably identify/locate topics/persons related to women's aviation. The current categories make it difficult to find these aviation pioneers, which are few and worthy of inclusion in a category as it is a defining characteristic. This is why I developed the category in the first place. Thank you for the measured discussion here. Nayyn (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
While there are categories for female aviators, gyro and rotor pilots have different certifications compared to fixed wing pilots and thus it is a unique and defining category. There are comparatively few women who are helicopter pilots overall, and a category specifically for helicopters is particularly useful addition to Wikipedia. Nayyn (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
as per WP:USEFUL [t]here are some pages within Wikipedia that are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument Nayyn (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

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

I don't agree that "women can be easily traced in Category:Women aviators by nationality." I think the suggestion to "keep and rename to Category:Women helicopter pilots which would expand the scope of the category" makes sense.
I'm not sure what the argument "not a defining characteristic" refers to above? Nayyn (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Fictional illeists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 19#Category:Fictional illeists then undeleted out of process. Still seems non-defining. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Speedy delete per WP:G4. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
G4 doesn't fit, as it was undeleted via Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion rather than recreated. --HPfan4 (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  • That is still out of process. WP:DRV would have been the right forum. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I would still support deletion per WP:TRIVIALCAT. I just don't see this as a defining characteristic. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

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


Redirects for discussion[edit]

July 6[edit]

Miscellany for deletion[edit]

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

Speedy deletion[edit]

See Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.

Proposed deletion[edit]

See Category:Proposed deletion as of 6 July 2024.

Copyright problems[edit]

6 July 2024[edit]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Wcquidditch/wikideletiontoday&oldid=961650057"