Wikipedia:XfD today

Shortcuts

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

Speedy deletion candidates

Candidates for speedy deletion

Adrar Stadium/GA1

User:Chrollosscum

Draft:Detective Hanuman

Draft:EaglesIdea Ltd.

User:Geobenelux/sandbox

Kapı (film)

User:Kon Majok Kon Madet

Maddy Westbeld

User:Mate marsic

P.B. Suresh Kumar

User:Plasticwonder/sandbox/tests

Template:Sophie is the daughter of a man who is born in Dresden

Draft:Ze with breve

Articles

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 22	December 24 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Rishabh Shah

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

The subject of this page does not meet notability standards WP:NBIO and WP:GNG or WP:SNG. Citations are just WP:ROUTINE. Charlie (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Charlie (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sangeeta Beniwal

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

Not elected to any assembly, not have sufficient in depth coverage in news media, being a president of state commission or president of a district level party post doesn't make way for notability hence fails WP:GNG and fails WP:NPOL TheSlumPanda (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, India, and Rajasthan. TheSlumPanda (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zorch

AfDs for this article:

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

seems to fail gng by... a lot. according to a previous afd, they might be notable, but the complete lack of sources, inappropriate external links (why myspace?), and the fact that results have become an unusable mush of miscellaneous companies, cryptobro jargon, pizzerias, and chex quest jokes lead me to believe that a tnt is due, and there's only a chance that it will get recreated consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 18:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 18:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Wolf (pickup truck)

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

As this just seems to be a variant of Alpha Wolf (pickup truck), in fact much of the content is already shared. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, its three separate links to the same page. Wolf Wolf+ and SuperWolf, at least this one seems to have had one working model made. Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as article creator It is unclear to me what your rationale for deleting this article is, even with correcting your mistake. The three articles you linked in your comment lead to two unrelated/unnominated articles and one that does not exist. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said I made a mistake as there are three links to the same article under different names, however it seems this car has not started production, and most of the sourcing is to one source. So it may not (in fact) be notable. Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A car which has not yet started production or has never been mass-produced is not non-notable just for those reasons; it's why Wikipedia has so many articles on canceled or concept vehicles. It's about WP:SIGCOV, and there are six independent sources published between March 2021 and August 2023 being cited in the article and many more of them out there. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Saga

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

It has been 4 years, and not even one has been made, this is why we have wp:not, it fails this for many reasons. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Jax

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

It has been 3 years, and not even one has been made, this is why we have wp:not, it fails this for many reasons. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Ace

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

It has been 4 years, and not even one has been made, this is why we have wp:not, it failes this for many reasons. Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as article creator Which reasons specifically are why this article fails? If one of them is WP:NCRYSTAL, this refers to unverifiable content. There was a speculative line in the article that could not be verified by its footnote, so I've removed it, but the rest of the article is sourced properly. That aside, canceled, upcoming, or prototype/concept products can have articles as long as there's significant coverage. I don't agree that the content should be deleted, but I think merging the articles for Alpha Jax and Alpha Saga—which are two vehicles based directly off this one—into the nominated article would make sense. Either that, or merging all three into Alpha Motor Corporation. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Alpha Motor Corporation would be OK, as at this time they do not exist. Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social thinking

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

The majority of this article is promotional content written by someone who works at Teach Social: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Pjc5316. See https://teachsocial.org/contact/ or https://x.com/socialthinking/status/1403139072218963970

The second main editor also does as stated by their page https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Susanr714

The rest are mostly IPs

So obviously this article read more like an ad, and furthermore it is very POV (despite the "Social thinking" methodology being of the type of intervention that is VERY controversial). The relevance to Wikipedia is also questionable... I am adding appropriate templates and proposing a deletion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 23. 149.154.210.208 (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP nominator--above text is copied from the article's talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 17:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Municipal Party of Ljusnarsberg

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

Sure, this ultra-local party will have some coverage in its local municipality of 4,407. But it's just no way that it is notable on a larger scale, so fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Geschichte (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Sinclair

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

There doesn't seem to be enough independent, secondary sources that discuss Sinclair in depth. Badbluebus (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Law, and Canada. Badbluebus (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Colastraw

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

All the sources fail WP:GNG and 12 criteria for WP:MUSICBIO. Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Botswana. Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rat Race (video game)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG; only notability is its announcement and subsequent cancellation, with sources being mainly on these two details. MimirIsSmart (talk) 12:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added some sources. Timur9008 (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources do not convince me it has notability as a standalone article. There seem to be some mentioned links in the previous AfD, but they are permanently dead - oops. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the consensus and sources found in the first AFD. Not sure how hard the above looked but they're easily found, and some cover things beyond the simple announcement and cancellation, like it's poor reception prior to its cancellation. ~~Only the MTV source appears to be dead, but it still existed at one point, and~~ I even found a few new sources, so there's enough present to write an article around.

There's enough to support an article here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability standard is much higher for cancelled games, but there is reliable sourcing as above and in the earlier AfD about the gameplay details, development, and even some early feedback from outlets that they weren't getting good vibes from the game. This deserves to be kept. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sergecross73 did post sources here, but all are passing mentions or non-significant coverage, interviews (WP:PRIMARY) or routine announcements as regurgitated press releases. Really not convinced about the notability of this game at all. If we took this as meeting WP:GNG, then every upcoming/vaporware/cancelled video game ever would be notable and have its own article too. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of cancelled PlayStation 3 games as an alternative to deletion - The sources are short announcements, not SIGCOV. And one of them is an interview which counts as a primary source. --Mika1h (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I disagree with some of the assessments above. I've found the MTV source, which is neither routine nor short - its a pretty deep dive. MTV is an RS, and its written by Stephen Totillo, an experienced video game journalist. I also disagree that the coverage is simply routine - the Wired coverage talks about leaked footage, and the poor reception it got, which is anything but routine. And the rest - I don't agree with the label "passing mention" when they're articles entirely dedicated to the subject. Sergecross73 msg me 14:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The MTV article is not "independent of the subject", the writer is recounting an interview and a press release. Regarding the other sources, I guess what constitutes "significant coverage" is subjective but these news announcements satisfy the "directly" part of GNG but not the "in detail" part. They are basically glorified press releases, they are reciting what Sony has told them. The Wired coverage: Yes, it has critical analysis but it's one paragraph, is that 50 words? No way that is "in detail". Again, SIGCOV is subjective but that is setting the bar really low. --Mika1h (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that's not quite right, the MTV article is reporting on someone else's interview, and covers other things, like the game's leak on GameTrailers, its poor reception, etc. It's incorrect to try to handwave that away as some sort of interview/press release, its more nuanced than that. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of cancelled PlayStation 3 games (though there isn't much to be added): Doing some in-depth search, MTV's coverage at [1] is decent, but that's where it all stops. Based on my comment above and seeing Mika1h's proposal, this is where I end up. There is simply not enough significant coverage of the game - cancelled projects can be extensively covered, even lesser known ones like Heist (video game). This just doesn't meet WP:GNG, but an alternative to deletion is always preferred. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence James Ludovici

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

PROD was contested. Subject fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. The bulk of the article is just an unsourced list of his non-notable works. The article has had a notability tag for almost 9 years with no additions to support the subjects notability. cyberdog958^Talk 07:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and United States of America. cyberdog958^Talk 07:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sri Lanka and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gscholar brings up two papers this person wrote, but I'm not sure that's enough for an academic notability pass. I don't see any reviews of this person's other books either. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, have added further information and references - satisfies WP:NAUTHOR. Dan arndt (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that he meets WP:NAUTHOR. You added references that the subject wrote, but none of it is about the subject himself. There is no evidence that he is widely regarded or cited by peers, originated a new concept, authored a body of work that itself is notable, or created a work that has been regarded as significant. cyberdog958^Talk 15:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as the author of the first biography on Alexander Fleming, which received significant international attention at the time of its publication. I would have to disagree with your view. Dan arndt (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to see more input from the community on the recent edits.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The several archived reviews of the biography of Fleming in the article show that that book is notable. I picked one other book at random to search at the British Newspaper Archive and immediately found this review. I won't bother looking for more, since this author clearly meets the GNG, but I suspect many more sources exist. Toadspike [Talk] 12:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:SIGCOV. I only see two reliable AND independent sources that review his work here and there. I'm looking for one more. Ping me. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several reviews on JSTOR; eg Fleming book in BMJ JSTOR 25394369, Science Progress JSTOR 43415178; Nobel winners in Books Abroad JSTOR 40114429; German scene in International Affairs JSTOR 2608910. Togther with others found elsewhere appears sufficient for WP:AUTHOR. (@Bearian:) Espresso Addict (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rudraneil Sengupta

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

The article on Rudraneil Sengupta does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies, as it lacks adequate independent and reliable sources to substantiate the subject's significance. While the article attempts to document his career and achievements, it is insufficiently supported by verifiable evidence from secondary sources providing substantial coverage of his life and work.

Of the references cited in the article, only the first citation meets the criteria for a reliable source. The rest of the references merely mention Sengupta in passing, failing to offer independent or in-depth analysis of his contributions. This is not enough to establish notability under Wikipedia's standards, which require significant, independent coverage from credible sources.

A quick Google search further confirms the lack of independent coverage. Most search results are either related to Sengupta's published works or are affiliated with organizations he has worked for. There is no significant independent recognition or detailed media coverage, which is essential to meet notability guidelines.

The article also claims that Sengupta has received awards such as the Ramnath Goenka Award and the SOPA Award, but these claims are not supported by verifiable sources within the article or by any independent third-party confirmation. Without proper citations, such assertions cannot be deemed reliable or sufficient to demonstrate his notability.

Much of the content appears to be derived from primary sources or editorialized interpretations of his career. Wikipedia's verifiability and neutrality policies require that biographical content rely on independent, third-party sources to ensure reliability.

In conclusion, this article fails to meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and standards for Reliable Sources. As a result, I am nominating this article for deletion. Kriji Sehamati (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tamil Nadu and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG based on available sources. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evaristo and Sons Sea Transport Corp.

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

Fails WP:NCORP. (NPP action) C F A 13:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smoothstack

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

Post-PROD undeletion; article doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. All coverage based on a single incident. As disclosed, I am an employee of the company. TimJohn67 (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Technology, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Nominator has a clear paid COI with the subject. UtherSRG (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not sure running a predatory company is the stuff of notability here. Could be seen as a form of PROMO to whitewash these issues? Regardless, I I can only find PR items, nothing helping notability. Oaktree b (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nom is an employee of the subject and is being paid to delete the article. I don't think we should acquiesce to the company's desires. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim McLelland

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

Lack of notability; article has been tagged as possible nn since creation. Cannot find anything online other than amazon, abebooks & the like, none of which establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Photography, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pawan Reley

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

This article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines as it lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Many references cited in the article are either promotional or lack credibility. Citations 13, 14, and 15 are press releases, which are inherently self-promotional and do not establish notability. Additionally, citations 16 and 17 are from Amazon, a platform unsuitable for verifying the significance of an individual's achievements. The article also appears promotional in tone, emphasizing awards and achievements without adequate independent verification. A neutral point of view is essential on Wikipedia, and the content here violates this principle. Furthermore, a preliminary Google search fails to uncover substantial, independent coverage of Pawan Reley, further undermining claims of notability. Without credible, independent sources to substantiate the subject's achievements and influence, this article fails to demonstrate that the individual meets the notability requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia. Kriji Sehamati (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi, Karnataka, and Madhya Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monk (hardcore punk band)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC per my search for sources. PK650 (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broden Kelly

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

Article fails to demonstrate relevant reliable sources or meeting of WP:GNG as to why Broden Kelly is notable in his own right as opposed to being a member of Aunty Donna. At present the vast majority of the article is a repetition of information on the article for Aunty Donna itself, which highlights the lack of notability as an individual.

The limited information sourced about him himself outside of Aunty Donna looks to be extended comments from a pair of podcast appearances, those he has an employment relationship with (such as a football club) or from his own personal social media accounts, which fail to demonstrate the requirements of reliable, third-party sources to meet notability.

Article should be Redirected to the Aunty Donna page until such a time notability in his own right can be demonstrated. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Australia. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No valid secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG.TitCrisse (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viveka Nand Sharan Tripathi

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

The article on Justice Vivek Nand Sharan Tripathicontains a large amount of content but lacks sufficient references to establish notability. There are only one citations provided, and a quick search reveals no significant independent coverage or sources proving his notability, which fails to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability. Kriji Sehamati (talk) 13:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless further sources are found establishing notability. "He went to law school" and "he has been in several notable cases" do not give me much hope on the subject. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NJUDGE. GNG does not need to be met. C F A 16:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The content meets WP:NPOL, ensuring neutrality and impartiality. WP:GNG does not need to be met if the subject is relevant within a specific context.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have found a few sources but will need help with both assessing them and constructing edits (maybe). [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], there are more. Some are about the same controversial court case so more than one source is advisable. Also, the name seems to more commonly written as Vivekanand Sharan Tripathi. Usually I would just go ahead and write tye edits and insert the refs but I'm having an 'off day' as far as pain is concerned, so I'm hoping someone can help? Knitsey (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Bharti Sharma

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

The article on Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma lacks verifiable notability, with only two references supporting extensive claims. A quick search reveals no significant independent coverage or landmark achievements, failing Wikipedia’s notability and verifiability standards for judicial figures. Kriji Sehamati (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NJUDGE. GNG does not need to be met. C F A 16:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep He does appear to meet the WP:NJUDGE requirements provided sources exist that support the article text. I have reviewed one of the two sources and it supports some but not all of the clams in the article text. Simonm223 (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Uttarakhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juba Film Festival

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

Current article is promotional, author has been blocked for copyright violations. I could not find a single source giving SIGCOV that is independent of the subject. Does not appear to be notable. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Africa. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: https://www.newsweek.com/juba-identity-south-sudans-first-film-festival-offers-new-image-war-torn-478131; https://www.radiotamazuj.org/en/news/article/first-ever-juba-film-festival-kicks-off (and various articles from the same media outlet); https://www.alwihdainfo.com/Shining-a-spotlight-on-South-Sudanese-film-the-Juba-Film-Festival_a82903.html: and EyeRadio article on the page; https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/fr/newsroom/2309006-2309006 : https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/south-sudan/eu-envoy-commends-annual-juba-film-festival_und_en ; +mentioned in The African Film Industry: Trends, challenges and opportunities for growth. (2021). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), p. 228. That festival is different from usual film festivals, but it seems nonetheless notable. -Mushy Yank. 13:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sudan-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 13:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 13:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tse with diaeresis

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

Unsourced article without useful content, was already draftified but recreated by same editor. Doesn't even appear in the List of Cyrillic letters. The same editor created a whole bunch of equally uninformative articles which should be either redirected if there is a good target where they are already mentioned, or deleted.

Fram (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Europe. Fram (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. None of the articles have any sources or useful information. Made-up characters. Procyon117 (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, some of them do appear in the infobox of Cyrillic characters, but imparts no meaningful information as to be completely useless anyways. Procyon117 (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Unsourced, and by the creator's own admission, these characters are not routinely used in any recognized languages. Also, none of them exist as Unicode precomposed characters; they just appear to be random combinations of Cyrillic letters and diacritics. Hqb (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also delete En with acute, O with diaeresis and macron (Cyrillic), U with diaeresis and macron (Cyrillic) (I assume) — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 14:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. All a pointless waste of space. If any of these are used in any language then it might be worthwhile saying which ones. Athel cb (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Party royale game

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NEO. Could not find nontrivial examples of the term "party royale" being used by reliable sources to describe a distinct genre of game. There's a couple scattered hits here and there of games being described as "party royale", but they're few and far between. Perhaps redirect as a synonym of battle royale game? ~ A412 ^talk! 11:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 11:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of accounting schools in Pakistan

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

A mess of a list. No context, no sources. No other country in the world has a "List of accounting schools in ...". Geschichte (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Lists, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cristal Nell

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

I am unable to find significant or independent coverage of this bridge player to meet WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. All I can find, except for primary sources (her own league, etc.) is an obituary and a piece that does not go in depth about her. Geschichte (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaël Campan

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

Mostly primary references. Not enough significant references to meet the notability criteria. - The9Man ^Talk 10:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Economics, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexious Kuen Long Lee

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

Not enough coverage or significance to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG - The9Man ^Talk 10:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I suggest renaming the article to "Alexious Lee" (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), as this name yields several news sources and coverage that could establish notability. Sunbq (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunbq Please provide the references here or add to the article so that others can review and discuss them. - The9Man ^Talk 18:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added references to the article. Sunbq (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: The Bloomberg profile might be something, but the other sources are either not about the subject (just projects he's involved in, with a quote or two) or not independent of the subject. Quick search didn't reveal any in-depth coverage by independent sources. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sage wall

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

No evidence of sufficient notability, has received no attention in reliable sources. Sources in article are one not independent, one good book that doesn't mention the Sage Wall, and an unreliable (though popular in some circles) source. Fram (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saiyar Mori Re

AfDs for this article:

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

Unable to find independent sources with significant coverage. The existing sources about and around "Saiyar Mori Re" are mostly routine coverage and paid PR/brand content, failing WP:NFSOURCES. I am also unable to find the minimum number of full length reviews, so it fails WP:NFILM entirely. The sources mentioned in the previous XfD are paid PR, as evident from the bylines and reviews from unknown websites/blogs. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Film, India, and Gujarat. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why was this added to the Actors and Filmmakers list? It's a film not a person. -Mushy Yank. 19:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: See precedent AfD and arguments presented by User:DareshMohan, for example. A redirect seems warranted anyway (same comment) so that I am opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 19:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Freelance journalist/blogger, Brand promoted content and an article from an unknown website with no byline? Can you please read the nomination statement and WP:NFILM guideline once again and consider revising your rationale to a policy based one instead of how you feel about deletion? Here are some more PR articles that they have given out: [9], [10], [11] Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please read DareshMohan's argument? Gujarat is not a "country" but I consider the film meets NFILM's inclusionary criterion #3, if you really wish me to provide a link to a guideline. I'll stand by my !vote, if I may. I've added a couple of things to the page, rapidly. -Mushy Yank. 20:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All you have added so far is just brand promoted content, routine coverage and passing mentions with no bylines. Nearly five years on Wikipedia, yet how you interpret WP:NFIC to fit your own views is astonishing.

Here, "distributed domestically in a country" means distributed within India. This film didn't see the light outside Gujarat and we are not maintaining a database of films released in India, but rather of notable films released in India. Comparing WP:NFIC#3's weight of a film being released/distributed domestically in a country is nowhere close to that of a film being distributed within a state. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"didn't see the light outside Gujarat" is an absurd rationale. Indian cinema, being the largest producer of films globally, comprises multiple industries based on language and regional distinctions. The subject here being included in the Gujarati cinema, though less prominent than its counterparts like Bollywood or Tollywood, is still a significant part of this spectrum. Drawing a comparison between Gujarati cinema and the broader, more commercially dominant segments of Indian cinema is flawed. Keep in mind that Wikipedia:Notability is not a level playing field. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 07:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bring essays here. If you want to change existing policies, start an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films).

The current guidelines only support films that are successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film-producing country. You have contradicted yourself by mentioning "Indian cinema, being the largest producer of films globally". WP:NFIC#3 does not apply to major film producing countries and if Saiyar Mori Re were a significant part of this spectrum, it would have received reviews in reliable sources. Instead, it only has paid PR. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep your tone out! this is a discussion space, essays, statements, facts and all are legit here. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 09:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It seems the nominator has completely overlooked sources from TOI and other reputable outlets (which still lack full consensus on reliability). With that, giving an additional consideration and collectively reviewing the coverage's from the sources from TOI, TOI 2, TOI 3, One India and from the Gujarati media: navgujaratsamay, gujaratheadline and abtakmedia as well as the film's feature at the International Gujarati Film Festival 2023 is enough for notability.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 09:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- TOI - Interview / Not independent / Pre-release coverage - Jun 14, 2022 (Part of PR)
- One India - Partner content as indicated at the top - July 14, 2022 (Part of PR)
- navgujaratsamay - Press release from trailer launch - Jun 27 (Part of PR)
- gujaratheadline - Same as navgujaratsamay article / Press release from trailer launch - Jun 25 (Part of PR)
- abtakmedia - Same as above / Press release from trailer launch - July 04, 2022
- International Gujarati Film Festival 2023 - Trivial mention / no awards
None of the above news media outlets covered or reviewed the film after its release. It seems you have overlooked both the sources and the nomination rationale. Would you mind sharing your source analysis below? Mims Mentor Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeraxmoira Before diving into a source analysis, could you clarify or provide evidence for your claim that each of all sources mentioned are "(part of PR)"? — MimsMENTOR ^talk 11:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of coverage following the film's release is sufficient evidence. Apart from that, the OneIndia article is marked as "Partner Content". As for the trailer launch, inviting all the news media is standard practice and has been done this way consistently. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point about the "partner content", I do agree with that. However, when I emphasized the need for "collective reviewing" and "additional consideration" of the sources. I recognize that the coverage may not be strong enough to 'firmly keep' the article, but your own analysis doesn't solidly push for deletion either, leaning more towards WP:BARE. As for PR evidence, there isn't concrete proof to back up that claim you made (when you are talking about policies). Pre-release/press release (earned media) coverage isn’t inherently promotional, and reputable outlets like TOI often feature pre-release interviews without the coverage being purely PR-driven. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 12:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are bringing in more essays to XfDs. Please understand that essays are not P&G and hold no significant value in XfDs. The TOI sources are insufficient for a standalone article, especially given that there are literally zero reviews available. There are three articles about the trailer launch featuring the same banner image, yet you believe this isn't sufficient evidence that the press was invited to the event. The sources here are nowhere close to meeting GNG or NFILM. If you disagree, please provide a source analysis that might help me better understand your point of view. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Essays arent binding, but they offer relevant interpretations in debates like XfDs, especially for borderline cases. Dismissing them outright doesnt negate their value in offering nuance. The TOI sources, while not extensive, still provide verifiable coverage. Prerelease coverage is common, even for non-blockbuster films. Moreover, you havent fully explained why multiple outlets covering the same trailer launch definitively proves PR involvement. The case is WP:BARE now. I believe I’ve made it clear what aspects of the discussion align with GNG, based on policy guidelines. The nominator seems fixated on a single point and dismisses valid considerations by labeling them "essays," which is unproductive. Since the conversation is going in circles, I’ll be stepping back. I suggest exploring more sources from Gujarati media to verify additional coverage of the film instead of narrowing the focus to a single angle.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, no source analysis? Cool. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? to count in more essay? Sorry No! — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These sources can be used to write an article, but they certainly do not meet the standards required to establish GNG and there are no sources available after the film's release. Regarding WP:NFILM, there are literally no reviews for this film, despite it being released in the internet era. The fact that all the sources below greatly appreciate the film, its songs, trailer and its success, yet none of them have published a review, is quite amusing.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movie-details/saiyar-mori-re/movieshow/92209803.cms			✘ No
https://www.aninews.in/news/business/business/k-brothers-produced-saiyar-mori-re-wins-the-hearts-of-the-audience-as-anticipated-after-the-trailer-release20220713132245/	Story is provided by GPRC (Global PR Connect)		✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/saiyar-mori-re-new-song-manda-lidha-mohi-raj-is-winning-hearts-on-the-internet/articleshow/92653580.cms	Entertainment Desk / No byline		✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/mayur-chauhan-on-saiyar-mori-re-i-am-feeling-akhand-mauj-exclusive/articleshow/92200116.cms	Interview		✘ No
https://www.zee5.com/articles/k-brothers-produced-saiyar-mori-re-wins-the-hearts-of-the-audience-as-anticipated-after-the-trailer-release	Story is provided by GPRC (Global PR Connect)		✘ No
https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/2022/Jul/08/meet-kariyas-saiyar-mori-re-celebrates-rural-flavours-of-india-2474459.html	Express News Service / No byline	~	✘ No
https://www.oneindia.com/partner-content/jay-kariyas-debut-film-saiyar-mori-re-is-out-now-and-the-audience-can-t-get-enough-of-it-3433537.html	Partner content		✘ No
https://www.mynation.com/entertainment/film-saiyar-mori-re-wins-over-the-audience-despite-its-experimental-approach-filmmakers-express-sigh-snt-reuiuy	featured content / No byline		✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/watch-saiyar-mori-re-makers-will-soon-drop-a-teaser/articleshow/92082623.cms	Entertainment Desk / No byline		✘ No
https://www.ahmedabadmirror.com/gujarati-films-go-global/81859967.html		Passing mention	✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/mayur-chauhan-unveils-the-first-look-of-his-saiyar-mori-re/articleshow/92034340.cms	Interview	Routine coverage from an Instagram Post	✘ No
https://navgujaratsamay.com/love-story-based-film-saiyar-mori-re--a-turning-point-in-the-gujarati-film-industrys-history/221700.html	Trailer launch press release		✘ No
https://www.gujaratheadline.com/%e0%aa%b9%e0%aa%b0%e0%aa%bf-%e0%aa%95%e0%aa%b0%e0%ab%87-%e0%aa%8f-%e0%aa%b8%e0%aa%be%e0%aa%9a%e0%ab%81/	Trailer launch press release		✘ No
https://www.abtakmedia.com/god-do-is-the-best-rural-areas-love-story-sayer-mori-re/	Abtak Media / No byline		✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/the-international-gujarati-film-festival-igff-returns-with-its-4th-edition-in-chicago-usa-this-year-exclusive/articleshow/101098950.cms		Passing mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NEWSORGINDIA applies to many of these references. The sources assessment shows these to not be reliable as far as notability is concerned. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Source assessment table is thoroughly convincing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The best source I could find that wasn't clearly sponsored content was this, and IMHO that isn't enough. The other material is either sponsored, or less substantive. It's not nothing, though, and it's possible I am missing material in other languages, although I did search using the transliterated title. If the director or producer were notable, there is perhaps enough coverage to insert a few sentences into their biographies, but I see we do not have articles about them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source analysis above sums it up. Not much in RS, nothing we can use to build an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 12:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The source assessment table shows that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFSOURCES. It also does not meet WP:NFILM's inclusionary criterion No. 3 since India is a major film producing country.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pop (Pakistani TV channel)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unreferenced and lacks in-depth secondary references. Gheus (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not have significant coverage. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 07:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pop_(UK_and_Ireland)#International_versions: the Pakistani channel being broadcasting under license of the British-Irish one. -Mushy Yank. 09:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Ireland, and United Kingdom. -Mushy Yank. 09:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Pop_(UK_and_Ireland)#International_versions. Per Mushy Yank and as WP:ATD-R. (Not independently notable, but could be covered within "parent" title.) Guliolopez (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tunbow

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

Appears to be wholly promotional Amigao (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, and Hong Kong. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only routine business listings found. Fails WP:NCORP. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The company's Chinese name is Tunbow Group (traditional Chinese: 東保集團; simplified Chinese: 东保集团) and the founder is Charles Chan (traditional Chinese: 陳鑑光; simplified Chinese: 陈鉴光). Cunard (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaydev P. Desai

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

Non-notable academic that has no overlap with the University of Maryland page. Yedaman54 (talk)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On the surface, as a redirect this would be the wrong venue as being in the purview of RfD and not AfD. However, this also appears to be the contesting of a bold BLAR from 2016, with the rationale non notable on its own since 2008. Another user tried to blank the redirect in 2018, with a similar rationale to the nominator here. Given that, I'm not sure if a procedural close and immediate RfD is warranted, or if the fact this is actually a second contesting of the BLAR means the pre-2016 article contents should be restored and the AfD continuing from there. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Maharashtra, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore pre-2016 contents and keep. He passes WP:PROF: #C1 through high citations [12], #C3 through being "Fellow of the IEEE, ASME, and AIMBE", #C5 through holding the G.P. "Bud" Peterson and Valerie H. Peterson Faculty Professorship in Pediatric Research, and #C8 through being founding editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Robotics Research (for all of these see [13]; the journal is published by World Scientific, a reputable journal publisher). I'm not sure how many others of these were the case in 2016 but the ASME Fellow title, at least, dates to 2015 [14]. In any case redirecting an individual biography to the main article on an entire university, as User:K.e.coffman did then, would only make sense for the person the university is named after, not for some random faculty member. Especially as, in this case, he has long since moved to another university. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apify

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

Appears to be entirely promotional and lacks WP:SUSTAINED notability. Amigao (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Czech Republic. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the article to include Czech and Slovak sources, in which the company has sustained coverage going back to 2017. Below are examples, which show the company to be notable in the Central European startup and business community. Additionally, a search of Stack Overflow's site shows many pages of developer discussion about Apify, indicating its widespread use.

https://zpravy.aktualne.cz/finance/nakupovani/black-friday-skutecne-slevy-porovnani/r~ab190004d43d11e7984d0cc47ab5f122/

https://cc.cz/apify-nepresvedcilo-investory-miliardove-ambice-tak-vystridalo-propousteni-krizi-ale-nakonec-prezilo/

https://www.hrot24.cz/clanek/do-apify-priteklo-70-milionu-korun-prazsky-startup-se-chce-stat-dalsim-ceskym-jednorozcem-HVEEd

https://fontech.startitup.sk/umela-inteligencia-regulacia-slovensko-pre-a-proti/

https://www.zive.cz/clanky/internet-patri-botum-ne-lidem-cesti-apify-je-prodavaji-jako-aplikace-podcast-zive/sc-3-a-229824/default.aspx

https://cc.cz/tezi-data-z-webu-a-je-v-zisku-datove-apify-ma-pres-200-tisic-uzivatelu-ted-nabira-70-milionu/

https://www.lupa.cz/aktuality/cesti-scraperi-webovych-dat-apify-ziskali-od-j-t-a-fryce-desitky-milionu-na-dalsi-expanzi/

https://www.cfoworld.cz/clanky/cfo-pod-lupou-dusan-antos-apify/

https://www.e15.cz/byznys/cesky-startup-dodal-evropske-komisi-program-ktery-hlida-e-shopy-s-falesnymi-slevami-1413801

https://www.businessinfo.cz/clanky/necista-hra-se-zakazniky/

https://www.cnews.cz/clanky/cerny-patek-2017-alza-czc-mall-falesne-slevy/

https://www.trend.sk/trend-archiv/hlavne-to-nepokazit-startupy-apify-yieldigo-memsource-to-maju-nasliapnute-elitneho-klubu

https://cc.cz/startupawards2024/apify/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnookums123 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awaz Television Network

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unreferenced and lacks in-depth secondary references. Gheus (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_television_channels_in_Pakistan#Sindhi: (listed there) -Mushy Yank. 09:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Play Entertainment

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unreferenced and lacks in-depth secondary references. Gheus (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy

AfDs for this article:

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

I am nominating this article because I do not believe it meets notability guidelines.

Note that this article was previously deleted and then undeleted.

WP:EVENT - this content has no enduring historical significance. This does not have widespread national or international impact. This is arguably routine in the sense of shock news/water cooler stories/viral phenomena.
There are no lasting effects
The geographical scope is limited to Duke
The duration of coverage is limited to 2010 with one more article a few months later
There is one NYTimes article surveying the person in question but the focus is on the aftermath rather than the event in question or even the controversy in question
WP:NOTNEWS -
Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style."
In the original AFD, the author wrote

This is not an article about the faux thesis, it's an article about the controversy that the faux thesis generated.

However, after 10 years, I think it is fair to say that one of the responses to that is quite accurate

But most of the coverage was not commentary on the controversy (and "media discussion over routine privacy breaches" is also very routine and needs a fairly high standard to pass WP:NOT#NEWS. For example, is there evidence that any reliable sources have assessed this controversy within the field of "controversies over privacy" and concluding this is a significant one?). As a controversy, is this seen or will this be seen as a controversy of "enduring notability" (WP:NOT) that changed, shaped or defined the debate on privacy compared to a thousand other private communications that someone's friend posted to the world and went viral?

There are also WP:BLP considerations but I am more reluctant to specifically cite policy because this is not a biographical article. I invite others to do so if they are more confident on the matter. Transcendence (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sexuality and gender, Education, Internet, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, there's no indication there is lasting interest in this event, even at Duke. Campus controversies like this seem somewhat common at this point. I don't think it's even worth a mention at History of Duke University#Recent history: 1993–present, and it also seems undue weight to list at even Template:Duke University. Reywas92^Talk 18:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Negative keyword

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

Poorly sourced article that fails WP:GNG. Encoded Talk 💬 15:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Internet. Shellwood (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable enough to me. Documentation from Microsoft [15] and Apple [16] can be added to the references. The blog post reference can be removed. That makes room for others: [17] [18] [19].

Book references are also forthcoming: [20] [21] [22] [23]

The article is crap now, but it seems like it can be improved and the phrase is notable and common. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 01:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Keyword research as an AtD. I am unconvinced by these sources. The Microsoft and Apple sources are how-to guides for using keywords with MS/Apple products. The blog posts are not reliable sources. The first two books cited above are published by Wiley but each one (and the third book) devotes less than a page to "negative keywords." The fourth book reference is from Lulu and is thus not reliable as an WP:SPS. All told, these brief references aren't really WP:SIGCOV, and per WP:NOPAGE the subject matter can be covered encyclopedically and appropriately with reliable sources at the parent topic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Swire email

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

I believe this has issues with WP:GNG

Lack of Enduring Notability:

WP:NOTNEWS - While the event received widespread media attention at the time (early 2000s), this coverage was largely sensationalist and lacks long-term cultural or historical significance.

Reliable, independent sources do not demonstrate sustained, in-depth coverage of the event. The topic does not appear in discussions of internet history or privacy issues beyond its immediate timeframe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transcendence (talk • contribs) 20:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darel Chase (bishop)

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

A non-notable clergy person. Sources that mention Chase are limited to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (his personal website, a blog from a bishop in his church, his church's official website x2 x3 x4, x5, his church's international communion website, and corporate documents on the KY secretary of state's site); and an apparent WP:SPS WordPress blog. Several sources do not even mention Chase at all ([24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]); these are contributing to WP:SYNTH to draw connections about the subject not present in the sources. I found nothing qualifying in a WP:BEFORE search. Finally, let me address WP:BISHOPS since I am guessing it will come up. While AfD participants have debated the applicability of BISHOPS (and I have generally accepted it as a quasi-guideline since WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES align with it, even though it's not a P&G), this bishop does not even qualify under BISHOPS. The church he leads is a micro-denomination that is not part of the Anglican Communion or recognized by any of its member churches. Moreover, Chase is the pastor of an individual congregation, and bishops in this category are per CLERGYOUTCOMES not typically found notable by virtue of their office. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Kentucky. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Oh man, that's an interesting character. I'm seeing a remarkably marginal case for notability here, but not enough for me to !vote one way or the other. Dclemens1971, do you mind pinging me at my talk page if I don't get back to this by next weekend? I would like to contribute to this discussion, but it looks like too deep a rabbit hole for this workweek. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti I will try to remember! Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an interesting character, I'd say. He does definitely have a marginal case of notability, so I'll vote for it to be kept. And, isn't it a bit biased to call it a micro-denomination? It is a Christian denomination nonetheless, regardless of its size. It is also quite clear that he is not within the Anglican Communion. Is this a publishing house for authorized religions, or an encyclopedia? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's completely unbiased and reasonable to call it a "micro-denomination". It's own website parish directory lists just four churches. While another part of its website claims 43 churches (scroll down), there's no validation of this. Chase's own diocese appears to have just three churches. Two other dioceses (Diocese of St. Ignatius Loyola Diocese of the North-East appear to have just one church each, and a fourth (Diocese of Pelican Bay) has no website with information. And WP:BISHOPS and WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES, to the extent they are relied upon, specify "Anglican Communion" -- while I might prefer a different dividing line, I didn't make that up. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP, WP:NOTFB, and WP:SIGCOV. You can't just call yourself a bishop. You have to be ordained in apostolic succession. WP:BISHOP is a guideline that only creates a presumption of existence that, like WP:NPOL, sources must exist somewhere, for bishops of major denominations. BISHOP doesn't necessarily assume notability; it just says how to set naming conventions. There is a different outcome guideline here: WP:CLERGY:
People listed as bishops in Pentecostal denominations may fail AFDs unless they have significant reliable third-party coverage. Clerics who hold the title bishop but only serve an individual parish or congregation are typically considered the same as local pastors or parish priests.
The subject was, after lawsuits, left with a single congregation and fails significant coverage; all but two of the sources are not independent of the subject: one is about how secular and canon courts returned church property and doesn't even mention him by name and the other is a brief corporate listing. That is far below significant coverage, almost a velleity of verification. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this discussion needs a little more time to come to a clearer consensus. Some excellent points are being made though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I'm sensitive to TheLionHasSeen's argument, this is a remarkably small denomination that's one of the hundreds that have a bishop-to-laity ratio smaller than my school's teacher-to-student ratio. As such, I'm not seeing a case for presumed notability. Recent coverage of a local scandal by Dreher notwithstanding, there is not particularized SIGCOV here that contributes to GNG. If there's something I'm not privy to that suggests notability might be established soon, I would not be opposed to an AtD like draftification. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Web Series About a Space Traveler Who Can Also Travel Through Time

AfDs for this article:

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

Has a lot of sources but nothing particurly in depth. Most nothing beyond basic release info, plot recap and casting info fails WP:NTV Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Television. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources, including one page in Playing Fans: Negotiating Fandom and Media in the Digital Age and one paragraph in The Last Pirate's History of Doctor Who... -Mushy Yank. 09:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a 13-page paper dedicated to the series https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15405702.2013.779505; see also https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15405702.2013.779505. Please kindly consider withdrawing this nomination as your concern seems addressed. @OlifanofmrTennant. Thank you very much. -Mushy Yank. 09:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Technology Development Center

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 02:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). Imcdc Contact 02:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YL Ventures

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Mostly about routine funding. Some info from Techcrunch but notability is limited per WP:TECHCRUNCH. This was previously deleted per AfD before. Imcdc Contact 01:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, Israel, United States of America, and California. Imcdc Contact 01:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturing Consent (Burawoy book)

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

Article does not cite any sources. I tried to help the article and breathe new life into it with a non-free image properly uploaded, but it does not appear to be notable. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was just referencing the article as you were adding the deletion notice, and accidentally edit-conflicted. I moved a review from the EL to the body, and found another one here. I'm sure I could find more if given the time. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional reviews in Estudios Sociológicos (here), Berkeley Journal of Sociology (graduate-student run, however) (here), Social Forces (here), Journal of Social History (here), Industrial and Labor Relations Review (here), Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (here) and Contemporary Sociology (here). I could go on, but this is enough to meet NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section 108 (film)

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

Upcoming film that doesn't meet WP:NFF. Could be moved to draft space, but there's nothing in the article to show how this meets NFF. Ravensfire (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Move to draft space or display maintenance tags for more verified sources which are available. WP:NFF state Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles ... However, this article provide information albeit from an individual's point of view. In addition [32] provide some context as well. QEnigma (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets NFF with the coverage about production; filming has started and is well advanced, premise known, cast confirmed, production issues mentioned. Even if it is never released it would remain a sufficiently-notable production. -Mushy Yank. 12:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Since we cannot enforce NFF to movies which have reliable sources confirming the start of principal photography/production after filming began, deletion is not warranted.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see people bringing up NFF as far as production goes. I want to explain a bit about the requirements for an unreleased film establishing notability. To put it bluntly, production starting is not a sign of notability. The guideline is basically that people should not even consider creating articles for unreleased films unless production has begun. If production has begun then an article might be doable, however the article creator(s) would still need to establish how the production is notable in and of itself. In other words, if the film were to be cancelled today and production ground to a complete and total halt, would the current amount and quality of sourcing be enough to establish notability in the here and now?

The reason this came about is because for a while there Wikipedia has a rather big issue with people creating pages for announced films. No production is guaranteed, so there were quite a few films that were stuck in development hell. Names and companies might be attached or some other level of pre-production done, but it never led to any actual production.

As far as coverage goes, keep in mind that there has to be quite a bit and it has to be in depth. This is where it gets tricky, because marketing companies will flood media outlets with what is essentially the same content over and over again. They may announce a single name or change, but ultimately it's all coming from the same press release or statement. Right now the article's production section is non-existent and the current sourcing in the article is pretty paltry. I'm not saying that the film is absolutely non-notable, just that right now it's not really super convincing that this passes NFILM. I'm just concerned that the arguments for keep here are arguing that production has commenced but aren't really backing it up with sourcing to show where the production is notable. I'll see what I can do to expand this, but this really needs more/better sourcing than what is in the article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded it but I'm still a bit uneasy saying that this passes NFILM. Production is completed, but there really wasn't a lot of coverage of the actual production. Most of it was either pre-production announcements or a rehash of pre-production announcements, stating that filming had started. Nobody really talked about the production. Everyone was pretty close mouthed about this. If this were to be an indefinitely shelved film (meaning the actual film was never released and it was used as a tax write-off), then I'm not certain that the current amount of coverage is really enough to establish notability for the movie.

I'm not against the film having an article, so it's not like I'm saying all of this because I'm a deletionist. (I lean more towards inclusion.) It's just that I don't think that the current coverage puts this comfortably out of reach of deletion, if you look at this from the perspective of "if this never releases or gets more coverage". ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I agree with Reader's analysis above. Completing production doesn't in and of itself show notability, it's just a reasonable indicator that information showing notability likely exists. Here, though, no one has been able to show that is the case, so deletion is warranted. I'm at weak delete since the article certainly is doing no harm; it's not excessively promotional and the essentials of the article clearly are accurate. But it's unreleased, and there's no objective basis to say whether it ever will be, and it's standalone notability is wanting. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:TOOSOON until viable third-party reception to the film becomes available. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 05:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I agree with Casualty's WP:TOOSOON argument. The article should be placed in the draft space until notability is fully established.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby School Japan

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

This article is about a branch of Rugby School, only opened a year ago. I think that it is WP:TOOSOON for it to be likely to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP, and indeed I cannot find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. There was an article in The Rugby Advertiser in 2019 about the planned school, but this is local coverage and about a third of the article was a statement from Rugby School. There was an interview with the head in Relocate magazine, but I am not sure that this is a reliable source - the magazine's About talks about sponsored content. There is this article in the Sustainable Japan section of the Japan Times, which is a reliable source, but again it is mostly an interview. There is also an article from the British Chamber of Commerce in Japan, but this is not an independent source. I added a section on overseas branches to Rugby School, and redirected this article there, but another editor reverted this; so bringing it here for the community's view. Tacyarg (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Japan, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rugby School. There is also a Rugby School Thailand which should really be considered together to avoid trainwrecks. Can that be added to this nomination? These are new ventures that purportedly are creating overseas campuses of Rugby school. Rugby is clearly notable, but the only thing making these other sites notable is the Rugby name, which is a clear case of WP:INHERITED. They are, per nom., too new to have gained any independent notability. They should, however, be discussed on the Rugby school page. There is mergeable content and the redirects would preserve former content and provide a pathway for readers to locate the relevant information in the relevant parent article. Spinout could occur if and when they become independenltly notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had redirected Rugby School Thailand too - having put brief details of both schools in the Rugby School article first - but that was also reverted. I had considered AfD for that too, but have not yet had time to carry out WP:BEFORE for that branch and it has been going longer (2017) so there may be more coverage, so was holding off on that. Happy for it to be bundled with this discussion though if people want. Tacyarg (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RottenTomato0222 speaking here: I think both articles should NOT be deleted and be kept as independent articles for the following reasons: Though not many readers might recognise either Rugby School Japan or Rugby School Thailand, some teachers/families who are intended to move to those schools have the need to read about that school online whether if they're reading it on Wikipedia or not. Second of all, just because there's not a lot of articles dedicated to Rugby School's branches in Asia compared to the original school, there are tens of articles online discussing about Rugby School Japan and Rugby School Thailand, so we actually do have loads more to write on the article. Third of all, just because the article's discussion is not widely discussed doesn't mean that the article has to be deleted. As mentioned earlier before, there are people who really needs to read those articles. In addition, other world-famous school from the UK like Harrow School's branches in Asia have seperate articles on Wikipedia; like Harrow International School Bangkok, Harrow International School Hong Kong, Harrow International School Beijing, etc.. Furthermore, other UK boarding schools' branches in Asia other than Harrow School all have an article as well, for example; Haileybury Almaty, Marlborough College Malaysia, and Dulwich College Beijing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RottenTomato0222 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might look a bit messy and have some grammatically incorrect sentences or structures as I was writing that on a hurry. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is an argument to avoid at AfD, although here it raises an interesting question. Is this school a campus of Rugby School itself, or is it an international school in the way the Oxford International Schools (or Harrow) international schools, where these are legally independent private schools that affiliate to and adopt the syllabus of the affiliating body (e.g the Oxford Education group)? What is the legal arrangement? The page as it stands reads as if this is a campus of Rugby (which is a reasonably common arrangement, more so for universities). But if it is not really part of Rugby at all, but a legally independent private school that is permitted to use the Rugby name then a lot of what is on the page would necessarily be deleted and it is likely (as for a the Oxford International Schools) that there would not be notability of r an article as it would fail WP:NORG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answering your question, the legal arrangement is that Rugby School Japan is an independent private school, just like many other franchise schools. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that helps. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the school was set up by Rugby School? Looking at RSJ's website, it says Rugby School Japan is proud to be part of the Rugby School Group, an international network of pupils, teachers and senior leaders. The website for the original Rugby School says Rugby is in the process of developing a family of Rugby schools around the world, following the successful establishment of Rugby School Thailand. So should there be an umbrella Rugby School Group article, if notability is met, and then if we don't find RSJ notable, it can be mentioned there and a redirect in place? Tacyarg (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby School Japan, or should we call it RSJ, was indeed established by Rugby School, but that doesn't mean RSJ is part of Rugby School's campuses. In contrast, Harrow International School Bangkok for example, was established by a British private school, but still has a Wikipedia page on its own, rather than being merged with Harrow School. The reason is simple; going back to the Rugby Schools Group, that is a brand of a school set up by Rugby School, though their schools are still independent. Another reason; many British private schools in Asia might have opened under the name of their original school in the UK, but the operator of the school in Asia are different. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this was not established by Rugby School at all. It is a venture of Clarence Education Asia [33], who seem to have funded the school and then partnered with Rugby School Group. This is a similar structure used by the Oxford Schools. The school is therefore not a campus of Rugby but an independent sister school that is licensed to use the Rugby name and branding, and follows a Rugby School Group curriculum. What this means is that it is a private for profit independent school. The appropriate notability guidelines are WP:NORG. My searches do not find independent sources that meet WP:ORGDEPTH, so we are still not at a keep here. The question is only whether an appropriate merge target can be found. I think there is still a case for a merge with Rugby School under a section called either "sister schools" or "Rugby school group". The alternative is there could be a Rugby School Group article per Tacyarg, and that could then cover all such schools. Failing these alternatives, my view is that it should be deleted as it currently lacks independent notability, but my preference is merge somewhere, and Rugby School remains my preference. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Rugby School Japan is an independent school, either if Rugby School established it or not. Any school can be made into an article, even if it's operated under the name of another institution, unless the whole building is a campus of Rugby School, for example. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Ones (web series)

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

Non-notable web series. None of the sources are reliable, and none were found online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Internet. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage of any kind found, there seems to be a TV series in Imdb with a similar name. Sources used in the article are not RS either. Oaktree b (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the IMDb page you are referring to? That is indeed the same Cold Ones that is referred in the wiki page. Liminography (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Beint

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

I don't see any significant coverage. Likely doesn't pass WP:NACTOR due to insignificant roles in films which are also difficult to verify due to the lack of reliable sources. Frost 15:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nomination. Everyone who appeared in a Broadway show is not thereby notable. This article lacks WP:RS citations and is fails WP:GNG criterion. I vote delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mojo Hand (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As You Like It only ran for 8 performances on Broadway.[34] It toured elsewhere, but this is the only review I can find with Beint mentioned -- which is really not sigcov of him as an actor -- and there's hardly any appearances of his name in the GNews archive[35] (though this is obviously a far from complete repository, particularly of The Times). Even if something approaching sigcov of his AYLI role could be found, we'd likely still need additional sigcov for his other acting. His IMDB listing shows guest and short recurring TV roles, and what looks like minor movie roles. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need clarification as to whether having a large body of professional work as a character actor counts for NACTOR. I see literally hundreds of hits in Google books and news about all his roles, including a few longer reviews like this. Many seem to be mere listings or a few blogs like this. Not sure what to do with marginal cases like this. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admins, since I got no response, please mark me as weak keep per WP:BARE. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACTOR mentions "prolific" contributions as one of its criteria. Keep. There is coverage in reviews on various of his signficant theater roles and his numerous film/TV roles are verifiable (some can be considered significant, including the one in The Hi-Jackers or The Witchfinder General for example). His life can be sourced through things like https://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/17310736.rodbourne-couple-celebrate-70-years-wedded-bliss/. -Mushy Yank. 08:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as arguments are now evenly divided between editors arguing to Keep this article and those advocating Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing subject having 1) significant roles in 2) multiple 3) notable productions, per WP:NACTOR. The source cited above is about Beint's marriage, with his body of work as a performance as an afterthought. Longhornsg (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source I mentioned is merely and solely to source his personal life not to prove his notability. -Mushy Yank. 07:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite his body of work, a search turned up no significant independent coverage. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 05:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tum, Ethiopia

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

My searches turned up nothing to support the subject's notability. The only claim one could make re notability is Tum Airport which already has its own article. This article has only just been created, so I would usually draftify, but this has already been done once, and an editor has moved it back, thereby asserting that the page belongs in mainspace. Hence my nomination for deletion. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. SunloungerFrog (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GEOLAND is one of our most permissive notability guidelines. This is difficult to search for in English - the only results I was able to find that were not database entries were tour groups which had planned a night to be spent there, lots of Getty images taken in or near there, or quasi-reliable sites like [36]. However it is easily verified on maps and satellite images especially due to the airport. It's to be expected since it's a remote part of the world, but it's clearly a town. What would be really helpful is if someone could provide the local spelling to be able to search for additional results. SportingFlyer T·C 01:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files

File:Narmer palette 83d40m hathor atop columns below belt of king.png

The image is obviously a cut-out and slightly enlarged part of this image. According to c:COM:Own work, such an action does not give authorship. The columns "Source", "Author" and "Date", as well as the license, must be re-issued in accordance with the original photo. Which must be deleted, but here is not Commons. — Ирука¹³ 00:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the headsup, User:Iruka13. I made the closeup photograph that is File:Narmer palette 83d40m hathor atop columns below belt of king.png diplayed to the left and followed what was understood in its description when creating the WP file. I do not know why you presume an image from which it is cropped. It seems that the disposition of a specific file is why you are calling for the action you have noted regarding the file I uploaded that was accepted during review — years ago.

Loss of the closeup image seems detrimental to WP where it is applied to the discussion of the minute detail at the article on the Narmer_Palette, please do not delete it. I also plan to use it for an edit of another article.

The subject is an Ancient Egyptian artifact of unknown artistic origin, a cosmetic tray. No claim regarding creation of the artifact is asserted, only of creation of the closeup photograph. Noting the detail about Hathor on top of columns depicted below the belt of a king figure depictred on the tray — has a distinct purpose that calls for the closeup.

Please clarify exactly how you would prefer the description to read and I will edit the file following your instructions.

Also, my understanding is, that an editor is free to exercise the option offered to stipulate local retention — please advise whether that has been changed — as I continue to want to exercise that option. I do not understand your last sentence, please clarify that as well. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uofs new08.png

No need to use at Education in Saskatchewan, a link to University of Saskatchewan will be enough. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 10:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from Education in Saskatchewan as it is not the logo of that article (as the article is not for an organisation) and so the "purpose of use" on the non-free template is incorrect and invalid. Keep on University of Saskatchewan, where it is a valid fair use. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to include this in the nom but this file is also not needed at University of Saskatchewan as File:University of Saskatchewan logo.svg exists. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 14:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I support Delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:British Airways i360 Logo.jpg

Former logo, which doesn't significantly enhance the article, especially at the newer logo File:Brighton i360 Logo.png is more generic and so more useful. Also fails WP:NFCC#3- minimal number of non free items in the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Sha with dot below

Sha with dot below → Cyrillization of Arabic (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I could not verify if this letter exists. No mention in the target. Janhrach (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oe with acute

Oe with acute → Selkup language (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The only mention on the web I could find is in the Wikipedia article List of Cyrillic letters, but the mentioned language is Bashkir, not Selkup. Janhrach (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a redirect, hence, the section for qualification doesn't exist there. There's also not relevant qualification info at the target if the redirect is bypassed (Cricket World Cup), making this a misleading redirect. Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as WP:TOOSOON. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 15:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The qualification process for this event has not been detailed yet, and so there are no details about it anywhere on Wikipedia. So redirect is misleading. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2031 ICC Women's Champions Trophy

2031 ICC Women's Champions Trophy → ICC Women's Champions Trophy (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target, making this a misleading redirect for anybody who searches it. Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as WP:TOOSOON. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 15:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This redirect assumes that it will happen every 4 years like the men's event, but this is not necessarily the case (it could just get cancelled after one occurance). No information on 2031 event exists, so redirect is misleading. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snou Strait

Snou Strait → Chyornye Bratya (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This was created as the result of this deletion discussion but the problem remains that I found no evidence that anyone uses this transliteration of the supposed Russian, if only because it's supposedly named after a Mr. Snow, whose name was therefore supposedly transliterated into Russian. We really need to avoid making up fake English names for things through our own transliterations, so this redirect needs to go. Mangoe (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of the validity of this spelling, an article existed at this title from 2006 until last week. Since then, the spelling has been picked up by several travel sites in both Russian ([37]) and English ([38]) according to my Google searches. I think keeping is warranted given this error has now been in circulation for some time. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the other way to look at it is that some writer here decided to make up his own transliteration which has enjoyed some extremely limited dissemination by unwary WP copiers. And therefore we should suppress that by refusing to continue to amplify this by deleting the redirect. One could argue that the correct English spelling should be the English name that the Russian is itself transliterating in the firest place, but the fact seems to remain that we don't have a legitimate authority for this. Mangoe (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chick-Fila

Chick-Fila → Chick-fil-A (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Admittedly a pretty weak nom due to the capitalization and the dash, but couldn't it also be possible that a learner who doesn't natively speak english would also be looking for the chicken tenders article (as to which chick fillet isn't a redirect to but also wouldn't mind it existing) User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 10:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't think people who are learning English as a second language would add the dash to be honest. I also think the more expected result for this redirect would be the current target. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a wide difference between "Chick-Fila" and "Chicken fillet", but a minor one between "Chick-Fila" and "Chick-fil-A". -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnant man

Pregnant man → Male pregnancy#In humans (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Pregnant men → Transgender pregnancy (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Which is right? LIrala (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that both should link to the same place and that should be Transgender pregnancy. The section in Male pregnancy deals with two largely theoretical matters before very briefly getting on to things that actually exist in the real world. It doesn't even link to Transgender pregnancy, which is the most likely topic that the reader is actually looking for. Transgender pregnancy is much more likely to give the reader what they want and expect. I guess the other target might be acceptable if that section was substantially improved and included a link to Transgender pregnancy but, as it stands, the first redirect sends readers off to a poorly written section that doesn't give them what they are most likely looking for. This is likely to confuse and frustrate them. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Male pregnancy, and add a hatnote for transgender there -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The hatnote is already on Male pregnancy#top of the page, so either move it, refine the target, or duplicate the hatnote. LIrala (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would duplicate it -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Target both to the top of Male pregnancy which has a hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vettukathi

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

a south indian cutty boy (that's the formal term, right?), apparently mostly used to cut coconuts. seemingly probably notable on its own, but it's not mentioned in the article, and doesn't even seem to be a type of machete cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this an Indian English language term? -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a mention at List of premodern combat weapons. There it is listed as a South Indian axe-like sword (although I don't like its definition of "axe-like"). I'm undecided whether it's better to target there or WP:REDLINK delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the proposed target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian / moldovan language

Romanian / moldovan language → Romanian language (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. Poorly formatted and confusing redirect. Also no incoming links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucjim (talk • contribs) 18:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The language is known as Romanian or as Moldovan. The slash is viable. This is a completely lowercased redirect -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per anon. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It would already be a stretch without the spacing around the slash, but with it, it's well beyond implausible. If it's known as one or the other, people will search for one or the other. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the second IP. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hindh

Hindh → Names for India#Hind / Hindustan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"Hindh" isn't mentioned in that section (or anywhere, really). This would be borderline CSDable since there IS technically a prior consensus, but it's not the same target as it was when the previous discussion happened User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 05:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transsexuals

Category:Transsexuals → Category:Transgender people (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Category:Homosexuals → Category:LGBTQ people (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Despite being Transsexuals being useful, it should be moved to Category:Transsexual people instead, to avoid derogation. While for homosexuals, it's misleading, not every LGBTQ individual experiences homosexuality or identifies as homosexual. However, I wouldn't oppose a move to Category:Homosexual people. LIrala (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules

Template:Tipperary Minor Hurling Team 1935

Template:Tipperary Minor Hurling Team 1935 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 15:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tipperary Minor Hurling Team 1960

Template:Tipperary Minor Hurling Team 1960 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 15:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Waterford Minor Hurling Team 1929

Template:Waterford Minor Hurling Team 1929 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 15:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Waterford Junior Hurling Team 1931

Template:Waterford Junior Hurling Team 1931 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 15:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Montenegro in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest

Template:Montenegro in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox which, beside the parent article, has no relevant articles to provide navigation to which are not redirects, e.g. Montenegro in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Galway Intermediate Hurling Team 2005

Template:Galway Intermediate Hurling Team 2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 13:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kilnadeema-Leitrim Hurling Team 2014

Template:Kilnadeema-Leitrim Hurling Team 2014 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 13:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nsb next flytog

Template:Nsb next flytog (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Stations were converted to use Module:Adjacent stations/Flytoget. Gonnym (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in Indonesia

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in Indonesia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Foreseeable that the scope of this template will become too broad (see Russia and France), and thus has been partitioned in three. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Overseas Ryukyuan

Template:Overseas Ryukyuan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Before any of my recent edits to the articles listed in this navbox, only four of the nine Wikilinks (excluding the "Related" section, which are not the main targets) linked to an article, while the rest linked to category pages. Two of the four articles contained only material copied from older revisions of Ryukyuan diaspora or unsourced / unreliably-sourced material (e.g. "Samurai Wiki"). I thus merged those two articles (Ryukyuan Americans and Ryukyuans in Brazil) to Ryukyuan diaspora, as all three articles were stubs and mirrors of each other. In its current state, the navbox really only has three proper articles: Ryukyuan diaspora, Okinawans in Hawaii, and Japanese Bolivians, which only partially discusses Ryukyuans (Okinawans). It seems rather unnecessary to keep this navbox as it would only list two articles if all the categories, redirects, and "related" articles were removed. The remaining three articles could link to each other in their respective body paragraphs or in "See also" sections. Yue🌙 10:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kerry Junior Football Team 2014

Template:Kerry Junior Football Team 2014 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use template The Banner talk 05:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Beaufort Football Team 2019

Template:Beaufort Football Team 2019 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use template The Banner talk 05:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kerry Junior Football Team 2019

Template:Kerry Junior Football Team 2019 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use template The Banner talk 05:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:All-Ireland Colleges Interprovincial Hurling Championship

Template:All-Ireland Colleges Interprovincial Hurling Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use tmplate The Banner talk 05:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Waterford Premier Intermediate Hurling Championship

Template:Waterford Premier Intermediate Hurling Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 05:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Offaly Under-21 Football Team 1988

Template:Offaly Under-21 Football Team 1988 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 05:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wicklow Senior Hurling Championship

Template:Wicklow Senior Hurling Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 05:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Carbery Junior A Football Championship

Template:Carbery Junior A Football Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 05:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Carbery Junior A Hurling Championship

Template:Carbery Junior A Hurling Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 05:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:North Cork Junior A Hurling Championship

Template:North Cork Junior A Hurling Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 05:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:East Cork Junior A Hurling Championship

Template:East Cork Junior A Hurling Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use template The Banner talk 05:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mid Cork Junior A Hurling Championship

Template:Mid Cork Junior A Hurling Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use template The Banner talk 05:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:St Catherine's Hurling Team 2024

Template:St Catherine's Hurling Team 2024 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 05:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tullogher-Rosbercon Hurling Team 2024

Template:Tullogher-Rosbercon Hurling Team 2024 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single us template The Banner talk 05:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Castlelyons Hurling Team 2024

Template:Castlelyons Hurling Team 2024 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 05:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thomastown Hurling Team 2024

Template:Thomastown Hurling Team 2024 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 05:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kerry Junior Hurling Team 1968

Template:Kerry Junior Hurling Team 1968 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use template The Banner talk 05:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kerry Junior Hurling Team 1969

Template:Kerry Junior Hurling Team 1969 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use template The Banner talk 05:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cill na Martra Football Team 2024

Template:Cill na Martra Football Team 2024 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 05:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Carbery Rangers Football Team 2004

Template:Carbery Rangers Football Team 2004 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 05:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2022 GAA Minor Star Awards Hurling Team of the Year

Template:2022 GAA Minor Star Awards Hurling Team of the Year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 05:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany

Draft:Oe with acute

Does not seem to actually exist. Janhrach (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:En with acute

Hoax? Janhrach (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tse with caron

Definitely not notable, possibly a hoax. Janhrach (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tse with diaeresis

Definitely not notable. Possibly a hoax. Janhrach (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

List of health insurance executives in the United States

I request that the "delete" close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of health insurance executives in the United States be overturned to no consensus for these reasons:

There was no consensus that the list failed WP:NLIST.
There was no consensus that the list violated WP:CROSSCAT.
There was no consensus that "the list potentially puts people in danger" or that "the conspicuous timing of the list appears to at least celebrate this type of violence".
The closer was WP:INVOLVED through having asked a previous closer to reverse a "no consensus" close. The closer showed a clear preference for deletion when writing, "I don't think leaving this to stabilize is the right approach here. It's hard to dismiss the views on that AfD that this list, created four days after a highly publicized murder, is not here for encyclopedic reasons."
- Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators says, "As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it." The closer participated in a discussion about the page by arguing with the previous closer that "no consensus" was wrong and advocating for a "delete" close.

Cunard (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended comment from DRV nominator:
WP:INVOLVED

Sandstein (talk · contribs) closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of health insurance executives in the United States as "no consensus" on 16 December 2024. OwenX (talk · contribs) posted on his talk page that he believed the close should have been "delete". OwenX wrote:
1. "It was a tricky AfD to close, but after discarding the canvassed and non-P&G votes, I see a consensus to delete. I found two threads on Reddit canvassing for votes, and I'm sure others exist. What you said about NLIST is true, but I believe the Keep !voters did not adequately refute the issues of NLIST and CROSSCAT, which was nicely summarized by Dclemens1971 there. I'd be willing to re-close (and likely face the inevitable DRV...), if that's okay with you."
2. "Two editors with 48 edits to their name, and one with 39 edits, among others with almost no AfD history, all show up suddenly after this and this were posted on Reddit. Note that until the canvassing began, there was a clear consensus to delete, with only one opposing view (from a non-XC editor). I don't think leaving this to stabilize is the right approach here. It's hard to dismiss the views on that AfD that this list, created four days after a highly publicized murder, is not here for encyclopedic reasons. As a minimum, relisting to get a few more non-canvassed views from experienced AfD participants would make sense."
This sequence of events is similar to an admin starting a deletion review arguing that an AfD should be "overturned to delete", the AfD being reopened and relisted by the AfD closer, and then that DRV initiator later closing that AfD as "delete" before the seven-day relist period had finished even though discussion was ongoing. This would violate WP:INVOLVED as the argument for an overturn to delete goes beyond acting "purely in an administrative role".
The closer explained:
Firstly, with regards to the timing of the close, WP:RELIST clearly tells us that A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined, without necessarily waiting for another seven days. The AfD had been open for 13 days and 9 hours. It was not closed early. Since I'll be spending most of tomorrow (Eastern Time) with my in-laws, I figured I'd take care of this tricky AfD now rather than leave it for another admin to struggle with (and with the DRV that will likely follow). There is no policy that obliges a closer to let the relist clock run out, but if you feel you've been short-changed here, I'd be happy to hear the rebuttal you were planning to post on that AfD, and will reconsider and amend my close, if warranted. That said, unless you bring up an argument that turns everything around, I don't see how your reply to Sirfurboy will change the consensus I read there.
Secondly, I did not edit the article nor !vote in the AfD. To quote WP:INVOLVED, my role in this debate was purely administrative. I told Sandstein that I believe he erred in his N/C close, as I did see a rough consensus, after discarding non-P&G-based votes. That is exactly what an uninvolved admin is supposed to do when closing - or assessing the close - of an AfD. I never weighed the article on its merits, and have no opinion about it either way. My sole input here are the arguments expressed in the AfD, as they relate to our policy and guidelines. Sandstein's close was not overturned. He agreed with my assessment of his close, chose to relist it, at which point any admin--including him or me--was welcome to re-close. The situation you describe is materially different, as the DRV participant in your example was a side to the dispute. In this case, there was no dispute.
I disagree that OwenX's involvement was "purely administrative". When he "assess[ed] the close of the AfD" by telling Sandstein he should have deleted the article, OwenX became WP:INVOLVED. When he wrote, I don't think leaving this to stabilize is the right approach here. It's hard to dismiss the views on that AfD that this list, created four days after a highly publicized murder, is not here for encyclopedic reasons., he became WP:INVOLVED.
Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators says, "As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it." OwenX should have let someone else close the AfD because he initiated a discussion with the previous closer about how the AfD was wrongly closed and the article should have been deleted.

WP:NLIST and WP:CROSSCAT
There was no consensus that the list violated WP:NLIST and WP:CROSSCAT. Numerous established editors argued that the subject met WP:NLIST and did not violate WP:CROSSCAT. Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists says:
One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.
I provided sources showing that "highly paid health insurance CEOs in the United States" "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". There are other sources that do not just discuss the grouping of "highly paid health insurance CEOs in the United States" such as President Obama meeting with them in 2013. This Washington Post article notes, "The White House hosted a group of health insurance executives this afternoon to discuss - you guessed it! - HealthCare.Gov." This Modern Healthcare article notes:
Fourteen insurance industry heavyweights were called to the White House Wednesday to advise the Obama administration on how to fix the dysfunctional federal health insurance exchange. ... Kaiser Permanente CEO Bernard Tyson, WellPoint CEO Joseph Swedish, Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini and Humana CEO Bruce Broussard were part of the delegation that met with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner, senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and Deputy Assistant to the President for Health Policy Chris Jennings. ... Other healthcare industry leaders participating in Wednesday's meeting were: Patrick Geraghty, CEO of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida; Jay Gellert, president and CEO of Health Net; Patricia Hemingway Hall, president and CEO of Health Care Services Corp.; Daniel Hilferty, president and CEO of Independence Blue Cross; Karen Ignagni, president and CEO of the trade group America's Health Insurance Plans; John Molina, chief financial officer of Molina Healthcare; Michael Neidorff, chairman and CEO of Centene Corp.; James Roosevelt Jr., president and CEO of Tufts Health Plan Foundation; and Scott Serota, president and CEO of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association."
This article also lists the "health insurance executives" who participated in the meeting.
Concerns about revising the list's scope to better reflect the sources should be handled through a discussion on the talk page per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required.

"the list potentially puts people in danger" and "the conspicuous timing of the list appears to at least celebrate this type of violence"
There is no consensus for the viewpoint that the list potentially puts people in danger or the conspicuous timing of the list appears to at least celebrate this type of violence. These are not policy-based reasons for deletion. This information is widely publicly available and well-sourced to high quality reliable sources, so the list does not violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The list passed Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists before the killing happened. Deletion under this basis violates WP:NOTCENSORED. As one AfD participant wrote:
Finally, I think it's dangerous territory to limit the creation of controversial articles based on timing. Was this page made in response to a terrible event? Yes. But at what arbitrary point would we then be allowed to create controversial articles? Who gets to decide what's controversial? Slippery slope. I think the timing of this needs to be taken out of the equation.

Cunard (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (involved). AfD is not a vote, but most of the keep voters treated it that way. I counted only four keep voters (including Cunard) who offered policy-based rationales for their !votes. The rest were some mix of WP:PERX, WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:WHATABOUTX and WP:ILIKEIT. The canvassed votes distorted the debate and the closer was right to discard them when discerning a consensus. As a result, the appellant’s first two points are incorrect. There was a delete consensus on those grounds. (Re: NLIST, Sirfurboy rebutted Cunard’s sources, and I will add that those sources are all about health insurance CEOs, not the broader category of executives, which was the subject of this list. At no point was NLIST met and no consensus existed there.) Point 3 I agree with the appellant; I and a few delete voters made comments on the propriety of this particular list, but I agree that a preponderance of the delete !voters did not discuss this. However, there was a consensus to delete on NLIST and CROSSCAT. Finally, the question of whether the closer was involved. As the other participant in the discussion on Sandstein’s talk page, I do not think so. OwenX expressed his view about whether a consensus had emerged, not what it should be. I think OwenX’s comments about not “leaving this to stabilize” plainly meant that he believed there was a consensus and that a N/C close when a consensus exists on a contentious subject is not the right approach. That’s an opinion about closing procedure, not a supervote or “involvement” that would preclude a later administrative action. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn This is a tough one to assess for several different reasons, including the length of the DRV, so I copied and pasted the discussion into a word processor, eliminated canvassed votes, and came to my own conclusion before reading the full petition. I completely agree with Cunard here on both counts: that OwenX became involved when they petitioned Sandstein to relist their close, and that the close itself was wrong. I get a no consensus result, after the relist there is clearly no consensus when only looking at votes from long term users, and while I have sometimes disagreed with Cunard about whether the sources they find are good enough at specific AfDs, in this instance their detailed !vote does directly rebut arguments made by delete !votes and more discussion about those sources would be welcome. I think the best result is a relist to give some time to discuss those sources, but an overturn to no consensus would also make sense. SportingFlyer T·C 07:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). It is right that, per Dclemens1971, most of the keeps were non policy based and should be discarded. The closer correctly assessed the consensus. But I was involved so you would think I would say that. But come on. Someone creates a list of health care executives (not just CEOs. Not just the top 10 best paid. All and any of them) on December 8. Created when companies are removing the names of their executives on safety grounds. Created and grouped into a handy list. OwenX did err on one point: It was not just Dclemens1971 who argued for IAR in addition to the failure of this list to meet NLIST. I argued for that too. IAR is policy, and this is a clear and present danger to the encyclopaedia and to the people on the list. Note that we are not hiding information, because we have the information on individual pages. But we should - indeed we must - hide a handy collated list of healthcare executives created in the wake of, and clearly as a response to, the murder of one of the people on the list. We should hide it because the list is dangerous and we should hide it because it obviously brings the whole project into disrepute. I am sorry, but I sincerely believe everyone arguing to keep this list deserves trouting. Recently there were long discussions at ANI about sites that acted in harmful ways, and how Wikipedians should probably avoid them. Well, taking on board those arguments, if this were overturned and kept, I do not see how I could continue to participate on Wikipedia. And I do not say that lightly. IAR is policy. Now is the time to use it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted for a while. Strong hit list perception. Potential encyclopedic value doesn't justify. This topic should be censored for a while. WP:IAR.—Alalch E. 13:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate close and allow an uninvolved admin to close the AFD. The closing admin requested the previous no consensus close be undone and the AFD be relisted , thereby making them an involved party (particularly when the new close differed from the original close). I don’t necessarily disagree with the delete outcome, based on hit list and BLP concerns, but there is a clear bias ~~(albeit likely unintentional)~~ in the current close. Frank Anchor 14:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Why would we vacate the close and re-close for the sake of it if we believe the close was correct? That is just a waste of someone's time. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I normally argue against process for the sake of process, there are some exceptions. An involved closer who publicly stated displeasure about a previous close is certainly one of these exceptions. Frank Anchor 17:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vacate and reclose by an uninvolved editor On balance, it does appear that the closer became involved by questioning the original close. --Enos733 (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as closer): I find the whole "INVOLVED" thing ridiculous. When two bureaucrats discuss how to close an RfA, is one of them automatically "INVOLVED"? Are both? What about when several Arbcom members discuss a case before them? Should all but one recuse themselves?

This particular AfD received the attention of two closing admins, rather than the usual one. I don't see how that makes either "INVOLVED". Reading consensus isn't "involvement". And had my read of consensus--and my exchange with Sandstein--been about changing to a Keep close, I doubt Cunard would be here calling foul. Owen× ☎ 16:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

endorse because it's the right close for the right reasons but I'll be honest it doesn't sit well that the closer advocated for a different close to be undone. For those who are concerned about independence, I'll happily substitute my delete close for the actual closers, which I believe now ticks all the necessary boxes to endorse this close. To be clear I did read every word of the nomination but Jeeze Cunard I was really tempted to skim over it because life isn't that long. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy deletion candidates

Articles

Files

Categories

NEW NOMINATIONS

Association football families needing disambiguation

Category:Brown family (bankers of Baltimore)

Category:Alltuni family

Category:Category-Class United States articles of NA-importance

Category:Wives of Louis XII

Category:Fictional gnomes

Category:Fantasy video game characters by franchise

Redirects

Sha with dot below

Oe with acute

Shha with diaeresis

TicketSmarter

2031 Cricket World Cup qualification

2031 ICC Women's Champions Trophy

Snou Strait

Chick-Fila

Pregnant man

Vettukathi

Romanian / moldovan language

Hindh

Category:Transsexuals

Templates and Modules

Miscellany

Deletion review