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

Draft:Abha Biotechnology

Draft:Chemxpert Database

Draft:Clival Database

User:Edoardo. Tortora

Draft:John Teichert

Josh Drake

Draft:Lifescience Intellipedia

User:Mushpit89God

Talk:NewTokenMarket

User:Rana133/Editnotice

Draft:Rich crown

User:Rome Binoe Ronsairo

Wrack My Brain

Articles

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 08	November 10 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Allie Raffa

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

The subject might not meet WP:SIGCOV. I see some sources about her, but it might be an instance of WP:TOOSOON. Many of the sources are from her university or employer. TJMSmith (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, Women, Journalism, Florida, and Washington, D.C.. TJMSmith (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep may be notable as many other journalists; some sources do exist as my quick google search shows, but I'm not good at evaluating journalistBLPs. --25lucky (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a journalist at the very beginning of a career, and like an assistant professor, we almost never keep such articles as being too soon. Bearian (talk) 09:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Keep arguments will have to supply evidence of notability (not just claims) in the form of reliable sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruffino's Bakery of New Orleans

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

Apparent memorial page for a defunct non notable local business, created by an SPA who appears to have a conflict of interest. Does not pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Louisiana. Mccapra (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giani Harpreet Singh

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

Sources provide only routine coverage to this individual which is no different than WP:NOTNEWS. Many other Jathedars of Akal Takht also don't have separate articles. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sikhism, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retain the page- Most of the jathedar has wikipedia pages and He remained the head of Akal Takht the highest seat of Sikh Community. Wikiravidas (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Arguments should focus on policy-based reasons and the quality of the sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

England Lionhearts

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

Can't find sufficient references to make this a page, but it is obvious that this is not the England national team. Either a more appropriate redirect is needed or the page has to be deleted as the current redirect is very misleading. Mn1548 (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Arnold

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating person again for deletion as this webcomic creator has not been active for a number of years and there are more notable comic creators that do not have wikipedia pages. There are even more notable people with this name that do not have wikipedia articles. Gomanga1 (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Webcomics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a very good deletion argument. मल्ल (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – The deletion argument doesn't hold water, but looking through the sources used in the article, I cannot find a single secondary source that says anything about Arnold except listing him as the writer. Nothing in my books eiither. I can't even find out where he's from or what his inspirations are based on these sources, there's not even an interview. Using exclusively primary sources for biographical information is a problem. Aoi House seems to be the primary topic here, with Vampire Cheerleaders also having only one review. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, seeking more participation. Considering a redirect outcome, which of the mentioned articles are being proposed as the target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael de Orleans e Bragança

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

All three sources in the article are passing mentions in relation to his father. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. DrKay (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Brazil. DrKay (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael of Orléans-Braganza. DrKay (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Team (TV series)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 17:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Law, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it clearly fails GNG and lacks notability. — Mister Banker (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arshin Mehta

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

Previously deleted and salted. Sources:

IMDB. Really?
Interview hence not independent
What makes this a reliable and independent source? I'm not seeing evidence of either.
A collection of advertisements is not a reliable source.
Another interview
IMBb again
Sole mention of the subject is "The movie stars Arshin Mehta."
Sole mention of the subject is one sentence and a cast list.
Sole mention of the subject is one sentence attributed to her and her presence in a list.
Not significant coverage for various reasons.
Another interview
No mention of the subject other than in the title.

So the sourcing just isn't there. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, India, and Maharashtra. DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, the sources don't come even close to satisfying WP:GNG, and BEFORE finds nothing better. There is also nothing to suggest this person would meet WP:NACTOR, either. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kayraktepe Dam

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

Seems to be doubt about whether this will actually be built https://www.silifkegazetesi.net/2024/10/03/devletin-bosa-giden-milyonlari-ve-yatirimlari-ne-olacak/

At the moment I don’t think it is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Hartley (British writer)

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

This article has zero independent sources that provide any nontrivial content about the article subject. Most of it is just blog posts he made or articles he wrote. The rest discusses that he was elected to local government as a district councilor. The BBC covered one of his opponents. Here's the only text the BBC wrote about the article subject: Mr Humphries is contending the Droitwich Central ward against John Hartley of the Conservative Party and Chas Murray of the Liberal Democrats.

I have looked, but cannot find better sourcing.

This article topic does not meet either WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:NPOLITICIAN and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that the response of the article creator was to blank this AFD and most of the article. MrOllie (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser Thomson

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

Radio presenter article. Subject has done typical radio presenter things - presented shows on various stations, but not enough to satisfy WP:CREATIVE. No significant coverage found on a search to satisfy WP:GNG. Article has been in this poor state since 2007(!). Flip Format (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, United Kingdom, and Scotland. Flip Format (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milan the Leather Boy

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

The article has 13 references, but the issue with them is that many of them aren't reliable sources and/or don't provide significant coverage. I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I can find mentions, like less than 30 words about a Milan release in an issue of Cash Box ([1], page 26, bottom right corner). toweli (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and New York. toweli (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asociación Civil

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

Article of unclear utility. As written, it consists of a single sentence stating that the title is just the Spanish-language translation of another term that we have a much longer article about, so it's essentially functioning as a dictionary definition. Since I don't speak Spanish, I suppose it might be possible that there's some nuance missing here -- is an "asociación civil" a particular kind of non-profit organization that does a very particular thing, while other non-profit organizations might also exist that aren't asociacións civil, so that there's a distinction not being properly communicated here? -- but if that's the case then the article would need to explain and contextualize and reliably source that distinction, and if asociación civil really is just a straight synonym for all non-profit organizations then we just don't need this to be a separate article at all.
In actual practice, all this really does in its current form is attract spam-like attempts to use it as a directory listing of the Wikipedia articles about (or offsite weblinks of) individual organizations, which is not what Wikipedia is for and has been stripped.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more knowledge of hispanophone cultures than I've got can expand the article with content showing that there's a substantive distinction in meaning between "asociación civil" and "non-profit organization", but we don't need it at all if it's really just a straight-up dicdef of a straight-up translation. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aksu Dam

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

I cannot find enough recent sources to show it notable. There are other rivers with the same name. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Engineering, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vikalp Singh

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

I was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV sources and am unsure how this page was kept. I asked the reviewer for clarification but received no response, so I am taking it to AfD. The sources are poor, providing only passing mentions, and I found no significant coverage after further searches. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 14:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GrabUp - Talk 14:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources with only passing mention. Fails WP:NBIO. Page reads as promotion for the subject. No significant achievement can be found that can be considered worthy of notice to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. The roles and achievements mentioned lack sufficient depth and are backed by unreliable sources, making them inadequate for a standalone Wikipedia article.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Women's United States Championship

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

This is a new article about an upcoming, unscheduled event just announced last night (no cite for the announcement). There's inadequate sourcing to support this article, and it's entirely WP:TOOSOON for article creation, based on my reasonable BEFORE. It's already the target of ip speculators and page protection has been requested. I'd be okay with draftification. BusterD (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Wrestling. BusterD (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is about a real women's title that was introduced on WWE SmackDown! last night by the WWE SmackDown! General Manager Nick Aldis.
And next week on WWE Raw the company will introduce a Women's Intercontinental Championship. More than likely. 2600:1004:B0B1:937E:0:3:134D:3F01 (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)— 2600:1004:B0B1:937E:0:3:134D:3F01 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - This is a real championship which was announced on WWE TV, a source could be wwe.com HydraXIX (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)— HydraXIX (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - subject championship (NOT an event) already has coverage in Vice[2] and Bleacher Report (purely uncontroversial claims),[3] establishing notability per WP:GNG. Speculative content in violation of WP:CRYSTAL can be removed through normal editing. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This was literaly announced on WWE TV and yes, is real, this article will develop on time --Miki1234568 (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WWE, agree with the nominator. This is a perfect example WP:BREAKING and WP:NOTNEWS. It also lacks notability for a separate article since that is not WP:INHERITED. — Mister Banker (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This championship has been announced and has been covered by, as well as the page's current sources, various other news sources that just haven't yet been added. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Gupta (film director)

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

A director whose films are not notable, thus failing to meet the WP:NDIRECTOR criterion, and the sources are likely NEWSORGINDIA. For example, this Mid-Day article is a sponsored piece, as it appears under the 'brand-media' section and is published by BrandMedia. Other sources are ANI press releases, which are neither independent nor WP:SIGCOV and may also be sponsored. Consequently, the subject currently fails to meet GNG. GrabUp - Talk 14:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. GrabUp - Talk 14:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: When considering the sources used in the article, the Mid Day article is paid. The Latestly article also appears promotional, as it lacks a genuine author. Similarly, the APN News article doesn't have a credible author. As for the ThePrint article, it was sourced from ANI. While ThePrint is generally regarded as reliable, this particular article is also paid. Therefore, I will align with the nominator’s position on this matter. Baqi:) (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have removed some sources considered to be generally unreliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES, as well as the justwatch citation which isn't a source at all. What remains is advertorials and press releases. --bonadea contributions talk 17:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this source and this source – they are not only advertorials but blatantly based on the same text, probably a PR or else a paid placement of some kind. --bonadea contributions talk 17:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohadevpur Sarba Mongala (Pilot) High School

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

Tagged for notability by Abishe shortly after it was created. The creator removed the tag and continued to expand it, but never added a source. The external link is to an indiscriminate self-published website that does not help establish notability. My own searches didn't find sources to satisfy WP:NSCHOOL. Could potentially redirect to Mohadevpur Upazila, where it is mentioned in a list of 26 secondary schools. Worldbruce (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Franciszek Błażyca

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

Being a victim of the Katyn massacre is not enough for a standalone article. Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georges-Claude_Guilbert

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Georges-Claude Guilbert (2nd nomination)

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

does not fit criteria for academic relevance and possibility of self promotion Paul John Dedalus (talk) 13:30, 9 November 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 November 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tran Kim Chung

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is about the chairperson of a non-notable company. It was previously soft-deleted but later recreated by a single-purpose account. Cherry Cotton Candy (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Vietnam. Cherry Cotton Candy (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of senior members of the Privy Council (United Kingdom)

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

Unlike the Father of the House, there is no such designation as a senior privy counsellor, or a senior member of the Privy Council, as denied by the Lord President in 2009. This article appears to be a list of longest serving privy counsellors, so I would not say the content is utterly original research (it can be verified with a list of all privy counsellors), but there is still no good reason to create such a list. The article is linked from succession boxes of articles contained in the list, of which I would say we should remove those as well. ネイ (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saoud Al-Nuaimi

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

Had only a very brief career and no evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC. Best that I can find in Arabic is FilGoal, which is just a database source. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only 308 playing minutes confirmed by Soccerway. Geschichte (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Awaji

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

Deleted before. No indication of meeting WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Created by notorious sockpuppet user and block evader. Geschichte (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Walker (Brothers & Sisters)

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

Article has been tagged as uncited since 2013. The entire article contains WP:JUSTPLOT. Nothing found via WP:BEFORE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Ovcharenko

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

Fails notability and significant coverage criteria. Tennis player who has never won a main draw title, never played in a Grand Slam tournament main draw, never been ranked in the top 250 in the world and no significant coverage of her is included in the sparse references. Shrug02 (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Tennis, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In tennis, the criterion is that a player must have competed in the main draw of one of the top professional tournaments (WTA Tour tournaments (WTA Finals, WTA 1000, WTA 250 or WTA 250 events)) and have won at least one championship. Winning a WTA Challenger level tournament or any of the ITF W50, W75, or W100 tournaments starting in 2023 ($50,000+ between 2008 and 2022, $25,000+ between 1978 and 2007) or any WTA 125K tournament. This rule applies to both singles and doubles players. Player!!! The player She won Open Andrézieux-Bouthéon 42 ITF W75 Tournaments. As a result, this player meets the criteria.User:Vecihi91 12:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you know all this then why don't you add the content and citations to prove it? Even if what you say is the case (and I have no reason to say it isn't), then at the moment the article still lacks significant coverage references. Shrug02 (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:SIGCOV. SlowPokesB (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SlowpokesB (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Etefa

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

I tried draftifying the article, but it was moved back. I tried a WP:BEFORE search, but it failed. The sources in the article aren't quite formatted correctly. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 12:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Ethiopia. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 12:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct there is no problem with the citation or reference keep it up Pit09 (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: until such a time as the references are properly formatted, inline, and are references to actual sources not just the name of a newspaper. -- D'n'B-t -- 13:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All that matters is whether the topic is notable, and he clearly is. Senior general and meets WP:GNG. Terrible article, but AfD is not cleanup. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp I recognize that AfD is not cleanup, however WP:DRAFTIFY and peoples persistence in moving "their" article back into mainspace prevented me from unilaterally draftifying again. There really does need to be a space for discussing articles that technically shouldn't be unilaterally draftified per WP:DRAFTIFY but perhaps they ought to be draftified, anyways...but there isn't. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Altani

AfDs for this article:

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

In a previous AfD, a clear consensus emerged that this biography did not meet WP:BIO1E, and it was merged to Tolui.

The author of the recreated article claims that this woman is identical to another woman of a similar name. This is pure original research. They claim that this source "confirms Eltina or Aylt'ana was Altani", when in reality it does no such thing: is a chapter about transliterations of names.

I suggest that the original merge be restored. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, and Mongolia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francise confirmed they were one and same person Ortaq (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ortaq: Could you perhaps quote the relevant part of the source? Or indicate the page number(s)? TompaDompa (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa, Ortaq is free to correct me, but I believe they mean pages 410–411. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I figured, but I don't see how it supports their position. The source states (if you'll excuse my poor attempts at representing the characters used in the text correctly) that Grigor calls the wife of Čormaqan "Ayltʻana Xatʻun," but Kirakos calls her "Eltina Xatʻun" (Tiflis edition, p. 269, 1. 6 from the bottom). and In the Secret History (§ 214) the name of the wife of Boro𝛾ul appears seven times (YCPS 9.13b2 and 4; 14a5; 14b3; 15a2 and 4; 16a1). Each time it is transcribed [...] Al ta ni (= Altani).. It's all a bit technical of course, but this does not look to me like stating that the two are the same person—even if the source may be saying that these are two variations (or just transcriptions?) of the same name? TompaDompa (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, hence their argument is entirely flawed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Well, I don't have any particular opinions on the merits of having a stand-alone article in this specific case beside that, but on the assumption that the last AfD got it right and given that nothing obvious has changed since (unless there's something I'm missing, the only thing that was new was the assertion that these two people were one and the same?), I suppose the "merge" outcome should stand—and since the content was presumably already merged that would amount to a (reinstate) redirect from me. TompaDompa (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Smoluća

AfDs for this article:

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

This siege, its relief and the evacuation of the population is covered in a short paragraph in the comprehensive two-volume US history of these wars, Balkan Battlegrounds. It doesn't include much of what is in the current paragraph headed Order of battle, and when summarised would amount to a few sentences at best. A Google Books search adds very little in terms of possible reliable sources, none of which constitute significant coverage. I could trim it down to just what the source does say, but the editor responsible has done this before, and therefore this is a classic WP:TNT candidate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that this was a minor action in the overall fighting for the Posavina region from March 1992 to January 1993, and might be mentioned in a larger article on those operations. But it is definitely not notable on its own. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i can add sources to this article if you let me. It will take a little bit of time because i am finding sources for another article Wynnsanity (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion you are not right. This is a sige and if we have siege of žepa and another smaller cities we should have for this also. Its not the minor action because a lot of civis were saved and both sides took heavy casulties. There are also not so much books about this war in english because nobody cares to be honest about balkans. I agree that is bad if we have only 1 english and 10 serb sources on english wiki but the other articles for other side also have just some tabloid blogs and they are not deleted or even marked as "bad sources", is it a coincidence? I would not say so

All the best Wynnsanity (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All you need is significant coverage in reliable sources. They don't have to be in English. telegraf.rs isn't a reliable source, neither are blogs, fora, local town news portals with no real editorial oversight, or fanboi websites. Most of the articles being created about the Balkan wars of the 90s at the moment are incredibly poorly sourced. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree that telegraph is not good source. Can you give me a day or two to find better? I think that they are very badly sources because people from that area dont write or talk about it much, its "taboo". Thanks Wynnsanity (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker, i will undo your text edit today if its okay for you because it will be a lot easier for me to work on this article if i have first version not this one, i will also add content and relevant sources to it right after. I hope you understand and dont mind. Best Wynnsanity (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need, I was caught up with other things and neglected this article. As peace maker said, it does not need its own article since this was a part of a wider Bosnian TO campaign in Lukavac. I might also add that when I first made this article, I was very inexperienced and didn’t know anything about copyright. Orhov (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i made changes and fixed the problem that peacemaker suggested, if you are the editor its up to you, best Wynnsanity (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article should be retained if more is added, like a prelude or aftermath, that is if it is backed up by reliable material. If not, then that is fine with me. Orhov (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to include that, thanks Wynnsanity (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The citations that have been added, like "Fooian & Foo 2002, p. XXX" are not verifiable as they don't provide the title of the book, or publisher etc. No-one can look at it and then check if it is reliable and accurately reflects what is is supposed to be supporting. Unless the full citations are added, we cannot be assured that significant coverage exists in reliable sources, and therefore the article should be deleted. Also, the removal of the material about the Serbs evacuating and withdrawing due to ARBiH pressure and the town being occupied by them is directly relevant to the subject, and deletion of it could be considered censorship to only indicate one side's version of the engagement. I strongly suggest you re-instate it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but this is totally absurd. First of all, in Bosnia people are all Bosnians(muslim, orthodox and catholic) and you cant look at them "black and white" like you do and in every article saying "Bosnians never did anything", "Bosnian atrocities i dont think so" etc. When we few people(editors) who are benevolently editing wikipedia will be deprived of your non-existent criteria where you always want more and more and more and then delete our works and add stars to your main page for contributions, cringe. This is not "one side" POV because here in the article they only explain what happend during the siege and shelling wich is fair and totally honest and you cant as wiki admin look to this topic like that one side never did anything bad and want a milion sources to be "assured", thats not serious. And when one neutral editor "Fanboi" as you called him posted yesterday all that you have asked for(siege, civis..) you have ofcourse ignored and continued with your agenda. Article was in bad shape until we make it be a lot better with our good faith edits, i personally have a big collection about this topics and this is not Naoleonic War to have thousand best sources. I will undo my edits because i dont know how to add and you will have another sources from other editors wich are also not your taste but every article with "Sanjak NEWS, BLOGSPOT" is okay and "reliable" to you because one side is always the victim and we are all "Fanboi", says who? Bill Clinton? Pretty sad to be honest. Wynnsanity (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what are you on about exactly? I have never done anything of the sort. I have rarely edited articles about the Yugoslav Wars of the 90s because I was there for some of it, but the sudden flurry of poorly sourced articles about obscure events drew my attention. Have you even read the reliable source policy? The verifiability policy? These are fundamental to what we do, as is WP:NPOV. All en WP expects is for these many newly created articles on the Yugoslav Wars to be notable in their own right and reliably sourced. If that is too much for you, then perhaps en WP is not for you. If you tell me what the titles are of the books you provided short citations (authors and year of publication, but nothing else) for, I can check them for reliability and that they actually support what you say they do. If they are reliable and do what you say, then perhaps the article will meet WP:N. I know it can be frustrating when other editors question your work, but that is what we do here. It isn't a blog or forum. In any case, take a chill pill, good grief... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google search for Borojević and it quickly identified him as a self-published author of aviation books (in the main), and results also indicate he served in the JNA then VRS during the Bosnian War and continued to serve in the VRS afterwards. So, for starters, he's not a historian; secondly, he's self-published; and he's closely affiliated with the VRS given he served in the VRS and the VRS were involved in this engagement. The perception (if not actuality) of a conflict of interest and a likely axe to grind is pretty obvious. I cannot see how his book can be considered reliable, and it certainly can't be used to demonstrate the notability of an article. I will now remove the citations to Borojević from the article. If you believe the book is reliable, feel free to ask for a community opinion at WP:RSN. I have also posted this to Wynnsanity's talk page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me to take pills to calm down, knowing that I'm right in everything I said, but it doesn't matter, I'm used to it here. This is isnt blogforum but is also not your forum to whatever you want. I apologize because I did not write in English how to get to the book, so it turned out that I was manipulating, which is not the case. I think the editor wrote according to that book, I didn't know it was self-proclaimed because it seemed official to me Wynnsanity (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s be really clear here. Nothing I am saying is MY “policy”. Everything I have observed reflects English Wikipedia policy. Now we have more “references” without a title or publisher. What are the titles of the books please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that is impossible to talk with you. You can sell that story to someone else, not me. I don't want to waste my time on insignificant things when anyone with a wrong woldview of can destroy my hard and good work. I'm done with this so delete and do whatever you want. goodbye 2A00:10:990A:F501:40F6:9E0D:C07D:A148 (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for this kind of contentious and contested topic I’d expect sources of the highest quality. Failing that I don’t think we should take anything on trust. There’s too much POV-driven Balkan rubbish on this site anyway. Mccapra (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Qara-Hamid (1510)

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

Fail to see how this is notable. The only two remaining citations are poorly cited (and not verifiable) and seem to be based on translation of a primary source? This was moved to draft twice because of its poor quality [4] [5] but then quickly moved back with no explanation by two brand new users [6] [7], one of them being the creator of this article. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second citation appears to be from this article, so Azerbaijani-speaking editors could be of help. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That isn’t the source referred to. The pdf you linked to doesn’t have pages 500 or 501 as in the reference, and in any case doesn’t mention Qara Hamid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs)

Delete as I can’t find any sources in any language for this alleged battle. Mccapra (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)8[reply]
Delete likely fabricated sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

lacks notability and verification. Someguywhosbored (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mangilal Arya

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

I searced web and I didn’t find any single source for this article, fails WP:GNG. This article is also tagged since 2012 but not yet nominated. I m surprised how did this page survived a long. TheSlumPanda (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Rajasthan. TheSlumPanda (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources on the page. Can not find anything on the subject. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ebohon of Ova

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article was declined at Afc but finds it's way back to the main space. Ibjaja055 (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stirling City Choir

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

A purely PROMOTIONal piece for a community group that has gained no INDEPENDENT coverage in the past 167 years. -- D'n'B-t -- 11:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. -- D'n'B-t -- 11:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- D'n'B-t -- 14:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Dynasty

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

I don't see how WP:NCORP is met given the sources in the article, and I wasn't able to find sources that would be enough to establish notability either. toweli (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riyasat Parjamandal

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

Unable to find enough sources to show that this topic meets WP:NORG. Redirection would have been a good ATD, but the only article that mentions this party is Ghagga, a town, which seems inappropriate as a target. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, India, and Punjab. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article name has a typo, it should be "Riyasat Prajamandal", "Riyasat Prajamandal" or "Riasti Praja Mandal". Notable political movement, see [8], [9], [10], [11] --Soman (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe the article is notable and the article just needs some corrections. It’s better to improve the article rather than delete it. Since Soman has provided references above, I think it's justified for the article to remain on Wikipedia. Baqi:) (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amrish Tyagi

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

Being related to a notable person does not establish notability on Wikipedia. The subject clearly fails to meet both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG guidelines. Baqi:) (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Baqi:) (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm only seeing WP:ROUTINE coverage. Ratekreel (talk) 10:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources with just passing mention. I can not find any substantial and significant achievement worthy of notice by the subject to warrant a page on. Fails WP:NPOL. RangersRus (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanja Odland

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

Conatins no independent sourcing, and what I could find was a Dagens Nyheter interview, which is mostly about her school of Buddhism and contains scant info in Odland herself, and participation in a Sveriges Radio show on meditation practices in Sweden. Insufficient in-depth and independent coverage. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Buddhism, and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edited article to include independent sourcing. Article meets criteria for inclusion of a biographical person based on:

- Coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject (Dagens Nyheter, Sveriges Radio).

- Notability based on contribution to the enduring historical record in the field of Zen buddhism. Allllllice (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a bit short, but includes links to articles about Buddhism (eg Philip Kapleau which mentions Odland under the lineage section) and some acceptable references. I'm sure there are other sources that could be included. I recommend that the article is retained. Manbooferie (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Antunovic

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

Article has been tagged for notability since 2012. This lawyer has participated in a couple of notable trials, but that does not make the subject himself notable per se. Muzilon (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete No significant coverage. My own searches yield nothing other than discussions of his involvement in cases and some interviews. Barring something extraordinary about his representation he doesn't inherit notability from the cases. Oblivy (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as I had a dig around and found some solid coverage. In 1999, he was the subject of a profile piece in the Evening Post titled "The Defense", related to his defence of Scott Watson.^[1] He also received some coverage when he criticised the courts for remaining open to jury trials during covid.^[2]^[3] I also found an example of himself—rather than his client—making headlines for his comments made in court.^[4] There are articles about his work where his involvement is not merely a trivial mention, for example in this article he makes extensive comments about a breach of name suppression orders.^[5] In another article from 2011 he comments on the role of the legal aid system as an expert, and is described as a "senior criminal lawyer [...] well-known for his work on high-profile murder cases".^[6] David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 22:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud the effort seeking out sources which might support a keep, but this falls under what I described above with him getting discussed for his involvement in cases. The 1999 article is one piece of significant coverage. The Covid protest stuff is slightly less clear but I see it as him generating coverage about a single event. Based on this, particularly the 1999 article, I'm not inclined to change my vote but perhaps I'm at weak delete (if there is such a thing). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oblivy (talk • contribs) 14:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Murdoch, Wendy (5 June 1999), "The Defense", The Evening Post – via Proquest
^ Nightingale, Melissa (2020-03-17), "Coronavirus: Lawyer criticises courts for continuing jury trials", NZ Herald, retrieved 2024-11-03
^ "Did This Lawyer's Coronavirus Concerns Lead To The Jury Trial Suspension", LawFuel, 2020-03-18, archived from the original on 2023-10-01, retrieved 2024-11-03
^ "Judge ticks off Watson lawyer over opening address", NZ Herald, 2000-06-30, retrieved 2024-11-03
^ "Defence lawyer calls suppression breach 'outrageous'", Otago Daily Times Online News, 2010-05-25, retrieved 2024-11-03
^ Morri, Deborah (2021-06-18), "Public defenders or private: battle lines", The Dominion Post, retrieved 2024-11-03 – via Pressreader

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haryana Gana Parishad

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

Unable to find enough sources to show that this meets WP:NORG. PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, India, and Haryana. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, political party that had representation in the national parliament of India. Not impossible to source, and as per the number of references it is worth noting that there isn't a lot of 1999 material from Indian press online but WP:NEXIST more sources will exist offline in Indian national news media. --Soman (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence of WP:NEXIST is "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface". This article has been tagged as having no sources since December 2009. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're misreading NEXIST. Here is a party in national parliament, so it is reasonable to assume that there would exist offline sources available in addition to the available online sources. And lack of sourcing is not a deletion criteria in itself (apart from BLP articles). --Soman (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Ranjan Prasad

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

This clearly fails WP:NPOL, as the subject has not won any elections to prominent positions like MP, MLA, or MLC. Additionally, it does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (WP:GNG). Holding a position as Chief National Spokesperson of a party does not satisfy Wikipedia's general guidelines for notability. Baqi:) (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, India, and Bihar. Baqi:) (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notable coverage on the subject. Per nom fails WP:NPOL. The subject does not seem to warrant a page because of no significant, interesting, or unusual enough coverage to deserve attention or to be recorded as Politician. RangersRus (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Youn Young-seong

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played 7 minutes in the K-League and 215 minutes in the J2 league. The Japanese Wikipedia has mostly primary sources, though it has the one sports.khan.co.kr article, which looks like fluff to me. It has words like "grow rapidly" and "absorbing the detailed and fast-paced soccer unique to South America like a sponge" when the reality is he never played a single competitive match in South America. Geschichte (talk) 09:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Mohamed (footballer, born 2002)

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

Lacks sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Only played 14 matches in the Qatari league. Article looks very similar to those created by sockpuppet abuser Mhsohaib (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Geschichte (talk) 09:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Davies (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Saukkonen

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Finland. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Cosnett

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having won the British Open and being the first player to have been paid by the UK government to play darts, Cosnett has coverage of its time - Sunday Mercury, Black Country Evening Mail for same, Herald Express for same - for this matter, there's a heap of other regional papers who cover him for being the only player at the time paid by the government for his sporting career. Further coverage of him "rounding off his year in style" in the Black Country Evening Mail by winning the British Open, the national darting competition at the time. There's also the Black Country Evening Mail covering him switching careers to enter the pub business (which isn't quite about his sporting achievements, but it'd be weird for a regional newspaper to cover some non-notable bloke applying for a pub license...). I don't have access to the BNA but there's also a story in the Wolverhampton Express and Star entitled "Darts star John off to seek fame", and in the same publication for him not paying his taxes - again, not really about his achievements, but it's hard to think some random unnotable would get the same coverage, let alone labelled a "darts ace". I'm seeing well enough coverage from his heyday to merit keeping the article. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Mourad

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

Marked for notability concerns since 2013. I do not believe he meets WP:JOURNALIST. Article contains a number of uncited claims that I was not able to verify. LibStar (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Journalism, Television, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dipluridae species

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

This is effectively a WP:REDUNDANTFORK that duplicates information in Dipluridae and its various genus pages. Keeping it doubles the amount of work to keep the wiki up to date, and doesn't add anything. There is a list of genera in Dipluridae, and a list of species within each genus (e.g. Linothele). The lists are not so long as to unbalance the articles and justify having their own page. Each genus in Dipluridae has its own article, so there's no longer a case to list species by family due to an absence of genus articles, as I understand was the rationale for this system. There is some precedence for deleting this based on the List of Salticidae Species deletion. Mediocre.marsupial (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 10:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support In the early days of creating spider articles, there may have been a rationale for having lists of species by family, rather than including them in genus articles, but this is no longer the case. As the nominator rightly says, listing species by family and then again by genus creates redundancy, adds nothing, and makes maintenance more difficult, frequently leading to inconsistencies. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Such list articles make updating the taxonomy more difficult and sometimes they get overlooked leading to inconsistencies. The list are useful when there there are few genus articles and the list unbalances the family article, but this isn't the case here. A list might be suitable if it includes other information (habitat, conservation, web type, etc) but again that's not the case here. When here are large numbers of species, lists at the genus level seems more appropriate. — Jts1882 | talk 11:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The family article has a linked list of recent genera, each of which has a species list; and for the fossil genera (where we don't have separate genus articles) it does list the species, which are few. This article adds nothing beyond these components, and thus seems surplus to requirements. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archana Patnaik

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

Being appointed as the Chief Electoral Officer of an Indian state's Election Commission, whose role is to oversee local elections, does not make her inherently notable. I tried to search for SIGCOV but found only reports about the appointment, and even these don't provide in-depth coverage. The subject fails to meet GNG. GrabUp - Talk 09:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Tamil Nadu. GrabUp - Talk 09:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Comment: ~~The subject meets the criteria for WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN~~ however, the subjects appointment as Chief Electoral Officer was only made today (November 9). Reliable sources may still be in the process of being published, given the significance of this position in government, although some have already been made available. Additionally, the subject is not new to politics, being an established figure in Indian national politics. That said, the article may be considered WP:TOOSOON as well and could be moved to draft status for further development.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Striking the keep vote with a comment now.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mims Mentor: Could you elaborate on how the subject meets WP:POLITICIAN and NBIO? GrabUp - Talk 15:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the subject being an Indian Administrative Service officer newly appointed as Chief Electoral Officer for the Government of Tamil Nadu, falls under the category of WP:NSUBPOL whose members can be accorded presumed notability. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mims Mentor: Indian Administrative Service officers are not politicians. WP:NPOL is just for judges and elected politicians. You misunderstood NPOL. Read what is listed in WP:NSUBPOL regarding India: It says, “Members of the Legislative Assemblies and Councils of the States and Union Territories are presumed notable. Members of the Autonomous District Councils may or may not have presumed notability.” There is no way an appointed Chief Electoral Officer is included under NPOL. GrabUp - Talk 15:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thank you. While I'm not opposed to deletion (as mentioned, drafting the article could still be relevant), there might still be potential for significant coverage, as the subject was only recently appointed to the role. This could soon meet the general notability guidelines. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If so, then this article can be recreated. I am also not opposed to draftification, if consensus decides it. GrabUp - Talk 16:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Davy Richardson

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Ottawa stabbing

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

The subject of the article is a minor crime incident which falls under WP:BREAKING and WP:ROUTINE coverage. It also fails WP:LASTING impact. — Mister Banker (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mister Banker (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage here is absolutely not WP:ROUTINE. Please read the examples at WP:ROUTINE for comparison. Breaking is a concern, as is depth and duration of coverage. There's not enough here to build an article that isn't bad which is my biggest concern.

This did get several months of coverage so not all the sources are breaking, but IDK if it's enough. It was created too early to see if it will turn out notable, but if it turns out notable I would support recreating it in the future. Familicides tend to be the least likely kind of mass attack to receive NEVENT qualifying coverage so that is a strike against it. Merge into List of mass stabbing incidents (2020–present), probably. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Worst mass killing in the city's history. Definitely notable.-- Earl Andrew - talk 13:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what? What's next? Are we going to have an article on WP for worst mass killing incident in each of the Canada's cities? There's nothing encyclopedic about the article. This is simply WP:GEOBIAS. — Mister Banker (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Douglas

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

WP:BLP of an unelected candidate, not adequately demonstrated as passing the conditions for the permanent notability of unelected candidates. As always, the notability bar at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while unelected candidates get articles only if either (a) they can demonstrate that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) they can demonstrate a credible reason why their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater and more enduring notability than most other people's candidacies.
But this demonstrates neither of those things, and is effectively just the usual campaign brochure referenced to the usual smattering of run of the mill campaign coverage that every candidate in every district can always show, which is not enough to render his unsuccessful election campaign more notable than other unsuccessful election campaigns all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Florida. Bearcat (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haryana Republican Party

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

Unable to find enough sources to show that this meets WP:NORG. PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, India, and Haryana. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Political party represented in state legislature. By no means impossible to source, and WP:NEXIST applies here as it is not very easily to find regional news from India from 2003 online. --Soman (talk) 09:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balkees Jarrah

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

BLP of a human rights lawyer sourced mainly to statements she has made, comments she has offered and interviews she has recorded. Lacks independent in-depth coverage. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Syria. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I respectfully disagree. This individual has received significant independent coverage, in my view. Firecat93 (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - these is literally zero coverage in reliable sources about her. Comments from the peanut gallery and advocacy outside of a courtroom are not significant coverage of a BLP. Passing mentions aren’t either. Bearian (talk) 09:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gbolabo Awelewa

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

Non-notable cyber security person whose notability is anchored on his scant analysis of cyber security reports written by different groups and organizations. All are passing mentions in routine media coverage Ednabrenze (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as they fail WP:BIO. All the references in the article are either an interview with no editorial changes beyond questions/answers (and thus can't count towards notability per WP:PRIMARY), and none of them are actually about him - they're all about a cybersecurity thing, and then he's interviewed. I can't find anything beyond this besides LinkedIn, Instagram pages etc. which are all UGI. Molecular Pilot 07:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are sponsored articles (such as this) or just passing mentions. No independent in-depth coverage to establish notability. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails ANYBIO or GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tararam

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

Mostly unreferenced topic, with unclear notability. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hebrew Wikipedia article has 27 references. Left guide (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Challenger Limited

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources do not meet WP:SIRS. Multiple issues tagged for years with no significant improvement. Was already deleted before by WP:PROD. Yet article came back without sufficient justification. Imcdc Contact 03:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Egypt. Imcdc Contact 03:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Club of Budapest

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

No proof of notability per WP:ORG PtQa (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Philosophy, Organizations, Politics, and Hungary. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Live Phish Volume 17

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

I am nominating the last four numbered Live Phish volumes (17, 18, 19, 20) and Live Phish 07.29.03 as they all appear to fail WP:NALBUMS due to lack of news sources talking about them, charting, or anything significant. 16 and earlier at least all charted on the Billboard 200 and received AllMusic reviews, but I haven't looked through them in detail. I came across these after noticing the article for 19 was recently recreated, with its only source being a piece on the Young Folks website about the Live Phish series written by a Phish fan/journalist, so thought it best to seek consensus on the similar articles' deletion. There just isn't any substantial coverage of these four volumes out there. The additional volumes are:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Robert Watson

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

Hello - recommending this article for deletion for the following reasons.

Seems like a promotional page by a very ocassional contributor to some industry news, with plenty of links to his own website (cited as a source) and references to prominent or notable collaberators who are all not listed on wikipedia.

Suspicious edits by 81.175.147.23 who appears to only be active on this page (this IP address is based in the same town as Mr Watson) as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DorianRichard1985 which also appears to be the subject, and created this article. There have been no meaningful edits except by these two contributors, who both appear to be Mr Watson.

This is a promotional page with poor source links, some unverifiable, created to promote the career of an ocassional opinion columnist. Does not meet Wikipedias standard for notability, nor source quality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieusuiarnaut (talk • contribs) 10:12, 4 November 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 November 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Arts, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No GS trace at all for "Michael Robert Watson", so either he publishes under a different name or his work has received no attention. The detailed education history without sources usually says the article was written by someone who is/knows the subject. Does anyone know if "ZerO books" is the same as Zero Books? Espresso Addict (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Indisputably they are one and the same. They have often used that stylising for many years and the content mentioned in this article would make it obvious anyway. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla: Monster of Monsters

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

Fails WP:NGAME and likely falls under WP:FANCRUFT. Summary-only description of the game, with only one reference, which is about the creepypasta, not the game itself. The rest of the article is completely unsourced and provides no evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Coverage on Google Books and Google Scholar is limited to WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, most of which are about the creepypasta, which I would argue is more notable, though it probably still doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nothing at all on JSTOR. Should redirect to List of Godzilla games. Masskito (talk)

Similar issues to MoM, this time with no references at all, also fails NGAME, with nothing at all on Google Books, Google Scholar, or JSTOR. Proposing same redirect to List of Godzilla games. Masskito (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Godzilla: Monster of Monsters - sizable reviews in fr:Player One (magazine): [12], Mean Machines: [13] (pages 84-86), Electronic Gaming Monthly: [14]. Enough for WP:GNG. Also smaller reviews in pt:VideoGame: [15], Nintendo Power: [16]. Redirect Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters to Godzilla: Monster of Monsters#Sequel - didn't find any reviews or significant coverage for this game. --Mika1h (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found one review for Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters. [17],[18] Timur9008 (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Mika1h. It's weak, but there's enough for this game to pass the notability bar. Godzilla 2 should likely be Merged with Monster of Monsters given their overlap, with any Reception for War of the Monsters covered there. If anything more for the sequel comes up, ping me and I'll change my vote, but for now I feel that Mika1h's assessment is entirely accurate to how I feel on the matter. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest

AfDs for this article:

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

This event lacks in-depth, independent and significant coverage as confirmed by a search on Google News. Also, the award is given primarily for promotional purposes by entities involved in marketing which is one of the exclusionary criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (awards and medals). Charlie (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and India. Charlie (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This overall doesn't meet WP:GNG Cyberpower7 (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep how a national contest could not be notable. It also sends winners as national representatives to Manhunt International, Miss Intercontinental from 1997 to 2003, Miss Tourism International. Also Covered in high-profile Indian media which added, kindly check. Jitujadab90 (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Beauty pageants. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing any in-depth, independent and significant coverage on Google News. Could you kindly provide a detailed source analysis to support your vote to keep? Charlie (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "Mannequin: Working Women in India's Glamour Industry" (Zubaan Books) by Manjima Bhattacharjya has 2 paragraphs on the Awards; note: the name varies a lot http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/52851463.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst and is very often shortened (without Contest or without other words; sometimes longer "Gladrags magazine’s Manhunt and Megamodel Contest"). I find more coverage about individual winners (a lot) than about the Awards per se. If this is not enough, it could be redirected to the magazine (I don't think deletion is necessary) Mushy Yank (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I forgot to mention: please read the first AfD, where sources had been presented, some that I found linked also in Google Books but I cannot access fully so cannot judge. (Consider this a weak keep then). Mushy Yank (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is enough coverage in reliable sources as discussed in the previous deletion discussion. Although I am not able to find any recent coverage of the contest, that does not mean it was not notable before and User:Раціональне анархіст (PAX)'s comment in the previous AfD should also be considered. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gladrags as the sources within the article lack an WP:INDEPTH coverage of the subject event. — Mister Banker (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anxiety (Inside Out)

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

This article recently sprung up, but not in a good way. I find Joy more notable to have an article, but Anxiety doesn't. She currently fails WP:GNG and doesn't have much to say. She is a fairly new character, i would suggest a redirect to either Inside Out (franchise) or Inside Out 2. Toby2023 (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the sources already cited in the article establish notability, especially Berlatsky, Noah (2024-06-14). "Opinion: Why Anxiety from 'Inside Out 2' is such a relatable character to me". CNN.
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, Comics and animation, and Disney. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Inside Out 2. The article does not have enough content to warrant a new page. Just because sources exist does not mean this page is needed. Esolo5002 (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either of the two articles mentioned by the nominator. It lacks notability as some of the references are sort of a review of the movie instead of a special feature about the character. — Mister Banker (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melee (game terminology)

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

Appears to be pure WP:DICDEF, WP:SYNTH or original research. There is no significant coverage about the use of the term "melee" in games that passes notability standards, it appears. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep and expand/improve. The historical context provided already clearly goes beyond a dicdef, and it would be astonishing if there were not more sources for this concept, in light of the popularity of games using such a system. BD2412 T 15:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasoning of BD2412, and I suspect I could have said the same of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melee weapon if I had noticed that discussion. BOZ (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uşşaki

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

Tagged uncited for years but hard to find sources as apparently not the same as https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/U%C5%9F%C5%9Faki_Tarikat%C4%B1 The source on the Turkish article seems like it might be a wiki or somesuch so perhaps not reliable? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Islam, Iraq, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see various books in English covering this significantly; also two reliable references on the corresponding article in French. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank What books in English please? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added some to the page.

By the way, you have currently opened 27 Afds regarding Turkey-related articles. It is an extremely (and in my view exceedingly) high number for one nominator, especially concerning one topic, and it happens to be very challenging for interested users to find sources and even !vote. I understand you take to Afds pages that are unsourced but, precisely, it takes a lot of time to find sources. At the very least, I am inviting you to kindly slow down your nominations; personally, I would even suggest that you stop further nominations until the present ones are closed. Thank you very much. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of Turkish sources found but as Mushy Yank says above it’s quite a task to plough through Turkish books online to update the article. Mccapra (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilan Lukatch

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

BLP of a journalist that seems to me to lack support from in depth coverage in independent sources. Appears borderline so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Israel. Mccapra (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are 10 independent sources in the Hebrew article, which, together, seem sufficient to establish notability. Whizkin (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the ten sources in Hebrew are absolutely dire:

1. Is a piece by him, not independent coverage of him

2. Is a passing mention of him in a band he played in in 1988

3. Doesn’t mention him

4. Passing mention in a brief listing

5. Passing mention

6. Doesn’t mention him

7. Doesn’t mention him

8. Interview with him (his first interview ever)

9. Decent, if rather brief, third party source

10. No longer accessible but looks decent.

That’s not enough to build a stand alone bio article on and it does look like the original creator of the Hebrew article was desperately scraping around for any mention they could find. Mccapra (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that those sources are sub-optimal. Whizkin (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OR biography of a professional at work. The Hebrew article is refbombed. Our article is shorter, so there are less references, yet what we have is equally a mixed bag. gidonb (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest fathers

AfDs for this article:

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

Potentially WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTNEWS, and persistent WP:BLP violation, same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of youngest birth mothers. Absolutiva (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and also WP:NLIST. Procyon117 (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Separate !votes for the two articles:
- About Pregnancy over age 50: Merge what can be saved in Advanced maternal age, then delete. The issue of advanced age pregnancy is notable and cases of late pregnancy, if medically or otherwise notable, can be briefly discussed, but 50 is an arbitrary threshold and the list is cruft. --cyclopia ^speak! 10:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- About List of oldest fathers: Weak keep, after much cleanup, but I'd prefer a corresponding Advanced paternal age article instead (currently it is a redirect to Paternal age effect).--cyclopia ^speak! 10:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 20:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fully referenced therefore meets GNG. I understand the preference for "advanced paternal age" but that is already long and doesn't really need this list. It should point to this article, however, in its See Also. Lamona (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still fails listing non-notable people with references, therefore it violates WP:BLPNAME or WP:BLPLIST. Absolutiva (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it clearly passes the blpname test - these are named in reliable sources, there is no (AFAIK) attempt to hide the names in those sources. If any do not pass the blpname test they can be removed. That would not invalidate the list. Lamona (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~So as depend on notability in my draft article. Absolutiva (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)~~ Generally not needed for userspaces. Absolutiva (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, this article does not have the serious BLP violation problems as the draft in which you've tried to recreate the articles deleted here. --bonadea contributions talk 17:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~@Bonadea: There are some names of non-notable living women, it also affects BLP violation claims to Pregnancy over age 50 (including non-notable women). Absolutiva (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Article mainspace can only remove non-notable names from the list, if there is serious BLP claims. Absolutiva (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I finally abandoned by draft, let's proceed to deletion (same as above). Absolutiva (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all the reasons listed above. And also because these "oldest" lists seem interesting enough to Wikipedians that there are several sourced similar lists like these. See Category:Lists of oldest people. Most of these lists have several hundred watchers. This particular list is pretty well done, and has 190 sources. — Maile (talk) 02:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regard to the "non-notable people with references" comments. The notability of the refs is helpful: Time magazine, Guinness World Records, The Times of Israel, CNN, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, CBS News, Associated Press, etc. etc. These are good sources, and verifies the notabilities. — Maile (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: Some list of people does not meet notability requirements for pregnancy over age 50. Also, Guinness World Records should not be used to establish notability per consensus. Absolutiva (talk) 11:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tagged both of these articles does not meet notability guideline for stand-alone lists. Absolutiva (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mee Massa (TV series)

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

Another draft that was moved back into mainspace. It's not very well sourced, and a Google search turns up little to nothing (YouTube videos, etc.). I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Sri Lanka. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of full disclosure and transparency, this nomination was made after a discussion with Afrowriter on my talk page. Here's a direct link to the discussion and here's a diff of the discussion that's happened as of the nomination. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sirasa TV: the cast includes at least two rather notable actors and add one of the existing sources for verification (https://mirrorarts.lk/news/9458-2024-08-22-05-02-08 ; https://www.silumina.lk/2024/09/28/rasanduna/25979/මට-හිතාගන්න-බැහැ-බිමල්-නැ/ for example) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I usually avoid participating in Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions, as I prefer to concentrate on creating and enhancing articles about notable subjects but i we go for Delete: Per nom as it lacks WP:SIGCOV there seems to be no review about the Series Afro 📢Talk! 01:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there any more support for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Şifa University

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

I can see from the sources on the Turkish article that it existed. Are universities automatically notable? I guess not as it has been tagged as possibly not notable for years. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Medicine, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not automatically notable, but any public university is likely to be notable. This one, however, appears to be new, small and private. See [19]. As such, I would have thought it should pass WP:NORG to be notable. I have added it to the companies delsort. At this stage I have no view on whether it is notable or not. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: I found some sources (which appear to be secondary) see 1, 2 and 3. The article needs some improvement in general, but I don't think it should be deleted. SirBrahms (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page is 12 years old and has had no active editing. Draftify looks like backdoor deletion in this case. But the sources you have found are interesting. The first is a primary source: a Ph.D. thesis. Despite being a primary source, it could contain secondary information about the university, and provide something to write an article from, so I would not rule it out just for being apparently primary. The second source is a listing. That is not SIGCOV, definitely not at CORPDEPTH, and independence is questionable. The third source is the most important though. That tells us that the university was seized and closed down in 2016 following a failed military coup (it was an asset of those involved). The source is primary in that it is a news report, but presents a bit of a quandary. It shows that, on the one hand, the university no longer exists and only existed for six years. Based on that, it is unlikely this ever reached notability. On the other hand, the very event that caused it to close would appear to make something notable. I am leaning towards merge to somewhere, if there is a suitable target regarding the coup. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments! It may be viable to merge it into Purges in Turkey following the 2016 Turkish coup attempt (especially considering it hasn't had any active editing in so long (a thing I regrettably forgot to check)). Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd move to merge if it made sense. How would that look though? There were 15 universities closed in the purge, and none are currently named. Should they be listed? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say yes. I'm imagining something like this:
University one, Place, Exact reason for closure (if applicable)

etc.

What do you think? Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we have the exact reason for each, sure. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Further to my above comment, according to this page Purges in Turkey following the 2016 Turkish coup attempt, this was one of 15 universities shut down in the purges following the coup. It seems undue to add this one to that page. Yet if it is not even notable for a mention there, it is not notable for a page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Kazankova

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

WP:NACTOR significance is not shown.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: One really significant role only but better-known as a freediver: https://www.deeperblue.com/marina-kazankova-attempts-a-4th-guinness-world-record/ https://www.sportalsub.net/en/guinness-apnea-carlos-coste-y-marina-kazankova/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6584917/Freediving-duo-set-Guinness-World-Record-longest-underwater-dance.html https://tribune.com.pk/story/1888204/freediving-duo-set-world-record-longest-underwater-dance https://nofilmschool.com/2015/06/highly-suspect-4-minute-music-video-shot-one-take-under-water-red-epic-dragon-6k Mushy Yank (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Italy. Mushy Yank (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes NACTOR through roles in Alien Exorcism and The Time Guardians (Passes GNG through reviews here, here and here). May also pass GNG as there are sources here, here, here and here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 11:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the multiple sources cited in the prior two replies. Not sure why this was relisted rather than just closed as keep. WilsonP NYC (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Issaka Kriese

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

Article about an unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as meeting notability criteria for unelected political candidates. As always, candidates are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their name happens to be on the ballot -- a person has to win election to an WP:NPOL-passing office to get an article on that basis, while unelected candidates must either (a) demonstrate that they had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article as it is, or (b) show credible reasons why they should be seen as a special case of much greater and more enduring significance than other candidates.
And no, the fact that a smattering of campaign coverage happens to exist is not, in and of itself, a WP:GNG-based exemption from NPOL -- every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then NPOL would just be completely meaningless and unenforceable.
But there's no strong claim to preexisting notability here, and no particular evidence that her candidacy would pass the ten year test in and of itself -- even the campaign coverage is entirely a two-day blip of "presidential candidate announces running mate", with no evidence of substantial or sustained coverage for any other reason shown at all.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if she wins the election, but she isn't "inherently" notable just for being a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ghana. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Possible redirect to Nana Kwame Bediako where subject is already mentioned. I wouldn't object to adding a few words to characterise Kriese there. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radda Novikova

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

Russian film director. The importance of a serial (mostly) director is extremely questionable. The Russian Wikipedia article was deleted [20].--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article should be kept because the director in question has a significant body of work, having directed multiple popular television sitcoms in Russia, a major media market. Furthermore, she has received international recognition, with awards that affirm her notability beyond national boundaries. There are plenty of references from major outlets, including Cosmopolitan and RIA Novosti. The fact that the Russian Wikipedia chose to delete the article does not diminish her achievements, as Wikipedia in different languages may have unique standards or biases—this is the English Wikipedia, which evaluates notability from an international perspective and should base its decision on the director's clear contributions to the industry and documented impact, not on the editorial decisions of other Wikipedias. It is also unfortunate to delete a page about a notable female director, as representation in media coverage is essential to recognizing the contributions of women in film and television, especially in an industry where they are historically underrepresented. Er nesto (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: she does seem to meet the applicable guideline, WP:DIRECTOR with various seasons or the totality of notable TV series. Mushy Yank (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endri Shabani

AfDs for this article:

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

My nom concerns from the first AfD discussion still hold. This subject fails WP:NPOL and still fails WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. From cursory search, nothing useful was found too. Also fails WP:NACADEMIC as far as I am concerned. There are no credible claims of significant/importance here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Albania. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. I can't find anything notable about the topic on the article nor online, and most news articles about them are months to years apart. Deuxde (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nisma Thurje as an alternative to deletion. The political party seems to be somewhat notable, but I'm not seeing much notability independent of that for Shabani. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete now Cyberpower7 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has not held any role that would confer an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, but the article is too dependent on primary sourcing, and not nearly enough on WP:GNG-worthy reliable sources, to claim that he would pass GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
pass WP:NPOL: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage LefterDalaka (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous reports in the Albanian media. euronews al shqiptarja Cna al Politico al telegrafi reporter al Τhere is no reliable Albanian journalistic website that does not host news and comments about him. He is certainly an important Albanian political figure whose article will be deleted only because there are no sources for him in English - LefterDalaka (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LefterDalaka, sources do not have to be in English. I looked through the sources provided in the article before !voting. I also looked through the ones you posted here, also. The Euronews and CNA do not appear to be independent of each other. All appear to be rather glancing coverage. I'm having trouble determining reliability of the publications, but I see some tabloid type concerns. What do you think the WP:THREE best sources for WP:SIGCOV are? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware that Euronews and Cna are somehow linked. Do you know something I don't know?😊 Actually I brought these sources to highlight one's encyclopedic nature by combining them all together and not just one. Let's say he is a person who is included in the Barometer, he appears on TV channels on various issues, he is now the chairman of a party, in general he is a completely recognizable and influential person in Albania. LefterDalaka (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not seeing anything here that would meet WP:PROF. No publications appearing on GS at all? With a PhD in 2020 would seem likely to be a case of too early career on that front. No opinion on press coverage in Albanian. Would be happy with redirect/slim merge to Nisma Thurje if no other source of notability emerges. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn‎. per nominator request — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Klaffner

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

Does not meet notability or significant coverage criterias. Shrug02 (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Tennis, and Austria. Shellwood (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator Additional references, albeit all from none English language sources, have been added and it seems, judging by other experiences, the bar is impossibly high to get a tennis article deleted so I withdraw my nomination. Shrug02 (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject has SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. Jevansen (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In tennis, the criterion is that a player must have competed in the main draw of one of the top professional tournaments (WTA Tour tournaments (WTA Finals, WTA 1000, WTA 250 or WTA 250 events)) and have won at least one championship. Winning a WTA Challenger level tournament or any of the ITF W50, W75, or W100 tournaments starting in 2023 ($50,000+ between 2008 and 2022, $25,000+ between 1978 and 2007) or any WTA 125K tournament. This rule applies to both singles and doubles players. Player!!! As a result, this player meets the criteria.User:Vecihi91 12:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you know all this then why don't you add the content and citations to prove it? Even if what you say is the case (and I have no reason to say it isn't), then at the moment the article still lacks significant coverage references. Shrug02 (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Thales, Indiana

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

Again with the citation saying, "this is not a settlement": in this case the 1910 county history says it was a post office, and judging from the "house in the middle of nowhere" site, I see no reason to disagree. Mangoe (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This place was known as "Hickory Grove" until 1895 [21]. It had a school [22], a post office, and general store [23]. I have been unable to find any source stating this was a populated place. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPLACE which says that "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable". Per WP:NPLACE and WP:GNIS the GNIS reference doesn't count as legal recognition and as it's unincorporated I don't think there's any other recognition (open to being corrected here by someone more familiar with the US). Thus it falls back onto WP:GNG and I can't find anything to meet that - all references have passing references of this place, mainly being about Dubious Country, thus not meeting WP:SIGCOV Molecular Pilot 07:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that I couldn't find anything much beyond the references in my own search! :) Molecular Pilot 07:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket FM (platform)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Trivial coverage WP:ORGTRIV, promotional WP:PROMO. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Commenthas a potential as over 100 mln downloads, and so on. WP NEXIST should be applied here before the final verdict. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Non-trivial coverage in Variety, Rest of World, and TechCrunch (meets RSP as being staff-written). Along with the sources in the article I think there's enough for WP:GNG. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 13:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of world article counts, but the other two are routine coverage of raised capital, no? (WP:CORPTRIV) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was not aware of the detail in WP:CORPTRIV. If nothing else can be found it should probably be deleted, then. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 01:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:TECHCRUNCH may not fully meet RSP standards, even if written by a staff writer. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the platform has demonstrated notability through its significant user base, international expansion, and coverage in reputable sources, establishing it as a notable player in the digital audio streaming industry --Moarnighar (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be considered notable on Wikipedia, it's not enough to be popular in terms of user base; there needs to be significant coverage from trustworthy and independent sources. If the coverage isn’t thorough or the sources aren't reliable, the platform's importance in the digital audio streaming industry might be exaggerated. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source assessment table here might be of great use. Need to get to the bottom of if the sourcing is routine or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Source Assessment Table

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/pocket-fm-funding-audio-series-1235947135/		Trivial coverage on funding	? Unknown
https://restofworld.org/2024/elevenlabs-pocket-fm/			✔ Yes
https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/21/lightspeed-finalizing-leading-80m-plus-funding-in-pocket-fm/	Wikipedia:TECHCRUNCH	Trivial coverage on funding	✘ No
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/pocket-fm-to-start-ip-licensing-of-its-content/article65523336.ece		Trivial coverage on service offerings	? Unknown
https://www.financialexpress.com/business/sme-pocket-fmaudio-streaming-service-storytelling-that-powers-binge-listening-2690554/		Trivial coverage on service offerings	? Unknown
https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/pocket-fm-to-invest-40-mn-to-expand-online-reading-library-11708408857053.html		Trivial coverage on funding	? Unknown
https://www.financialexpress.com/business/brandwagon-pocket-fms-india-arm-registers-647-revenue-growth-losses-contracts-by-56-in-fy-2023-3355318/		Trivial coverage on the amount of revenue	? Unknown
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}}.

TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do editors agree with the source assessment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with the source asssessment. Not every TechCrunch article is significant coverage but this one is. Combined with Variety this looks like a keep. And just as an additional point of reference $160MM in revenue is a lot, this is not a random just-launched startup that happened to get trade mentions. WilsonP NYC (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files

File:Woman on motorcycle by cami stone.jpg

There is no verifiable information about the publication date of the photograph. — Ирука¹³ 03:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Ruben Amorim

Rúben Amorim → Ruben Amorim (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Originally redirected from Ruben to Rúben in 2012 with this revision. Subject himself stated earlier today that his name does not have an accent mark in an interview (CNN Portugal). Inclined to rely more on the subject's word rather than inconsistent spelling through FIFA, UEFA, etc. sources. SunnyTango (t • c) 19:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

98 degrees\

98 degrees\ → 98 Degrees (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I had nominated this a month ago, but the nomination was removed by Fieari with no explanation. This is in line with Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 30#Various Redirects ending in \. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 19:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waking the Dragons

Waking the Dragons → Yu-Gi-Oh! (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Misleading redirect, "waking the dragons" is not a concept discussed at the target general article for Yugioh. "Waking", nor "dragons", is mentioned at the target.

If there's not an existing Yugioh location that this is able to point at, in an attempt for WP:ATD, this can be easily retargeted to Waking the Dragon which is an article that exists, and in the search bar having two would otherwise be confusing. I'm nominating here instead of BOLDly retargeting because I'm on a bit of a roll and there may be common threads if these are all "arcs" of Yugioh, as they seem to be, so better to have them all listed here for assurance and consistency. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget this and Waking the Dragons series to Yu-Gi-Oh! Duel Monsters season 4. Am I missing something because this seems obvious: "In the United States, the season was broadcast under the subtitle Waking the Dragons..." Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultrajectine

Ultrajectine Communion → Union of Utrecht (Old Catholic) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Ultrajectine → Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The expression is not used anywhere in the articles, so it is a WP:RSURPRISE. The name "Church of Utrecht (Ultrajectine Church)" was previously present at Union of Utrecht (Old Catholic), but was removed in 2023 as it was not supported by any source.

"Ultrajectine" is a pseudo-Latin adjective that simply means "of Utrech" (see: wikt:Ultraiectinus), and I did not find any use of this pseudo-Latin word to refer to the city of Utrecht.

Thus, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to wikt:Ultraiectinus Google Scholar shows several uses of this term in old Latin sources but very few in English. I don't think there's enough to say that this is commonly used to refer to the Union of Utrecht in English, but it's possible that someone might come across this term. Redirecting to Wiktionary seems best here given it is more common in Latin sources. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony DiGerolamo

Tony DiGerolamo → Bart Simpson (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention on the page; nor on List of The Simpsons comics. This deleted page about a comic writer redirects here, although it probably is meant to target the page about the comic book section of the franchise, as it contains content about the comic book series with the same name as the current target. Xeroctic (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of American comics creators. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and send to AFD (or PROD). The current target is clearly inappropriate, but so is the list above, since that's a navigational list of authors we have articles about, which this currently isn't. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to List of American comics creators. WP:BLAR is valuable here, as while the article did not contain any secondary sources, I strongly suspect that secondary sources WP:EXIST for this artist, given his confirmed portfolio, and so the article history should be kept in-tact for whoever wants to fix the article. Yes, this means that the link on the list becomes a circular link, but I can think of little reason we would want to fully delete this article and its history. Perhaps it could be converted to a soft-redirect to encourage article restoration with sources? Bart Simpson definitely isn't the right target, mind you. Fieari (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftification might be appropriate for that, but either this guy has a mainspace article and should be on the list, or he doesn't, and shouldn't. Keeping a list entry as a circular redirect to a BLARed article isn't really appropriate. (I really have no opinion on the actual notability, but the article as it existed had no sources). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Jafar

Mohammed Jafar → Mayor Quimby (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in the article. Looking this up, it appears to be a very briefly used fake alias in the episode Lisa's Wedding (that scene is set in a predicted future and is therefore not part of the Simpsons' continuity). Xeroctic (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3.1415926535…

3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679821480865132823066470938446095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091456 → Pi (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. This has been created a few months ago. It is just the maximum number of digits that Wikipedia happens to allow for a page title. This is not a reasonable search term, and I would argue it fails rule #8 of WP:RFD#DELETE: being a novel or obscure synonym that's unlikely to be useful. The edit summary for its creation, which is "255 (the max) number of characters. Lol.", also makes me wonder if this was a joke edit (this user has had something of an "obsession" with the 255 character limit, compare this example). Renerpho (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did not notify the creator of this redirect, because they were banned indefinitely a week after creating it, for sock puppetry. I notified 2003 LN6 as the only other user who has edited it. I have also mentioned it on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia records#New longest redirect title, which is where I originally became aware of it. I believe that should cover everyone who may have an interest in this redirect. Renerpho (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An overview of previous discussions of this question (up to 2018) can be found at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 10#Redirects to pi. Since then, there has also been Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 22#3.141592653589.... Relevant arguments may also be found there. Renerpho (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Harmless, goes exactly where it should point. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a reasonable search term, created by a sock. Not useful. Polyamorph (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I argued at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 8 § The Boy Bands Have Won, and All the Copyists and the Tribute Bands and the TV Talent Show Producers Have Won that in a case where the full title would exceed 255 characters, "I think it's reasonable to say that any plausible truncation of the full title is a valid search term". This is a bit different because the full length of the string in question is, well, infinite, and I wouldn't support keeping redirects for each of the 251 possible truncations past 3.14. But it seems reasonable to allow a redirect for the longest possible truncation supported by MediaWiki. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 08:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Plausible" is the crucial word here, and you have not explained why a number of 255 digits in particular is reasonable to keep. That it happens to be the maximum allowed by MediaWiki doesn't make it a plausible search term. Renerpho (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a plausible search term. Graham87 (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do y'all really think it'd be plausible for someone to type this entire string in to search for Pi when they literally only need to plug in "Pi" or "3.14"? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amending vote: I'd like to note that the idea brought up later to salt is a good one. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some readers may stumble on a very long series of digits and not realize it is pi, so they would search it up, truncating as necessary. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And where does "truncating as necessary" at exactly 255 digits come in? Truncating at 256 will result in an error, and truncating at 254 leads to a redirect that doesn't exist. Renerpho (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a useful redirect title. Jay 💬 15:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And no argument on here has convinced me that this is useful as a redirect. This RfD is useful because we need to have discussions on extreme fun redirect titles such as this which test mediawiki title lengths, and have nothing to do with regards to usefulness as a redirect title. Jay 💬 06:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep unambiguous and cheap. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 19:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tamzin. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a sequence of digits no one will type into any kind of search engine. --Викидим (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not for typing, it's for copy-and-pasing. If you paste 255+ digits of pi into Wikipedia, it would truncate to this redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK this is not how the search engines work. If one types more that this exact number of digits, search engines will not truncate the token to our 256 characters and will not point to our article (try Google). If the search is done inside Wikipedia, the long prompt will actually work and elicit a Pi suggestion without this redirect (the redirect will actually be confusing as it will distract attention for the actual article). Викидим (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tamzin. Longest technically possible version of a number that is infinite. This is especially relavent because it is a non-repeating number that it is not uncommon to memorize many digits out in popular math culture. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for too long to look at the digits. What is the point of adding these huge numbers of digits, expecting the audience to search the number of Pi in an alternative way by those digits they memorize? If they would like to search for this mathematical constant, can't they just type "Pi" instead? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tamzin, Pppery, Tavix, et al. and my arguments at a similar discussion that took place in March 2021. It's unambiguous, harmless, and potentially helpful to people searching for pi regardless of how many digits they type in. Like Tamzin argues above me, this is a plausible truncation of the full number pi (which has thousands, millions, possibly even billions of digits), just like all the other pi-digit redirects I cited in that discussion. Regards, SONIC 678 01:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only way to use this redirect AFAIK is to memorize hundreds of digits of pi and actually type (or paste) an exact number of these digits into the search engine. All modern engines would try to autocomplete the prompt (the one in Wikipedia after 3.141592 is typed will identify just the Pi and this strange redirect, so it would be great to hear a description of the scenario, where a genius who memorized all these digits (1) does not know that they belong to pi and (2) is oblivious to the suggestion of the search engine. Викидим (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Harmless, accurate. Steel1943 (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep technically correct redirect. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from nominator: To those arguing for keep, are you saying we should have a redirect from all the other possible lengths? Do you recognize that this goes against most previous discussions involving redirects to truncated versions of pi? We have some, like all up to 3.14159265358979323846264338, but most others -- including some like 3.14159265358979323846264338327950, which is actually mentioned in another article and could be a useful search term, but has been deleted per R3: Recently-created, implausible redirect -- are missing. See also this old deletion discussion, and this one. I'm sure there are others; both of these have resulted in the deletion of multiple similar redirects for the same reason, and are given as examples.

If that argument doesn't hold then we should have 255 different redirects, one from each possible truncation, plus a note on the policy page that such redirects are considered useful per community discussion. Renerpho (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: It's actually all up to 3.1415926535897932384626433832795.

(It was also nominated for deletion, but it was kept due to the 32-digit version being useful for the floating point reason that you mentioned. I guess the extra 0 was too much.

Not sure if there's a similar use case for 255 digits.) ApexParagon (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, 3.14159265358979323846264338327 doesn't exist since 2011, and 3.1415926535897932384626433832 was deleted in 2015. Renerpho (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The latter is of course different from the others, because it was an article, not a redirect. It was deleted under A7 (Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject), which is a reason I wouldn't have thought about. One could argue whether it should have been turned into a redirect at the time. I would say no, for the same reasons to delete the other one(s), but you could. Renerpho (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't follow that because we don't delete a redirect of a certain character, we should therefore create others of the same character, or even encourage, or even not discourage such creations. With articles these three lines are so close that for most people and most purposes they merge into one. Redirects are different because they can be harmless, they don't advertise their presence like articles, and they are very cheap in all resources, especially editor resources (unless they get nommed for deletion). All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Keep per Tamzin. Not all truncations are plausible search terms, but this one is because it will catch every one using both it and any longer titles. It will also help search engines (internal and external) direct people using slightly shorter tuncations to the article they want to read. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as implausible and per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 22#3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706. It's clear that nobody would reasonably type this in for anything other than novelty (I am not convinced by the "copy paste" argument, more on that below) and these types of titles cause more trouble and discussion than its worth, all for reaching a two-character article. We wouldn't permit e (number) or square root of 3 to have these types of titles, and all of these digits are not discussed at Pi either, making the full length of this title an undiscussed subject at the target page. We don't have any material on Wikipedia about 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844-(arbitrary space)-6095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091456. This number doesn't appear anywhere on Wikipedia. Conversely, we have an article on the mathematical constant, and that constant has this value at two hundred and fifty-five significant figures. By extension, this redirect is misleading because all of these digits included in the search term are not listed at the target, so people who want to read about all of the digits they typed in, wouldn't be able to. Tests to copy-pasting into the search bar do not work for me, as the search bar does not accept anything longer than 255, gives a MediaWiki error and/or "no results matching the query". But Google takes more than 255 characters and actually HAS all of the digits listed on various pi sites. so if "someone sees it without context", Google seems the way to go. A Wikipedia redirect for not 254, not 256, but exactly 255 digits of unmentioned material, does not seem useful or helpful, nor realistic for reading the Wikipedia article about Pi. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Utopes. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 15:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's obviously the right target and it's a plausible redirect (someone who sees pi written down this way and copies as much as wikipedia allows in the search box). Stop and consider "realistically, if a user typed this into a search box and pressed enter, where should they go?" Do the delete voters seriously think that a "0 search results" page is a better target for this than Pi? BugGhost 🦗👻 23:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straw-man argument, because a "0 search results" is not what's in question. Have you actually tried it? If a user copy/pastes 254 digits, the redirect won't help them, but the autocomplete gives them Pi even if we delete the redirect (they always get autocompleted to 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751, which is not in question). And if they copy/paste 256 or more (which they absolutely can do), they'll also get an autocomplete for Pi -- unless they actually press search, in which case they get an error message. In neither of those cases, the redirect is of any help. Renerpho (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A correction (I admit I wasn't careful enough when I tested this myself): If you search for between 256 and 300 digits, you'll just not find anything (neither the current redirect, nor Pi). It is only when you enter 301 or more digits that you get the error message. Compare H:S vs. WP:TITLELENGTH. Renerpho (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This redirect is not just this redirect, it's this AND EVERYTHING LONGER. It's plausible, as they could paste in any larger number of digits and still get this redirect. Unambiguously accurate target. Harmless. WP:CHEAP. For the record, I would not mind if literally every amount of digits between this and 3.14 was also a redirect, but that is another discussion. Fieari (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"They could paste in any larger number of digits and still get this redirect" -- that is not true. Pasting in anything longer and clicking "search" results in an error, with or without this redirect. Renerpho (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And for completeness, using a smaller number of digits (say, 254) isn't helped by this redirect either. Clicking "search" doesn't find the article, but Wikipedia's auto-completion will suggest 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751, which leads them to the correct target. The redirect in question is only useful if users paste in that exact number of digits. Renerpho (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Renerpho, this redirect is a handful of bytes in size, and it is obviously going to the right place. The fact it is "only useful" if the user types in something non-standard is completely fine, that is the very point of a redirect. By my count, you've made 10 comments over 23 edits on this RFD - it may be beneficial to take a step back, the outcome of this is not really a big deal in the wider scheme of things. BugGhost 🦗👻 07:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The comment Renerpho was responding to states this redirect works for 255 characters and "EVERYTHING LONGER [sic]"; capitalization not mine. The strength from the !vote seems to be derived from (>255) functionality. Renerpho then says that it's not actually the case, and that the redirect only functions at 255 digits exactly, or (=255). (Indeed, I've come to the same conclusion from my tests). You then say that's "completely fine", seeming to agree with the (=255) status, a wholly different state of mind from what Fieari stated in their !keep. Where is the goalpole? Is this being !kept for encapsulating everything beyond >255, or exactly =255? Because I was led to believe the former, as the only reason it could be seen as exceptional and not meet a fiery fate alongside the rest of the overly long "exact digit matches", such as this (deleted) (=28) and this (deleted) (=35) and this (example of reasonable length) (=12) and this (speedy deleted) (=208) and this (speedy deleted) (=29) and this (deleted) (=98). We deleted these because digits of pi aren't listed on the page. This indicated "consensus to limit" these, but no rule beyond the existing outlier of 3.1415926535897932384626433832795. It's cannot be "obviously going to the right place" if obnoxiously long pi redirects have been discussed ad nauseum and historically deleted at 100% certainty @RfD every single year since 2011.{{cn}} Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Utopes: Consensus can shift, of course, and there's nothing wrong with that. Right now, a small majority of votes is in favour of keep, and claiming consensus to delete it looks illusory at this point. I feel like this really opens Pandora's box though. If we keep this one then we should think carefully about how we limit redirects like this in the future. There are some serious votes here, staying unchallenged by most other keep voters, for creating redirects to literally every possible truncation. That would be a huge shift in policy. But even if we only allow the redirect with 255 digits as a special exception (because it's considered useful for some reason, even if based on a misconception of how the search function works), why only for Pi? What about any other notable real number? Renerpho (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Renerpho: I'm not sure what you mean if you're responding to me, I'm !voting delete. I totally agree with where you're coming from. Creating a redirect for every single amount of digits for specifically only pi is not reasonable or practical imo. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Utopes: I did intend to respond to you. The argument that this was historically deleted at 100% certainty isn't really relevant if the consensus has changed since. I am trying to understand the consequences of what we're doing here, and if Bugghost is right that I was/am overreacting. I stepped away for three days, and what's happening looks as wrong now as it did when I left. I don't plan to make many further comments in this discussion. BugGhost is right that this isn't worth a big hoo-haa either way. Still, I'm trying to understand where we're coming from with the serious arguments for keep (that's not a question to you, Utopes, just something I'm asking myself). Renerpho (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree consensus can change. It was just interesting because it seems like people who are !keeping have not actually tried typing more than 255 digits (it doesn't work). So the only way this works is exactly 255 digits. But we deleted exactly 98 digits and many others, historically. So if the assumption is that we are keeping this because "exactly 255 digits is plausible", my question for !keepers is "what makes exactly 255 digits more plausible than exactly 98 digits", which was deleted. Because the fact that MediaWiki prevents things more than 255, is purely coincidence and not something that a casual reader could possibly consider when beginning their quest of typing 255 numbers and then stopping immediately. And then do we do this for every number with repeating decimals? 0.999? 1.00000 and 255 zeroes? Because 1.0 redirects to 1, and that's a whole number. For the last 14 years it seems that any amount of decimals beyond 30 is viewed as utterly implausible. But consensus can change! So I'm curious exactly what became different, where two years ago =98 digits (no more no less) was unfathomable but =255 digits (no more no less) is a-okay. Oh well. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know the search engine that you tried with a larger number of digits. I tried quite a few, and did not get the results described by you. Викидим (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Utopes and others. Come on people, this is exactly the sort of useless stuff that WP:PANDORA is suited for. And for all you keepers, why Pi? Why not Chronology of computation of π or Approximations of π instead? Wouldn't someone pasting in so many digits be more likely interested in the computational aspects of generating those digits and not a general article on the number itself? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those targets would WP:ASTONISH. If a user searches a decimal version of pi (no matter the quantity of digits) then Pi should be target; we shouldn't guess that they would prefer a more niche article. BugGhost 🦗👻 07:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, nothing should be the target, because no one is going to search for exactly 255 digits, as others have already pointed out. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 07:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with @Utopes and say delete and salt on the basis that this redirect is excessively and unreasonably large. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for previous reasons. It would be more costly in terms of bandwidth to delete the redirect, as there is a very small chance someone might actually use it. Not problematic, as an opposition to WP:COSTLY. 2003 LN 6 17:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While 255 characters may be the limit, I find it implausible that someone is going to type all 255 characters (or even copy and paste 255 characters; where would they even get 255 characters from? I would argue for keep if the search bar limit was 255 characters, but that's not the case). Procyon117 (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the search bar limit, anyway? (It's 300, not 255; 255 I think is the limit for the length of article titles.) Renerpho (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep absolutely no policy reason to delete. It is by no means novel or obscure. It's a very cheap way of getting people to the right place, compared with the cost of having a discussion about it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Delete that's too implausible redirect and numbers are too long for the 255 digits so far per Utopes and other supporters. So, these would be applied as WP:COSTLY, WP:PANDORA and WP:RFD#D8. ✴️Icarus The Astrologer✴️ 02:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 19:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirects are cheap but this is straight up implausible. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete and salt~~ too long implausible and which may confusing an infinite number of 255 digits so far per Utopes mentioned earlier? IMO, this would be applied for deletion as WP:COSTLY, WP:PANDORA and WP:RFD#D8. ✴️Icarus The Astrologer✴️ 21:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the double vote thing I'd also like to point out that WP:PANDORA should not be used, as per WP:GETBACKINTHERE. This redirect has plenty of plausibility issues without Pandora, trust me. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and struck this as a double vote. However, please don't tell people not to invoke PANDORA. I, and many others, find it a quite cogent and valuable essay. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you should be telling other people not to use it. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a marked difference between simply telling people that WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and giving someone (what I believe to be) a well-written, detailed description of what PANDORA does wrong and why it should be avoided in RfD discussions. I do recommend reading WP:GETBACKINTHERE for said detailed explanation, I've put quite a bit of work into it ^^ 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it, and it's frankly quite terrible. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...Well, I can't improve it if you won't tell me what you don't like about it, lol. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lunamann: Wouldn't it be better to have a centralized discussion about this (on the essay's talk page, or at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion), rather than bringing it up on every RfD that mentions WP:PANDORA?[24] Renerpho (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean. If you're referring to talking about WP:GETBACKINTHERE and ways to improve it, I'm perfectly fine with someone going to Wikipedia_talk:Please,_put_Pandora_back_in_the_box and striking up a conversation. I think the last time someone did so was an extensive convo I had there back in March, and that was enough to get me to strike an entire section 'cause I couldn't figure out how else to please the people in that discussion lol
If you're saying that I should stop mentioning WP:GETBACKINTHERE when people mention WP:PANDORA... I mean, the entire reason I wrote WP:GETBACKINTHERE was to compile and condense down the arguments against Pandora, because... well, before I wrote the article, people would go on paragraphs-long arguments about it and it got tiring and repetitive.
If you're saying that we should talk about perhaps making some changes to WP:PANDORA in order to have the arguments in WP:GETBACKINTHERE no longer apply? Yes! Please! I'd LOVE to have that conversation! I'd like to point out that a section on Pandora already exists on Wikipedia talk:Redirects are costly#Pandora's box, but the last time anyone replied to that section was... last March, when I posted to it, before writing WP:GETBACKINTHERE. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Should stop mentioning" sounds a lot like "shut up". That's not what I mean. You argue that WP:PANDORA contradicts some core principles. Maybe that's true. Has there ever been a poll about whether either of the two essays is compatible with established policy? I feel like that discussion could be more fruitful than to keep shouting into the void. Renerpho (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean. I don't think there has been? I wouldn't know where to hold one, though.
Unless you count Wikipedia talk:Redirects are costly#Pandora's box, which... over the FIVE YEARS that that discussion has been allowed to stand without proper closure, has amassed four keeps to six delete !votes. Would that be considered enough to take action...? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would count that, yes! But I see no consensus in that discussion, even though it has been ongoing since 2019 (if anything, there's a consensus to rewrite WP:PANDORA, but no agreement how exactly). That's the kind of discussion that goes on and on and on, but nothing ever happens.

I already suggested Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines, for that very reason. Maybe this is a case where a formal RfC is necessary? Your essay may well serve as a baseline for what has to be addressed. (Make sure you read the examples for good questions/bad questions at WP:RFCBRIEF.) Renerpho (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Icarus58 you have already !voted. Please make one of your !votes a comment, or strike it. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 22:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Icarus58: Just to be clear, could you clarify if you !vote salt or not? Renerpho (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that Icarus wasn't the one who struck that vote-- it was the IP editor, 35.139.154.158 (I've gone ahead and struck this as a double vote.) Given Icarus's two votes were "Delete" and "Delete and salt", I'd assume that unless Icarus comes forth and says otherwise, he'd want his vote counted as "Delete and salt".
Unless Icarus and the IP are one and the same. I'd hope not... 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like they may have forgotten to log in? Renerpho (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the IP just made a bold action. Cremastra (u — c) 12:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lunamann, you have no evidence for the suspicious IP user 35.139.154.158 as related for my account. It seems, you'll violated as WP:AGF and WP:BITE. I just stayed for login, but after all spend throughout my days — my account was logging out immediately before it immediate reload automatically. Sorry for my patience. ✴️Icarus The Astrologer✴️ 11:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm deeply sorry, to both you AND the IP user. My "evidence" amounted pretty much only to that one incident where said IP user struck one of your votes; Cremastra was right in that it almost certainly was just that the IP user was trying to be bold. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to apologize as well, for jumping to the same conclusion. Renerpho (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Who the fuck is going to type 255 digits of pi? I don't see how the hell is the redirect plausible at all. To discourage people from testing the limits of character limit the extra salt may also be needed. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, I'd like to amend my initial delete !vote, and say that salt is probably a good idea. Renerpho (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment– I want to reiterate my support for deletion and for salting. My !vote is above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a plausible search term and already ruled out by previous discussions. Nosferattus (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, harmless and accurate ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 15:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hamster717, most editors are requested to delete for long digit number in terms of approximation equals to pi. But can you clarify your proof? It seems that WP:CHEAP is not advisable as harmless. ✴️Icarus The Astrologer✴️ 11:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I swayed back and forth on this one but ultimately it’s just not plausible that someone’s going to search exactly this many digits of pi. And yes, this is a pretty straight-forward example of WP:Pandora. FOARP (talk) 07:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: harmless and unambiguous. Deleting for the sake of deleting. C F A 💬 00:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Aside from the inanity of it, unnecessary redirects are not entirely harmless (and we should stop using harmlessness as a rationale):
1. I periodically have to search for all uses of redirects to an article to do some associated cleanup maintenance, and having a multitude of such redirects makes this painfully tedious work.
2. When redirects for misspellings or other deprecated versions of a term exist, this hides inadvertent spelling errors by editors that they (or others) would ordinarily be alerted to by a redlink.
3. WP search suggestion already works suggesting article through similarity of spelling, so we do not even need the search benefit of minor variants being redirects. —Quondum 14:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator If more input is needed, I'm sure this would get more participation if it was relisted again. I'm leaving that decision to someone else. Renerpho (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidates

Featured article candidates → English Wikipedia#WikiProjects and assessment (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The process is not mentioned in the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i mean... wp:fanom is right there... will still vote to weak delete as "not on the plausible side of xnrs" cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It was a redirect to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and per this RfD, it was retargeted to English Wikipedia#Wikiprojects, and assessments of articles' importance and quality, the previous section title of the current target. Jay 💬 23:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget back to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, as this is surely what someone searching this is looking for. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...and per the fact that people do seem to be using it. [25] – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget, per Michael Aurel. I don't follow the logic provided by Amory in the 2019 RfD, but I'd be interested to hear Amory explain it again. Renerpho (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of a "featured article" is discussed at English Wikipedia#WikiProjects and assessment, so why shouldn't it redirect there? XNRs should be discouraged, and there are a plethora of links to wikispace FA content in that section. Can't say I feel super strongly, but I generally think we've got content on FAs in an article, so we should point this there holds up for keeping it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Amory! I understand that argument much better now. I still find it implausible. The concept of "candidate(s)", or of nomination, isn't actually discussed at English Wikipedia#WikiProjects and assessment; and there's a significant difference between featured articles and featured article candidates. Renerpho (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Late 00s recession

Late 00s recession → Great Recession (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Ambigous with Panic of 1907 and possibly Panic of 1901 (depending on one's definition of "late"), given the redirect does not make it clear which century it refers. Delete. Steel1943 (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add a hatnote. Very nearly 100% of google hits for the exact phrase return results related to the target, so in practice it is nowhere near as ambiguous as it seems in theory. Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"...in theory"? Literally explaining how something is ambiguous and providing examples is not a theory, it's a fact. Steel1943 (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something is ambiguous in theory if the plain reading of the words can refer to multiple things. It is only ambiguous in practice if people use those words to refer to multiple different things. Only the latter matters for our purposes, and people don't use these words to refer to things other than the current target, even if they theoretically could. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...I think you have the concepts of being ambiguous and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC confused with each other...? Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are related. When something is only used for one of several theoretically possible meanings, that meaning is by definition primary, but there can also be a primary topic when multiple meanings are in use. In the present circumstance though, whether you want to say the current use is the primary topic or the current use is unambiguous in practice, the outcome in terms of the redirect is the same. Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My searches turned up the same results as Thryduulf's. I can't find evidence that this phrase is actually used to refer to the twentieth-century panics mentioned by the nominator. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haskell Harr

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Claire Miller

Claire Miller → Spy School (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This is a fictional character in a 2008 film - cannot see any point in the redirect, and confuses with another Claire Miller (with no article as yet). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Claire Rochester as {{R from married name}} -- there are multiple characters with this name without character articles residing in film articles, but this person also has this name and has an article. The Spy School character isn't even mentioned in the plot summary of the film. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on retargeting to Claire Rochester?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

President of Spain

President of Spain → President of the Republic (Spain) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Disambiguate. I do not see why a historical role should have primacy over this term over a current head-of-government position (Prime Minister of Spain) officially called a "president". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 05:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asmodel

Asmodel → List of DC Comics characters: A#Asmodel (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This was blanked by Quindraco. When I investigated, I saw why. "Asmodel" was removed from List of DC Comics characters: A, therefore breaking the redirect. It was if Asmodel, who is apparently a ten foot angel/devil, simply blinked out of existence. I would imagine this would be difficult for any ten feet being to do. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Please stop move

Template:Please stop move → Template:Uw-move3 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

From the editor who created WPT:NFCC, I think the only users who would use a template redirect are editors who use templates and they would be more than acquainted with their names rather than the phrase, "Please stop move". This might be acceptable if it was reader-facing but most readers don't know templates exist, much less be searching for a specific one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After posting this, I got a red alert message about this entry because it involved a template redirect. But I think that this discussion should happen here, rather than at TFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and because "please stop move" sounds more like a plea to the universe to stop a page move than a warning to someone to stop moving pages (and there's no apparent reason why it should use the level 3 warning specifically anyway). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChinaFile

ChinaFile → Asia Society (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention of "file" at the target article. Was created with the edit summary "website of", but this is not accounted for at the target. The website that IS given, for Asia Society, is asiasociety.org. Without any context this redirect is unhelpful, and misleading as people who search this term are not given the context as to why they ended up here. Maybe a reader was looking for a file about China? No answers, currently. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChinaFile is an online magazine published by the Asia Society. (See https://asiasociety.org/center-us-china-relations/chinafile) W9793 (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The magazine is mentioned in the lead now, but it would probably help to provide further context later on in the article too, maybe under Functions. Recon rabbit 22:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Does the mention in the article influence this nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The mention in the article is sufficient to support the redirect; while some more information about ChinaFile might be helpful, as far as we're concerned here at RfD, this is the correct target. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules

Template:Zolotonosha and similar Russia Ukraine navboxes

Template:Zolotonosha (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Boryslav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sheptytskyi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Smila (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox with no transclusions and no (or too few) articles to navigate among. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Jonesey95, what does Russia have to do with them? Are you geographically challenged? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Beside the weird generalization, I think it makes sense to remove those templates and if such exists for Russia or any other country like, I don't know, Australia as well. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  My mistake. Header corrected. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Puffery

Template:Puffery (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - only ~~402~~ 387 transclusions
Template:Promotional (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 18104 transclusions

Propose merging Template:Puffery into Template:Promotional.

There seems to be little substantial difference between {{Puffery}}'s message ("This article contains wording that promotes the subject through exaggeration of unnoteworthy facts)" and that of {{Promotional}} ("This article contains promotional content"), to which it should be redirected. Reducing the number of similar templates decreases the cognitive load on editors, making it easier to know which to use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom Encoded Talk 💬 15:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Newspapers in Norway

Template:Newspapers in Norway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

What is the point of this ugly clutter?. Norway has almost 300 newspapers, and I don't see any redeeming qualities in a navigation box between all of them – not to mention hundreds of defunct newspapers, which are unelegantly thrown into the mix as well. Geschichte (talk) 09:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find navboxes on newspapers for a specific country to be quite useful in navigating myself. I would advise removing the redlinks, and splitting off the defunct ones into their own part. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Public records laws in the United States

Template:Public records laws in the United States (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused with no mainspace article. Nothing connects other than the similarities of these laws. No real unifying topic presented. All articles are under Category:Freedom of information legislation in the United States. But no main article exists for this category so a navbox isn't necessary or needed. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the title should be changed to "Freedom of information laws in the United States"? Gonnym (talk) 09:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 06:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Show button

Template:Show button (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is essentially unused these days with only some 2 dozen uses. Whatever it was used for before, it is no longer used for today. I suspect most uses today use CSS and additional divs to manage any weird leanings of content (such as {{navbox}} does). Izno (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject New York Jets

Template:WikiProject New York Jets (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is an inactive subproject of Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League, not its own wikiproject. Task forces/subprojects/work groups whathaveyou are done through a parameter on the parent project template, not its own template. Should be merged with the parent project. edit: I meant to nominate this for merging not deletion. Apologies. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany

Deletion review

[1] Murdoch, Wendy (5 June 1999), "The Defense", The Evening Post – via Proquest

[2] Nightingale, Melissa (2020-03-17), "Coronavirus: Lawyer criticises courts for continuing jury trials", NZ Herald, retrieved 2024-11-03

[3] "Did This Lawyer's Coronavirus Concerns Lead To The Jury Trial Suspension", LawFuel, 2020-03-18, archived from the original on 2023-10-01, retrieved 2024-11-03

[4] "Judge ticks off Watson lawyer over opening address", NZ Herald, 2000-06-30, retrieved 2024-11-03

[5] "Defence lawyer calls suppression breach 'outrageous'", Otago Daily Times Online News, 2010-05-25, retrieved 2024-11-03

[6] Morri, Deborah (2021-06-18), "Public defenders or private: battle lines", The Dominion Post, retrieved 2024-11-03 – via Pressreader

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

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

Category:Wikipedians in Shizuoka

Category:Aplochitonidae

Category:Medical culture

Category:Wikipedian Roblox developers

Category:People from Plum Springs, Kentucky

Category:Serious games

Category:Artists who acted in films and television shows

Wrong names of assessment categories for the Philippine music task force

Category:Demon superheroes

Category:Superheroes who are adopted

Category:Superhero schoolteachers

Category:Fictional males by franchise

Category:Fictional characters from the Solar System

Category:Fictional extraterrestrial robots

Category:Thulinverken vehicles

Category:Articles with Justapedia origins

Category:Languages written in Latin script

Category:Fictional Shorinji Kempo practitioners

Category:Fictional sambo practitioners

Category:Melee weapons

Category:Seneca clans

Category:Fictional taijutsuka

Category:English Olympic medallists

Category:Tiziano Ferro redirects

Category:Rutulian film people

Category:Restaurants in Hoboken, New Jersey

Category:Administrator recall

Category:Pre-1876 life peers

Redirects

Ruben Amorim

98 degrees\

Waking the Dragons

Ultrajectine

Tony DiGerolamo

Mohammed Jafar

3.1415926535…

Featured article candidates

Late 00s recession

Haskell Harr

Claire Miller

President of Spain

Asmodel

Template:Please stop move

ChinaFile

Templates and Modules

Template:Zolotonosha and similar Russia Ukraine navboxes

Miscellany

Deletion review