Wikipedia:XfD today

Shortcuts

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

Speedy deletion candidates[edit]

Candidates for speedy deletion

Columbia School of Mines

FA-Class 2020s articles

Road vehicles with sleeping facilities

2020–21 División de Honor Juvenil de Fútbol

Draft:2021–22 West Ham United F.C. season

Draft:Alfred E Neuman

Draft:Anubhav Srivastava

Asuka Strikes!

Draft:Atik Asrab

Azerbaijan United Communist Party

Draft:Bait-and-switch (trope)

The Clairvoyants

User:ClueBot III/Detailed Indices/Talk:German occupation of Lithuania during World War II/Archives/2019/September

User:ClueBot III/Detailed Indices/Talk:German occupation of Norway/Archives/ 2

User:ClueBot III/Detailed Indices/Talk:Karl Kennedy/Archives/2011/April

User:ClueBot III/Detailed Indices/Talk:Karl Kennedy/Archives/2011/May

User:ClueBot III/Detailed Indices/Talk:Karl Kennedy/Archives/2015/February

User:ClueBot III/Detailed Indices/Talk:Karl Kennedy/Archives/2016/January

User:ClueBot III/Detailed Indices/Talk:Karl Kennedy/Archives/2016/March

User:ClueBot III/Detailed Indices/Talk:Karl Kennedy/Archives/2017/December

User:ClueBot III/Detailed Indices/Talk:Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany/Archive 2

User:ClueBot III/Indices/Talk:Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany

User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/Talk:Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany

Template:D97931478/sandbox moved page

Dam Amaravathi

Donah Sandford

Template:Editnotices/Page/Funding of Wikipedia

User:EFEM its/sandbox

Draft:Fountain House

Future Azerbaijan Party

Talk:German invasion of Greece/Archive 2

Talk:German invasion of Greece/Archive 3

Talk:German occupation of Lithuania during World War II/Archives/2015/January

Talk:German occupation of Lithuania during World War II/Archives/2017/October

Talk:German occupation of Lithuania during World War II/Archives/2019/September

Talk:German occupation of Norway/Archive 2

Talk:German occupation of Norway/Archives/ 2

Great Order Party

Ivan Tai

Talk:Karl Kennedy/Archives/2011/April

Talk:Karl Kennedy/Archives/2011/May

Talk:Karl Kennedy/Archives/2015/February

Talk:Karl Kennedy/Archives/2016/January

Talk:Karl Kennedy/Archives/2016/March

Talk:Karl Kennedy/Archives/2017/December

Template:Latest stable software release/cURL

Draft:Linguicism against Mid-Atlantic American English speakers

Draft:Linguicism against Midland American English speakers

Draft:Linguicism against New England English speakers

Draft:Linguicism against New York City English speakers

Draft:Linguicism against North-Central American English speakers

Draft:Linguicism against Quebec French speakers

Draft:Linguicism against Southern American English speakers

Draft:Linguicism against Standard Canadian English speakers

Draft:Linguicism against Western American English speakers

Draft:Linguicism against Western Pennsylvania English speakers

Talk:List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch/Archive 1

User:Wallydigital/sandbox

User:MimiEPH/Polytechnic of Namibia

Mohammad Mosharof Hossain

Draft:Nicola Godden

Rajasthan Sports University

Draft:Scrappy-Doo Biography

Silhouettes (dance group)

Steve Dixon (baaeball)

Talk:Steve Dixon (baaeball)

Steve Dixon (baseball)

Steven Dixon

User:TolBot

Draft:What?

Draft:World Cricket Stories(Eng-Urdu)

Ziaul Hoque Polash

Articles[edit]

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 16	September 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

List of living recipients of the George Cross[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN as reliable sources don't treat living George Cross recipients as a group distinct from other GC recipients (or at least no more than they typically distinguish between the living and the dead). They are distinguished from dead recipients in that they're entitled to an annuity from the Crown, but I don't think it's in any way notable that the pension ends at death.

This page is essentially a WP:NOTMIRROR of the VC & GC Association's membership database. The information is also duplicated at List of George Cross recipients. The only unique information is the smaller list of recently deceased recipients, but that's non-encyclopedic, marginal WP:MEMORIAL, and could easily be incorporated into the larger list in an encyclopedic manner by listing birth and death dates for all recipients. I'd be happy to redirect to the full list, but the maintainers of this list opposed a merge proposal, so I'm bringing it here. pburka (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Miguel Arcángel Roscigna[edit]

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

Nominator's rationale: There is not much sources or information about this person. Myself and other have expanded it, but weren't able to do much. If it can't be expanded much more then I don't think there is much point in keeping it. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Beverly Eakman[edit]

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

Promotional, oddly written, and relies entirely on primary or unreliable sources; Google search shows up nothing substantial; possibly a Scientologist? ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 21:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Jesse Guthrie[edit]

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

Here v. PROD as it has been previously deleted. I cannot find evidence of notability for this climber via GNG or CREATIVE. His autobiography is self published and none of his writings seem to be part of notable publications. Star Mississippi 15:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Needs WP:RS. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Behrouz Jamali[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Can't see how he is notable. scope_creep^Talk 20:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Punchline (character)[edit]

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

Sooo... this was deleted back in March 2020 for lack of notability and WP:ONEEVENT concerns, with a caveat that the character may become notable in the future. Now it's back, using sources that get no more recent than... February 2020. And with not a tick of development in the notability department as far as I can tell. I wonder what the reasoning here is? All the arguments from the last discussion still apply, and I guess so should the conclusion. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Christopher Parr[edit]

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

Promotional profile sourced to a scraped-together collection of "coverage" so lightweight it's blowin' in the wind. Seriously, look at these sources and weep. There is one solid local newspaper article [1] but the rest could fit on the back of a postcard. There's no basis for an article here. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Noteworthy in my opinion and in the industry. Sources in the New York Times [2] and Milwaukee Journal Sentinel [3]

Fair Opportunity Project[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP - no indication of notability through significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 19:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 19:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 19:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom, not finding significant coverage in reliable sources, and certainly not enough to meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Stuart Scheller[edit]

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

Non-notable BLP1E. Merge content elsewhere. Feoffer (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Payal Radhakrishna[edit]

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

Declined at Afc. Doesn't meet nactor, npov, wp:aud nor sigcov. scope_creep^Talk 19:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete: I concur with the nominator's rationale. Normally I might have offered an opinion that this be returned to draft, but the editor who moved it to mainspace seems to be unwilling to follow our processes, to wit removal of the AfD notice. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Anusha Rai[edit]

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

Bit-part actor, doesn't meet WP:NACTOR and sigcov. scope_creep^Talk 19:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Claudette Roy[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a person notable primarily as a non-winning candidate for political office. As always, this is not a role that passes WP:NPOL per se -- the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one -- but there isn't much else here to hang a "preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy" claim on, since it's all just unsourced career background on her work as a member of various local boards and committees. And even on a WP:BEFORE search for other coverage, I'm not finding much -- out of just 130 hits total, the clear majority are unrelated Claudette Roys such as a school board trustee in Montreal and a hockey player in Sudbury and a woman in Cornwall who won a Fitbit in a walkathon, and what little I do get for this Claudette Roy is either run of the mill campaign coverage that doesn't make her more special than other non-winning candidates or glancing namechecks of her existence as a giver of soundbite in coverage of other things, with virtually no sources that are about her in any non-trivial way. And while being named a Member (the lowest level) of the Order of Canada would be a strong notability claim if the article were sourced properly, it isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have more and better sourcing than just one short blurb about a non-winning political candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Denis Baraby[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a regional director of a government department, not properly sourced as the subject of sufficient coverage to make him markedly more notable than most other holders of a not inherently notable job title. The notability claim here is his role in investigating a single child abuse case of no clearly enduring significance for the purposes of the ten year test -- and the sourcing is not about him for the purposes of getting him over WP:GNG, but just glancingly namechecks his existence in the process of being about the incident. So all of this just makes him a WP:BLP1E, not a person who warrants permanent inclusion in an encyclopedia on this basis per se. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Tubi Style[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP. Completely promotional, zero references. Mikeblas (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Russell Surasky[edit]

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

There's already been substantial discussion of whether this person is notable by our standards, so it seems to be time to get a wider view on that. There's no in-depth biographical coverage of him in the article as it stands - the "sources" simply rehash tidbits from his website. He gets no hits on JSTOR, no hits on Scholar and no verifiable hit on Gbooks; he is not listed on Scopus.

It is claimed that he is certified by the American Board of Addiction Medicine; attempting to verify this on the website of that august body takes us to this other website, where his name does not appear.

The creator of the page has been asked to disclose any WP:COI or WP:PAID connection to the subject, but has not responded; obvious is obvious, in any case. The draft was accepted in good faith by FormalDude. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete - you got to this nomination before me. Subject doesn't appear to pass WP:NBIO, WP:GNG or any other notability criterion. Per the talk page, the article was created with a pile of non-RS sources, including the sponsored-content sections of otherwise-RSes. I went looking myself and could find zero biographical coverage actually about Surasky - a few (surprisingly few) RSes quote his opinions on things, and he goes on TV occasionally, but this is punditry and the biographical coverage is just what he says on his website - which, as you note, turns out to be quite difficult to independently verify. The thing he seems to do is to appear in crank sources of the sort that Wikipedia deprecates; but this doesn't rise to the level of being of note in RSes.

This is not a comment on Surasky's expertise as a doctor; I am noting that we don't have the material to justify a Wikipedia article.

FWIW, the creator did comment on the talk page on his relationship with Surasky: "I do not have a 'close relationship' with the subject. I am a colleague who knows Dr. Surasky from medical school & residency training." - David Gerard (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

David Gerard, that talk-page comment was added by an IP editor, and then messed around with by a different one to include a (failed) ping to me and to the creator of the article, Canes Stains. I've no idea whether that's the same editor or a different one; I am however sure that the Canes Stains account has not responded to my request for clarification. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment: It appears the page creator did respond to the request to disclose any COI at Justlettersandnumbers's talk page. See diff. ––FormalDude talk 20:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Asa Townsend[edit]

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

Poorly sourced biography of a person notable primarily as the first settler of a small village. As always, this is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself in the absence of sufficient reliable source coverage about him to get him over WP:GNG -- but the sources here are just contextlessly listed without being used to footnote any body content, and two of the three are just local history books which certainly mention his name without being all that strongly about him, while the third is just a primary source tax assessment roll which isn't support for notability at all. Being the first resident of a small village simply is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have considerably more sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

MusicBee[edit]

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

Non-notable software article with poor sourcing. Article reads like a manual, and Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 16:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 16:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep because it passes WP:GNG. If it reads like a guide or manual it should be rewritten (maybe a WP:TNT). A Google News search yeilds reviews from TechRadar, Softpedia, and Windows Central. There are also dozens of listicles that include the software such as articles by The Windows Club, Digital Trends, Windows Report, Windows Report again, and again, Windows Central, Windows Central again, Gizmodo, MakeUseOf, and LifeHacker. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Georgia Spiropoulos[edit]

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

BLP with no actual references Rathfelder (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep. I added some references. The nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. Also notable as a knight of the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Biographies of living people have to have actual references.

Rathfelder (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Marie Ruumet[edit]

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

An MMA fighter who has just started her career doesn't pass WP:NMMA. Htanaungg (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment. She appears to be a professional rather than an amateur. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Eastmain, I've fixed it. Htanaungg (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Olga Rotari[edit]

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

Promotional article about a minor musician, conspicuously lacking in independent evidence of notability, as defined by WP:MUSICBIO. A speedily deleted version was uploaded by the banned Tamer A.Al-Monim; the current iteration is the work of the equally dubious RoyalEdit. — Biruitorul ^Talk 13:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Sulit TV[edit]

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

Article has been moved to draftspace twice in 24 hours. It has no references. Suggesting to Delete and Salt. Whiteguru (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete Sulit TV has its draftspace, but it was created at the article page. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete Per nom. Can't see any sources to qualify this article to meet GNG. Riteboke (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Can easily be recreated if sources showing notability appear in future. Mccapra (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete for now as per WP:TOOSOON. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Locked redirect to Cignal TV#Pay television It's probably going to come out...but looking at the product page, it's either an Android TV clone box or just another interactive TV platform that would be a miracle if anyone else supports outside Cignal and TV5. In a year this is likely done, and it probably won't establish enough GNG to have its own article breakout. Nate • (chatter) 04:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Redirect to Cignal TV#Pay television per Nate's argument. A case of WP:TOOSOON. SBKSPP (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete for now. Currently WP:TOOSOON, recreate if meets WP:GNG. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, currently.----Rdp060707|talk 13:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Keep the article now has a reliable referrence. Myrabert01 (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources added there. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: From zero to six sources since being nominated, this is worth another look.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Gamma Squeeze[edit]

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

Pretty much entirely original research and refbombing. Sourced to dubious or unreliable sources (including wikipedia articles). The vast majority of the sources do not mention gamma squeezes. Additionally, the article looks like a POV fork from short squeeze in several respects. Maybe the subject is notable (although IMO the subject's notability is not separate from short squeezes), but this version should be WP:TNTed. JBchrch talk 03:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 03:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 03:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

It could be redirected back to Short squeeze#Gamma squeeze where the correct title currently leads to though I'd move the edit history there in any case. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Zach Bolton[edit]

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

Non-notable voice actor who never dubbed a single notable character. Not notable as a production staffer either. Mottezen (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Strongko[edit]

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

no notable independent wrestled. Not enough coverage by reliable, independent sources HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Lakuna[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Possible ATD is redirect or merge/redirect to David Narcizo. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep. The article has lots of good reviews to establish notability. Even if someone else has tagged the article for notability, the nominator still needs to do a thorough WP:BEFORE. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

CNN Philippines Headline News[edit]

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

Unsourced article. Too short. Likely fails notability. Could be merged to a relevant article or list article if warranted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Merge with CNN Philippines as a section. Waddles 🗩 🖉 14:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per Waddles Mccapra (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Tarquinia (mother of Lucius Brutus)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:BASIC and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. The subject is mentioned once in passing in one single primary source, and I can find no secondary sources offering any commentary. Avilich (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep/merge It is quite normal for classical topics to be based on one of the limited number of histories that have survived. As a princess of early Rome, we should find some place for her, as she appears in numerous works and so readers may wish to know more. Even if we have to disappoint them, we should record what there is. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Except no histories have survived, her name is only even known because that's the royal family's name, and she doesn't play an active role in any event. Does she really appear 'in numerous works' or are you making stuff up? Avilich (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete (as unlikely search phrase) or Redirect to Lucius Tarquinius Priscus or Lucius Junius Brutus. Classical histories surviving is no basis to have permastubs on any name merely mentioned in them. Without significant coverage and her name only known for familiar relationships, better to cover in the actually notable person's article. Reywas92^Talk 14:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Walter Dunhan Claus[edit]

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

None of the sources given in the article have Walter Dunhan Claus as the primary subject. None of the claims to notability, such as academic posts or assessment of his work as stated in the article are supported by any of the sources cited. A WP:BEFORE search yielded no sources of significance. Essentially this is a largely unverified article, with sources only verifying the existence of his publications but without indicating the significance of those publications or his overall work as a scientist. None of the biographical content is supported by the sources either. I was unable to find any critical assessment of his work to verify his role as a pioneer. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACADEMIC. 4meter4 (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete: No reliable, independent sources are cited. Peer-reviewed journals with the subject in the byline are not reliable, independent sources, as they are merely self-published work with editorial oversight. Multi7001 (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep It should be Walter Dunham Claus, as in the text, not "Dunhan", as in the title. At least one of the sources cited is reliable and independent, though I wouldn't call it "in depth". Some other sources are available, and I've begun incorporating them into the article. Wiki-notability might depend on whether fellowship in and presidency of the Health Physics Society meet WP:PROF. I'm inclined to say "yes", when comparing him to other researchers of the time period. (WP:PROF is mostly geared to evaluating scientists and other academics who are alive and active today; mid-20th-century American physicists most known for work during the Eisenhower era are a little outside our typical "look 'em up on Google Scholar" methodology.) XOR'easter (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for finding and adding sources as well as catching the spelling error in the title. I went ahead and moved the page to fix the spelling error. I'll take s look more closely at your additions later today to evaluate whether or not to withdraw this nomination. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment: the remark that "Peer-reviewed journals with the subject in the byline are not reliable, independent sources, as they are merely self-published work with editorial oversight." alarms me considerably. I think it's contrary to WP:PROF which indicates that writing highly-cited papers is a route to notability, and I worry that it doesn't reflect the nature of peer-review, which is highly selective and independent of the author. The whole point is that editorial oversight is what converts self-publishing into publishing. And the editorial oversight of a good peer-reviewed journal is ferociously strong. Just try publishing something in Nature! I haven't looked at the citation rates and impact on Walter Dunham Claus' publications, but his publications, with proper evaluation, should be taken as a potential measure of his notability, in that they reflect the impact he made on his field. Elemimele (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Elemimele, I agree with you. However, I think what Multi7001 was trying to get at is that sources which are authored by the subject lack independence per the written guidelines at GNG; no matter how much editorial oversight there is. That's important in this case as a large percentage of the cited sources in this article were written by the subject. What we are really lacking is any source material which covers this person in depth in an independent source. To quote GNG. "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it." We are currently lacking a source which provides significant independent coverage on Walter Dunham Claus.4meter4 (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

4meter4 But please do have another look at WP:PROF. The point is this: notability can be achieved by authoring highly-cited works. It's in the specific criteria notes, section 1(a). A citation is an independent recognition of the author. There are basically two ways it can work. We can either find an independent review article that says "Smith's method is used by absolutely everyone", or we can find that a million everyones have cited the paper in which Smith originally described his method. The second situation still makes Smith notable, but obviously we can't list all million times Smith got cited; instead, by convention, we give a reference to Smith's highly-cited paper as evidence of Smith's notability, and it is independent because Smith didn't, and couldn't force anyone cite him. The only thing we could reasonably add to this would be an indication of how many people actually did cite Smith's paper, by reference to some citation index. Conventionally we don't do this because most academics would regard it as superfluous. Incidentally, we also regard academics as notable if they've held a named chair or been chief editor of a high-ranking journal, and neither of these necessarily generates independent coverage. Again, the point is that you can't get to either of these situations unless someone independent of you thinks you're worth it. Elemimele (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Elemimele, I can see some merit to the rationale that the subject would meet criteria 3 or 8 of NPROF per User:XOR'easter. I'll admit I was a bit biased against the article to begin with because it was created and largely written by InfoDataMonger (an undisclosed paid editor who is now permanently blocked), and the article title misspelling threw off my BEFORE search. I am happy to change my vote to Keep based on that rationale. Unfortunately there can be no withdrawal because another editor has voted delete.4meter4 (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- 4meter4, oh, no, sorry, I'm just confusing the issue here. I don't have any particular opinion on Walter Dunham Claus, and I'm not trying to change your opinion; I only took objection to the idea that widely-cited peer-reviewed papers didn't indicate notability, and particularly I didn't like the term self-published (you may well be right that I misread that editor's intent; I think I took it too personally; I work an an academic field). If you don't think the subject of this article is notable, by all means stick to your guns! Elemimele (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Elemimele No harm done. I was already contemplating changing to keep, and this little side trail helped me make a decision. Ultimately I do find XOR'easter's comments convincing. I'm currently getting ready to submit work to a journal for publication myself; so I can understand why you took offense to the label of self published for academic journals. Anybody who has ever gone through the scrutiny of a peer review process, an IRB board review, followed by an editorial board review would object to that label.4meter4 (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Keerthana Sabarish[edit]

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

No reliable sources found on a WP: BEFORE. Requesting speedy delete. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Draftify: Seems notable. Let it go through AFC process. Alphaonekannan (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete searched in English and Malayalam and found no RIS. Mccapra (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Ali Al Futtaim[edit]

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

Borderline A7. Futtaim has a plausibly notable father and brother, however notability is NOTINHERITED. Lacks significant coverage. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete searched in English and Arabic and found no RIS. Mccapra (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Am I[edit]

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

Non-notable. Spam. See plot.(NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Speedy delete: Non-notable. The creator is blocked for using multiple accounts. Fails GNG/NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Women at Michigan Technological University[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, fails GNG. Also reads like an essay and I can't identify why it should be on Wikipedia. SportsGuy789 (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

If the sources can be put inline, a fraction of this can be merged to Michigan Technological University. Otherwise, delete. BD2412 T 20:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Merge to Michigan Technological University#History, probably to a new subsection. The only useful sources seem to be the 2004 Nordberg article (which I can't access) and this 2019 Riippa article. Given the lack of independence of the "Alumni News", this is probably not enough to support a full article that meets WP:GNG. (There may be high-quality independent sources available in the Copper Country Historical Collections, which is mentioned in the existing sources.) The details about Nada J. Fenton seem interesting and notable, if they could be verified; unfortunately, not much came up in a search. Suriname0 (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Timo Rost (boxer)[edit]

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

My before search found significant coverage in German, however, the reason I've brought this here is because significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. Yes, I believe (I only checked one of the German sources) the subject does indeed pass GNG, but I'm here to raise the question of why this subject merits an article. As far as I can tell, Rost's biggest achievements are reaching the semi-final of the German national championships as an amateur, and as a professional, winning an insignificant regional title in 2019 and losing to a former world champion the following year. So, let's just ignore GNG for a second (after all, significant coverage is an assumption that a subject merits an article)...what actually makes this individual notable and worthy of inclusion? ².O.^Boxing 21:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I no longer believe he passes GNG per my reasoning below. – ².O.^Boxing 23:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 21:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 21:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 21:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I created the article after concluding a research on Rost in which i was able to pick some good reason why i think this article should not be deleted first of all rost is a professional german boxer and quite popular in germany and other country Beckyrose233

@Beckyrose233: I don't doubt Rost's popularity, but popularity isn't the same as notability. What is it that makes him notable? Being a professional boxer is not noteworthy. – ².O.^Boxing 23:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: as I said, I think rost has gained recognition in the boxing industry and for that, I think he quit notable am not even from Germany and I believe have watched a couple of matches featuring rost he has amassed popularity and notability status for him self in the last couple of years Beckyrose233

@Beckyrose233: he definitely doesn't have recognition in the boxing industry; his only real achievement is winning the WBF International title. The WBF is not considered a notable organisation and the International title that Rost won is not listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/Title Assessment. Additionally, he's never been listed in any of the rankings (top 10, 15, or 40) by the organisations listed in criteria 3 at WP:NBOX.

Again, I do presume he satisfies WP:GNG, however, in situations such as this I think it's more than reasonable to have a discussion (beyond "passes GNG") to determine what actually makes this individual worthy of inclusion. – ².O.^Boxing 13:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Question/Comment Where is the coverage that shows he meets WP:GNG? I did an admittedly quick check, in English, and found lots of routine sports reporting and promoting but little that convinces me the WP:GNG is met. It's clear he fails to meet WP:NBOX, so meeting WP:GNG becomes important. I think that if GNG is met, then the question of why he's notable is a bit irrelevant because, in my opinion, the world at large would have indicated he's WP notable and that trumps any editor's viewpoint. Papaursa (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Papaursa, your comment just reminded me of the very first statement at GNG, Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time (bolding mine).

So, the sources I found are in German. The results I get in a standard German-language search all relate to a single fight with Felix Sturm, which received wide coverage in Germany, but basically WP:1E. When amending my search to "before:2020", I get results like: Westdeutsche Zeitung, Rheinische Post, Remscheider General-Anzeiger. I stopped there as I'm using Google translate and am on a mobile device (terribly tedious), but they're outlets that serve the North-Rhine Westphalia region of Germany, so the coverage doesn't appear to be by the world at large after all. I believe this is comparable to a subject only receiving coverage in the Yorkshire region of England or New York State, which I don't think satisfies GNG. – ².O.^Boxing 23:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Zana Messia[edit]

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

Created by single-purpose account. Does not demonstrate notability. Re-created after 2 speedy deletions. – Fayenatic London 06:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment. The movie soundtracks look interesting, but are they enough? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

IES Andrés Laguna[edit]

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

This is a secondary education campus. Insufficient references for notability. Does not meet WP:N and WP:ORG. Whiteguru (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep on the basis of references found in the corresponding article in the Spanish Wikipedia. In this case, WP:BEFORE should have included a visit to the Spanish Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Keep certainly more notable than the average secondary school because of its age, prominent past teachers, and unique fossil collection. The es.wiki article is clearer about how it is notable. Mccapra (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

NBA Home Video[edit]

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

Fails WP:TVSERIES as per article. I think that it is too hard to find sources to make it notable. So not notable. ----Rdp060707|talk 06:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 06:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 06:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 06:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Redirect to Basketball TV as ATD. Mccapra (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Celebrities who have received the COVID-19 vaccine[edit]

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

Absolutely not notable. A number of figures in this list aren't even celebrities, but rather politicians. What, are we going to have to create another list called Politicians who have received the COVID-19 vaccine? What about Elderly people who have received the COVID-19 vaccine? New Zealanders who have received the COVID-19 vaccine? Why even point to any of these people in the first place? Unnecessary. Love of Corey (talk) 05:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia doesn't need this, these are just a list who are already vaccinated by the COVID-19 vaccine. If you guys want to know who are already vaccinated, just watch news or YouTube. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete The vast majority of people will get a vaccine, making this list pointless. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete Absolutely not appropriate, desirable or necessary. Gildir (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete. About as selective as List of brunettes. The opposite criterion may be viable: List of celebrities who have publicly refused to be vaccinated. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS which discourages "routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities". Note also that there is no such thing as "the vaccine" – there are numerous vaccines of various types and these commonly require multiple shots and boosters. The evolution of the virus will no doubt be followed by an ongoing stream of vaccine variants too so recording this accurately would turn the page into a medical database. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Keep: I find it unbelievable that a slew of editors suddenly don't think a list like this is worth keeping. For instance:

"Which celebrity would Dr. Anthony Fauci like to publicly get the vaccine?"ABC News

"President Joe Biden, former President Barack Obama and a slew of celebrities including Billy Crystal, Jennifer Hudson and Lin-Manuel Miranda are part of a special aimed at boosting COVID-19 vaccination rates."AP, and was on an NBC prime time special.

Celebrity news beyond trivia is always notable. A review of the sources proves that easily, and those sources are usually focused on the people who had the vaccine. Example sources: People Magazine, USA Today, US Magazine, Glamour, BBC, Fortune, Business Insider, CBS News, Japan Times, Hollywood Reporter, New York Times. The list certainly does no harm to the vaccine issues, but with the controversies about anti-vaxers in the news, it clearly provides important information. At a time like this the benefit and notability of the people listed is obvious. As for including politicians or others that may not be considered celebrities, simply remove them, with a rationale.

The rationales mentioned above for deletion include sillilness, such as why not include a list of all seniors who got a shot, or all New Zealanders. Or that it's simply of list of brunettes, or other American celebrities, or we can simply turn on the TV news. As for one idea mentioned above: List of celebrities who have publicly refused to be vaccinated, that would be a good topic to promote against vaccination, despite the fact that most of the rationales for it are based on misinformation.

This very significant list only includes names, at this point, making it relatively brief. In comparison, a topic like Woody Allen sexual abuse allegation, is about 10,000 words—enough for a small book or scandal sheet. And that's a mere allegation, not a fact. In any case, the celebrities and sources could also be used in context within the main article, which could help balance out all the gratuitious anti-Trump commentary and the commentary about vaccine hesitancy . --Light show (talk) 08:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Being that the list is of primarily American celebrities, it would be understandable why it might be attacked as being biased, although no one has mentioned that as reason. So if there are any other editors who are Americans and want to delete the list, that could be helpful to note. Or better yet, if there are any non-U.S. celebrities that should be added to balance the list, feel free to add them.--Light show (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

- I… don’t even know where to start. While I admire your impassioned defense of your article, it is not a notable or important subject in any way whatsoever. It’s a list of various famous people who did something logical during a pandemic. That’s like “list of notable London inhabitants who took measures to avoid getting blown up during the London Blitz”. Additionally, there is a vast difference between a highly publicized sexual assault accusation that’s been covered and discussed on-and-off for decades and somebody getting a shot. Finally, this isn’t exactly “sudden” when the article has been around for less than a month, and most editors had no idea it existed in that time. Dronebogus (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  - @Dronebogus: I don’t know what magical land you live in, but a list of “people doing something logical during a pandemic” is not even ½ the population in many countries where getting a vaccine or wearing a mask is seen as virtue signaling and not an effective means of doing anything because the it’s all a hoax apparently. --awkwafaba (📥) 12:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
    - The “magical land” I inhabit is the United States and trust me I know what you’re talking about. But those people are to put it bluntly either severely ignorant or just plain dumb. Many of those people also believe the 2020 American Presidential Election was rigged but we don’t have an article on people who publicly disputed that claim. Dronebogus (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete indiscriminate, trivial, fleeting news-style notability. You know it’s terrible when even a passionately inclusionistic user like Andrew is voting delete. Dronebogus (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Totally trivial. I am utterly unconvinced by the long passionate keep view above. --Bduke (talk) 10:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete - too indiscriminate of a list that goes against WP:NOTNEWS. --MuZemike 11:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete Agreeing with everyone and nom, nearly every person will get the vaccine. There's really no point in this. Waddles 🗩 🖉 12:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete. We don't have lists of notable people who're vaccinated against measles or diphtheria, or any other disease, so why this? Assuming current take-up rates, eventually between 70% and 80% of the adults on the planet will be vaccinated so it's not a notable characteristic in any way. Neiltonks (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Keep - @Neiltonks: there’s a reason we have WikiProject COVID-19 and not WP Measles nor WP Diptheria. This list has far more in common with List of Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign celebrity endorsements than list of brunettes. I’m glad so many of you move in circles where getting vaccinated is totally normal and non-controversial, but for a large portion of the planet, that is not the case. --awkwafaba (📥) 12:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- You’re treating scientifically proven public health programs as equivalent to political campaigns. If vaccination is not “totally normal and uncontroversial” in your circle you are either in a country with a deficient healthcare system or are among pseudoscientific fringe groups, and I don’t think these celebrities are even trying to reach either of them by getting a shot. Dronebogus (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

While you may not think so, an abundance of news stories from Europe, especially the UK, have been trying to reach and convince skeptics, with some notables boasting about getting vaccinated:

"British Health Secretary Matt Hancock called the 75% milestone a big step forward, but he warned that “a worldwide pandemic of misinformation” threatened the vaccination campaign. ... Hancock said Britain had bolstered vaccine confidence by using “trusted voices” — including naturalist David Attenborough and Queen Elizabeth II — to disclose that they had received a shot and to deliver a pro-vaccine message." AP
"Celebrities are coming forward with their firsthand accounts of receiving the COVID-19 vaccine in an effort to quell skepticism as vaccination efforts roll out across the world. ...Duchess Kate Middleton announced on Twitter that she got her first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine on May 28, a little more than a week after her husband Prince William. ...Prince William joined #teamvaccinated announcing he got his COVID-19 shot on Twitter.... "On Tuesday (May 18) I received my first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. … it was announced that Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall had received their first dose of COVID-19 vaccine. … Queen Elizabeth II, 94, and her husband, Prince Philip, 99, received their COVID-19 vaccinations, according to Buckingham Palace. ... "Yesterday I received my first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine at London’s Science Museum. ‘’USA Today’’
"Covid vaccine: PM receives AstraZeneca jab as he urges public to do same."BBC --Light show (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note:The article at issue has been modified to add context and a lead to the list of names. The list is now a subsection to support key aspects of the article. --Light show (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete Per WP:DELREASON#14: Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia, specifically because Wikipedia is not a place for non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. At time of writing, the cumulative number of COVID-19 vaccine doses administered is nearing six billion, per Johns Hopkins. Of course we don't know how many of those are second doses given to individuals who have already received their first dose (it could theoretically be up to half), but the lower bound for the number vaccinated individuals still exceeds a third of the global population. That a significant number of celebrities would be included is not exactly astonishing, and trying to list them all is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. TompaDompa (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete this kind of list is impossible to maintain when countless people have been vaccinated routinely, and violates not only WP:INDISCRIMINATE but also WP:NOTNEWS. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Rahul Borole[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The sources provided have disclaimers stating that the content was republished from a press-release, with no editorial changes. KH-1 (talk) 05:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 05:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 05:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Trakinwiki (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete As per nominator, subject does not satisfy WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete Does not meet GNG due to lack of independent coverage. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Girard[edit]

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

Résumé-like WP:BLP of a person with no strong or reliably sourced notability claim. The stated notability claim is that he once gave a TEDx talk, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself -- and other than that, the article is just an advertorialized résumé of every individual thing he's done in his career, referenced entirely to directory entries and staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own past or present employers rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage about him or his work in real media to establish that it's been externally validated as significant. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to clear WP:GNG on media coverage about him in sources independent of himself. Bearcat (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Michael Stefano (trainer)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete. This is extremely overdependent on primary sources that are not support for notability (e.g. his own work metaverifying its own existence, unpublished private personal correspondence with the article creator), and not nearly enough on reliably sourced analysis of his significance — but inclusion in Wikipedia depends on the latter, not the former, and if the article has spent over a decade tagged for that problem without ever being improved then there's no serious reason to give it even more time. Bearcat (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Stix Zadinia[edit]

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

DOesn't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG independent of Steel Panther. Possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect to Steel Panther. Boleyn (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Redirect to Steel Panther. He's done a few other things but with minimal notice, and he is primarily discussed as a member of his main band. No need for a separate article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Eric Baus[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BASIC; has no WP:SIGCOV on his career and has been in CAT:NN for almost 12 years, so let's resolve this. – DarkGlow • 19:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete Just trivial mentions. No in-depth coverage. Fails WP: POET Mehmood.Husain (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOET.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Likely passes WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NACADEMIC based on his faculty bio at Regis University where he is the current Assistant Director and Faculty Advisor for the Graduate Fine Arts program at the university; a post which probably meets criteria 5 at NACADEMIC. The 2011 win of the Colorado Prize for Poetry for his book of poetry would seem to meet criteria 4c of WP:NAUTHOR. Here is a magazine interview. I found all this in a very cursory BEFORE search without seriously looking, but I would be very surprised if an award winning poet wasn't reviewed in independent RS and a named assistant chair didn't have significant publications with some independent published reviews of their work. All of this to say, have any of the delete votes seriously looked for RS?4meter4 (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

How does "Assistant Director and Faculty Advisor" satisfy NACADEMIC #5. Is there even such a thing as a "named assistant chair"? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

List of Los Angeles television stations[edit]

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

Unusual list duplicates {{LA TV}} without imparting much new material. Page is orphaned. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete 100% duplicative of the template; we have WP:NMEDIALIST which rules this out as an article (and should be revisited, as the 'Media in (community)' articles have been slow to update, magnets for fair-use violations, and no united article template). Nate • (chatter) 03:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Keep WP:CLN explains that lists, categories and other forms of navigation such as templates are complementary and so the existence of one is not a reason to delete another format. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment NMEDIALIST overrules CLN in this use case; we have a template that shows the same information in a transcluded form across all Los Angeles television articles rather than this one which has no incoming links. Nate • (chatter) 04:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete per Mrschimpf ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Keep. WP:NMEDIALIST is essay-level, and for good reason. It may well be worth having these sorts of articles in our encyclopedia; we're not limited by paper space constraints and they provide valuable information to someone trying to use Wikipedia as a reference book for these things. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment As noted, the entire article is duplicated by Template:LA TV, thus the data provided already exists on a much more scalable form. Nate • (chatter) 00:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  @Mrschimpf Unfortunately navigation templates are not rendered for mobile viewers. Always a good time to make some noise in T124168... 00:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC) ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

List of television stations in the San Francisco Bay Area[edit]

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

We don't have any other topic overviews of TV stations by market in this style. The contents lack citations and duplicate {{SF TV}} and the various pages featured. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete Duplicated links THREE TIMES over and just not how we do articles any longer. Nate • (chatter) 03:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Keep WP:CLN explains that lists, categories and other forms of navigation such as templates are complementary and so the existence of one is not a reason to delete another format. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

While generally true, [[WP:NMEDIALIST]] provides more specific elaboration ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NMEDIALIST which explicitly forbids lists in cities by specific types of media. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep. WP:NMEDIALIST is essay-level, and for good reason. It may well be worth having these sorts of articles in our encyclopedia; we're not limited by paper space constraints and they provide valuable information to someone trying to use Wikipedia as a reference book for these things. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Bill Appleberry[edit]

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

Record producers don't get an article because they were the mixing engineer in the credits of a song that charted. Otherwise, he fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC Mottezen (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete very few credits to his name. Zero sourcing found beyond basic-level interviews, fan wikis, song databases, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

P.C. Mittal Memorial Bus Terminus[edit]

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

NN bus station. Article gives no indication of anything that would make it notable. Sources do not meet WP:GNG - non-independent and/or non-trivial mentions. Searching does not turn up much more. WP:MILL bus station. MB 13:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MB 13:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MB 13:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep. In India, bus terminals are important. I added some news articles that suggest that some bus routes could be shifted to this terminal to reduce traffic congestion. Interestingly, this terminal was officially opened by Buddhadev Bhattacharya, the then chief minister of West Bengal. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Keep improved since nomination by Eastmain. A major station which apparently has 28 bays. NemesisAT (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Of the sources cited, the more reliable ones contain only minimal mention of this bus station. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

892 (film)[edit]

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

Future film that has not received significant coverage, all coverage has been run-of-the-mill casting/production coverage by trades, production has not been particularly notable as required by WP:NFF, despite filming wrapping. Would be best to be in draft space until notability is established BOVINEBOY2008 22:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep. Enough coverage of the film. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete I planning to post this myself. There is a couple just complete list of cast members and rumour. They don't provide anything for the reader, failing WP:AUD as they duplicate what the film site. It is a listing with no encyclopedic content. scope_creep^Talk 16:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- "I planning to post this myself." - you mean write this article? There was non-trivial info in article, now deleted. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

No, I mean the Afd of course. scope_creep^Talk 19:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The Three 4 Tens[edit]

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

They don't meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep. Passes criteria 1 of WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG based on the sources already in the article. A staff written bio in AllMusic, multiple album reviews in both AllMusic and Pitchfork, and an in depth article in the Philadelphia City Paper is all quality RS to meet these guidelines. Further, there is likely much more press in publications like The Philadelphia Inquirer for those who have subscription access to their archives to find. Not sure why this was nominated. The notability tag could have probably been just removed if one bothered to look at the sources.4meter4 (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Hiwaga sa Bahay na Bato[edit]

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

Fails WP:RS, WP:GNG and WP:TVSHOW. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Stoppomat[edit]

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

Exists, but doesn't appear to meet WP:N. After 12 years in CAT:NN, hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep. See the references here. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Sussie 4[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep. Found quality RS in my university library. There are many performance reviews and other coverage in independent Spanish language publications over the last 20 years. I don't have urls to give as I am viewing articles through university resources. See the following sources as a small sampling of refs.4meter4 (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Gonzalo Aburto (August 31, 2010). "Canciones mexicanas inmortales a ritmo de rock". El Diario La Prensa. p. El.CS1 maint: date and year (link) -Concert Review
Nancy Gutiérrez (June 19, 2020). "Inyección de optimismo". CE Noticias Financieras. - Review of online streaming concert
Ben-Yehuda, Ayala (May 2, 2009). "MALT ROCK". Billboard. 121 (17): 12. Not the main subject; but a review of a concert in which they were one of several bands
Aburto, Gonzalo (September 12, 2010). "Himnos Mexicanos En Rock: Los Clasicos De La Musica Son Reinterpretados Con Distorsionadores". El Mensajero. Music included within this article on classic Spanish language rock songs

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep. References seem adequate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Jean-François Tremblay[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a civil servant, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. This was originally written (I've corrected it) to describe the subject as a "politician", but that's not accurate: "deputy minister" is a civil service role that just makes him a bureaucrat, and not a political office that would garner him an automatic free pass over NPOL #1 -- and the sole "reference" is his staff profile on the self-published website of the ministry he works for, rather than any evidence of media coverage about his work in the role to get him over WP:GNG for it. Simply put, existing as a person with a job is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just a staff profile on his own employer's website for sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

ISO 361[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "This article suggests that this ISO is about a symbol, a claim not backed up by sources, nor mentioned in Hazard_symbol#Ionizing_radiation_symbol nor Ionizing_radiation#Radiation_hazard_warning_signs. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Note: if there is no arguments to the contrary, I propose redirecting to List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 1-4999 per WP:SOFTDELETE and WP:ATD" It was deprodded by User:Spinningspark with the following rationale "deprod. I don't know why you have doubt what this standard is for. The ISO link plainly says it. At worst a merge case, no need for deletion". However, there is no referenced content to merge and further, I stand by my view that this article is confusing - is the standard just a symbol? While this may be the case, the lack of references, confirmation in other relevant articles, and general lack of notability in the current sub-stub reinforce my view that this should be redirected (unless someone can expand it; I'll note the German article is longer, but similarly poorly referenced). IMHO unless notability can be shown, a redirect to the ISO list of symbols is sufficient, although it might be good to expand the tiny entry there to link to the articles I mention in my first sentence. Last thought: it may be that the symbol family is in fact notable, culturally-wise, and someone could write an article on this, but if so, it should be under radiation hazard warning signs, discussing cultural references/recognition, etc. At that point, once a proper article exists, this could be redirected there instead. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep. Perhaps it is time to seek a consensus that the work of the International Organization for Standardization is sufficiently important that all ISO standards are inherently notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps, but until this is done there is no exception, and often enough ISO AfD discussions are closed as redirects, ex. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISO 5 from just few days ago. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Redirect to Hazard symbol#Ionizing radiation symbol, where for instance ☢ currently redirects. The concept of a radiation hazard symbol is clearly encyclopedic, with plenty of sources, and could plausibly be a standalone article, but our coverage of this at the hazard symbol article is much more complete. If kept, this should be broadened to cover the more general concept of a radiation hazard symbol without so much focus on the weeds of the ISO standardization of that symbol. (I have left a pointer to this discussion at Talk:Hazard symbol, as I think should be required when actions involving non-nominated articles are discussed at AfDs.) —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Keep. I'm not against a merge, but I am against simply redirecting as proposed by the nom. That amounts to redirecting to a target that does not discuss the term being redirected. Piotrus nominates far too many articles on this basis. If the nom really meant a merge they could have done that as a BOLD edit and it almost certainly would not have been challenged. The claim that the article does not have reliable sources is utter nonsense. The one source it has is the ISO page on the standard. There is nothing in the article that is not in the abstract on that page. Is the claim that ISO is not a reliable source for the contents of its own standards? Further information on the ISO history is here (how the standard developed from a 1963 recommendation). And here is a source independent of ISO that briefly touches on the importance of the standard. SpinningSpark 06:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- ISO is certainly not an independent reliable source that can be used to establish the notability of its own standards. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  - Didn't say it was. I was responding to "...there is no referenced content to merge...". It's a reliable source in this article and would become an independent reliabe source in a merged article that was not about the ISO. SpinningSpark 08:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I object to bold redirecting, which IMHO is nothing but a stealth deletion. Deletion, or redirecting, should be reviewed by the community. Since proposals to create any separate procedure for reviewing redirects are shut down, AfD is the way to discuss this. As for the merge, there is no referenced content to merge. The external link to ISO standards page is hardly a "source", and it probably exists on the proposed redirect target page anyway. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
What is your rationale for it not being a source? You can't make that so by your fiat. The information in the article clearly came from there, ipso facto it is the source of the article. And no, it is not in the target article nor is the standard even mentioned. SpinningSpark 15:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
It could be a mislabelled source (in EL section). So what? It doesn't change the fact that this source is not enough to establish the notability of the concept, per what others already said. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
It's not a mislabelled EL, it's under the references section. Even a cursory look shows the information in our article is in the source. As long as you are unwilling to move the information into another article, I am against a redirect and staying with "keep". SpinningSpark 16:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
~~Redirect~~ Redirect with merge to Hazard symbol. People searching for 'ISO 361' should get a sensible response: indeed ideally we should have 'safety nets' for as many ISO standards as we can. BUT that does not mean that each one has a trivial stub article if we already have entirely suitable and more comprehensive articles that they can be redirected to. Of course the target article needs at least an anchor but that is just an incidental detail when what is being discussed here is the principle. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Clarified my vote since, in the light of the squabble above, it is necessary to state the obvious: a blind redirect would not happen, it would redirect to a section or anchor that enumerated and described the relevant ISO standard(s). And ANSI, BS, EUN and anything else relevant if it comes to that. Sigh. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Redirect/merge to Hazard symbol#Ionizing radiation symbol or Ionizing_radiation#Radiation_hazard_warning_signs. I see no basis whatsoever to suggest that ISO standards are inherently notable. Should they be discussed in the relevant article? Absolutely. But should they automatically be their own pages? No way. Reywas92^Talk 14:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Miriam Benjamin[edit]

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

Notable only for inaccurate claims made about her in the past few years, e.g. the Thoughco article referenced. Qwirkle (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep I can't see any indication in the article that the information is incorrect and I couldn't see the thoughco article which you mentioned in your nomination. The sources in the article are reliable and she has sufficient secondary sources about her that pass WP:GNG. You mentioned on the talk page whether the patent had been checked, this copy doesn't indicate that the information is incorrect. You also didn't indicate whether you had checked that patent yourself which you should have if you thought it was a concern as per WP:BEFORE. Suonii180 (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

If you didn’t see the thoughtco article, then you didn’t actually read the article. It is the first reference.

You should strike your vote until you have actually read it and the cites. Qwirkle (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The first reference has about.com, not thoughco in the reference so no, I didn't automatically realise that was the reference you were talking about. It's also still unclear what you think is inaccurate about the article. The source that you're referring to doesn't refute the information in Benjamin's article. If you think some of the information is incorrect then it would be helpful to be specific about what that is. Suonii180 (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

…Which is to say you didn’t actually read the first reference. “Thoughtco” appears in very, very big letters on it, right at the top.

Nearly every single fact in the article aside from biography is wrong, by the look of it, and most of the cites are the sort of dreck that makes this unsurprising. Qwirkle (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I checked the sources which I recognised to be reputable sources such as the JSTOR article, the blackpast.org article and the Smithsonian article which all collaborate the information on Benjamin's article. You need to be specific on exactly which paragraph you think is incorrect. Also, the deletion process is not just based on the sources already in the article. As nominator, it's your responsibility to do a WP:BEFORE check which I don't think you did as there are numerous results that provide secondary source about her such as [4] [5] [6] Suonii180 (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

You do realize that the first cite is already mentioned in the existing references…i.e, you are stacking cites[?]

You do realize that the references for your second cite explicitly refute the idea that this was adopted for the Capitol?

Do you really think that a cite which records the “McCoy” canard is that credible? Qwirkle (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Even ignoring the sources from a two minute search you should have done before nominating the article, she has enough notability to pass WP:GNG. As you cannot specifically say which part of the article is incorrect ~~[other than the capitol information]~~ then I'm going to remain with my keep opinion and leave it at that. Suonii180 (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC) - scored out the capitol part as it sounded like I thought the info was inaccurate which I don't. I merely meant that my opinion hasn't changed even if the source mentioned above is ignored. Suonii180 (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

No matter how many times you trot out the false assertion that a search was not done before nominating, it remains false. As I explicitly mention above, the first source was already visible just by fully reading the article, down to the roots…so why didn’t you see it?Qwirkle (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The “capitol part” is, in fact inaccurate, as anyone…anyone else, by the look of it… who actually reads the sources right effin’ here, and in the article will see. Miss Benjamin’s system, and others like it, no doubt, were proposed, but rejected against more modern technology, electricity. Qwirkle (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Speedy Keep - I updated the article with a source from the U.S. House of Representatives that appears to both address the 'accuracy' dispute and further support notability in addition to the other sources in the article per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Beccaynr (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC) updated !vote, per article Talk page discussion Beccaynr (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Miguel Arcángel Roscigna[edit]

Files[edit]

File:Norglide-Logo-lg.jpg[edit]

Orphaned, no apparent use. — Pbrks (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Nepenthes clipeata.jpg[edit]

The species is not extinct. Fails WP:NFCC#1. Wcam (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Skid Row Stabbing.png[edit]

This appears to have been written by a serial killer, so the copyright tag is incorrect. Copyright is owned by the creator and the photo of it taken by police is an unlicensed derivative, as they don't own the copyright. Image is orphaned, so if we want to argue it can be kept as fair use, it should still be deleted as unused fair use. ♟♙ (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Beverly June Kludt.png[edit]

Orphaned, poor quality photo scan from a newspaper ♟♙ (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Joan Stewart.png[edit]

Orphaned low-quality photo of an old document. No apparent use on Wikipedia. ♟♙ (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Philip Joseph Hughes Serialkiller.png[edit]

Unnecessary duplicate upload of File:Philip Hughes Serialkiller.png. ♟♙ (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Philip Joseph Hughes jr.png[edit]

Unnecessary duplicate upload of File:Philip Hughes Serialkiller.png. ♟♙ (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Skid Row Stabber.png[edit]

Unused image with no apparent use. ♟♙ (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

File:20180810 MMM - Palm Line.jpeg[edit]

Derivative work of two other photographs. No evidence that they are in public domain or freely licensed. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

File:About To Crack (album).jpg[edit]

No evidence that Baizley has released this cover into public domain. Could possibly qualify for fair use. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Three Pacific Electric tickets.jpg[edit]

The images seems {{PD-US-no notice}}, but can User:Slambo provide a source? GZWDer (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

keep - These are three actual Pacific Electric ride tickets in my personal railroadiana collection. I put them on my flatbed scanner with a black background to make the image. Slambo (Speak) 17:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Antici Mattei.jpg[edit]

Derivative work of another photograph. Not sure if original photograph is old enough to be in public domain. Not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Athletics European Indoor champions templates[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Athletics European Indoor champions templates to Category:European Athletics Indoor Championships winners navigational boxes

Nominator's rationale: Contested speedy. The proposed rename is now updated. I'm not sure why the words were ordered the way they are in the existing name, it doesn't look like the parent article (European Athletics Indoor Championships) had a move/name change behind it. -- 2pou (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Gongsun Du and associates[edit]

Propose merging Category:Gongsun Du and associates to Category:Gongsun family
Propose merging Category:Gongsun Kang and associates to Category:Gongsun family

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, the first category contains a father and two sons, the second category adds the grandson. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Disasters in fiction[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Disasters in fiction to Category:Disaster fiction

Nominator's rationale: The "in" is not necessary, per articles like disaster film. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose This would limit the scope to a single genre. Dimadick (talk) 09:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
@Dimadick: Per WP:NONDEF, if it is not explicitly about disasters, and only contains a disaster as a plot point, it should not be there. That automatically reduces the scope to disaster fiction only. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Dimadick is right, nominator is once again far from understanding fictional media contents. And his very narrow interpretation of NONDEF is a disaster. --Just N. (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Support, the proposed title makes it more clear that only films about disasters should be categorized, not films in which a disaster plays an incidental role. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Fiction about disasters, per other subcats of Category:Works about disasters. I think "disaster fiction" is less clear without context. - jc37 13:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 18:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I would also be fine with Category:Fiction about disasters, per Jc37. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Sports in X, Louisiana[edit]

Propose merging Category:Sports in Opelousas, Louisiana to Category:Opelousas, Louisiana
Propose merging Category:Sports teams in Opelousas, Louisiana to Category:Opelousas, Louisiana
Propose merging Category:Sports teams in Rayne, Louisiana to Category:Rayne, Louisiana
Propose deleting Category:Sports in Rayne, Louisiana to Category:Rayne, Louisiana

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Opelousas is small town which has only 3 articles on sports-related subjects and no active notable team since 1941. Rayne is even smaller and has only 2 related articles. User:Namiba 17:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Athletics World Indoor champions templates[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Athletics World Indoor champions templates to Category:World Athletics indoor champions navigational boxes

Nominator's rationale: Original Speedy discussion: (signing up here to fix timestamp issues) 2pou (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Athletics World Indoor champions templates to Category:Athletics World Indoor champions navigational boxes – C2C. 2pou (talk) 07:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Top category is "World Athletics Indoor Championships". --Gonnym (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  - I lazily just changed the last word. Looks like the deeper cat was never renamed in 2019, and this unfortunately leads to something verbose (e.g. Category:World Athletics Indoor Championships champions navigational boxes) or slightly unconventional (e.g. Category:World Athletics Indoor Champions navigational boxes / Category:World Athletics indoor champions navigational boxes). I probably favor the last as World Athletics is at least correctly used as a proper noun. Perhaps not so speedy? -2pou (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on if the category should follow the exact parent conventions or if changing the name to reflect individuals vice the larger event is ever used. 2pou (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Upcoming car models scheduled for 2022[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Upcoming car models scheduled for 2021 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Upcoming car models scheduled for 2022 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:NOTCRYSTAL, production/sales start dates can and often do change. No merge needed since articles are still in original Upcoming car models category. Vossanova ^o< 17:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep COI because I made these, but these categories were created being split from Category:Cars introduced in 2021 and Category:Cars introduced in 2022, in the same sense that categories such as Category:Upcoming video games scheduled for 2021 exist. Of course a car release date can change, but the release date of any product or media piece can. The cars in the categories are also non-rumored ones, but ones with confirmed dates and I made sure not to add ones that were just pure speculation. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Athletics World Cup champions templates[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Athletics World Cup champions templates to Category:IAAF Continental Cup winners navigational boxes

Nominator's rationale: Originally tagged as a speedy C2C rename, but Gonnym pointed out that there was some additional confusion. Looks like Atheletics World Cup was rebranded in 2019, and after the page moved, this particular subcat did not follow. Secondarily, placing into the navbox category tree per the original speedy. 2pou (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Speedy discussion for reference

Category:Athletics World Cup champions templates to Category:Athletics World Cup champions navigational boxes – C2C. 2pou (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Per IAAF Continental Cup the name is "IAAF World Cup". Also, Athletics World Cup is something else. --Gonnym (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  - Lots of name changes in here. So perhaps Category:IAAF Continental Cup winners navigational boxes in line with Category:IAAF Continental Cup winners. -2pou (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Shopping malls[edit]

Propose splitting Category:Shopping malls to Category:Shopping malls and Category:Shopping centers

Nominator's rationale: Or alternatively, rename Category:Shopping malls to Category:Shopping centers.

Per the discussion immediately below, the main article was split last year into Shopping center as the overview article and Shopping mall as a type of shopping center/centre. Category:Shopping malls by type needs to be renamed and re-accommodated under a Category:Shopping centers, but it's not quite clear to me whether this should be a rename, or a split so that Category:Shopping centers is created as a parent. (If this ends in renaming, a follow-up nomination should be done for the subcats, but I won't tag them just yet in case the malls tree is retained.) --Paul_012 (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment if the article on shopping centres is to be believed, shopping centers (sic) include shopping malls. As such, surely all you need is to create a parent cat at Category:Shopping centers and move the non-mall articles into it. No need for any renaming/splitting discussion. Grutness...wha? 16:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Well, yeah. "Create a parent cat ... and move the non-mall articles into it" is pretty much what I meant by "split". Just wanted to make sure. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Shopping malls by type[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls by type to Category:Shopping centers by type

Nominator's rationale: The parent article was split into Shopping center and Shopping mall last year. They now state that shopping center/centre is the wider term, with shopping mall being a type of shopping center. This category, which covers the various types, should therefore be renamed to follow the wider term. Paul_012 (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep - this is a subcat scheme for Category:Shopping malls and as such cannot be renamed by itself; moreover Category:Shopping centers is a redirect to Category:Shopping malls. The rationale would appear to support a rename of Category:Shopping malls to Category:Shopping centers, or the creation of Category:Shopping centers as a parent of Category:Shopping malls (which would be plausible). Oculi (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- I was originally going to follow up with a rename proposal for Category:Shopping malls, but then it didn't seem clear that it contained subjects that would fall under the wider scope but not malls. Naturally if the nominated category is renamed to Category:Shopping malls by type, it should be reorganized as a parent of Category:Shopping malls instead. I'll start another nom to discuss whether Category:Shopping malls should be renamed or split. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Arab prophets of Islam[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Arab prophets of Islam to Category:Arab prophets according to Islam

Nominator's rationale: option A: rename to clarify that the Arab ethnicity is POV categorization. Option B: purge and remove Abraham, Ishmael and Job from the category. In this case the category name can stay as is. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Purge Abraham, Ishmael and Job. Category:Arab prophets according to Islam is confusing to me. I read it as the POV marker pointig to Prophets not Arab ethnicity. --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Israelite prophets of Islam[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Israelite prophets of Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, overlaps with Category:Hebrew Bible prophets of the Quran. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

delete per nom --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Safavid governors of Bitlis[edit]

Propose merging Category:Safavid governors of Bitlis to Category:Safavid governors and Category:History of Bitlis

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Upmerge per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Upmerge per nom. --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Impact of the Columbine High School massacre on cinema[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Impact of the Columbine High School massacre on cinema (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Oddly titled WP:NONDEF category containing a smattering of films that had to be tweaked because of then-current events (which was minor in nearly every instance). The nearly identical Category:Media affected by the Columbine High School Massacre was previously deleted for being trivial. Nohomersryan (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Impact of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Impact of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: In this category, we have two TV episodes that were delayed, two movies that had postponed premieres, and three songs that were briefly taken off the radio. That's about as WP:NONDEFINING as it gets; all of these works were made or in production well before the shooting even happened and the "impact" is completely forgettable all these years later. The main Sandy Hook category is already pretty small and contains all the "serious" pages that could potentially go here. Nohomersryan (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Bduke (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:People from Manitoba by ethnic or national origin[edit]

Propose deleting Category:People from Manitoba by ethnic or national origin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:People of Asian descent from Manitoba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Filipino people from Manitoba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Canadian people of Indian descent from Manitoba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Black Canadian people from Manitoba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:People of European descent from Manitoba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:People of Eastern European descent from Manitoba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:People of Russian descent from Manitoba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Ukrainian people from Manitoba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Icelandic people from Manitoba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:People of Irish descent from Manitoba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Scottish people from Manitoba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:People of Indigenous peoples descent from Manitoba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:First Nations people from Manitoba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by triple intersection of nationality, ethnicity and individual province of residence. Wikipedia does not have an existing practice of subdividing "[Nationality] people of [ethnicity] descent" into separate subcategories for each individual province or state within a country; no other US state or Canadian province has categories like this, and Manitoba does not need special treatment that the others aren't getting. The same person who recently created these has also, in some instances, concurrently started other provincial groupings for a couple, but not all, of these ethnicities, which still isn't warranted and will be batched separately. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Support in principle, per nom, but it should be a merge rather than a straight deletion, e.g. merge Category:Ukrainian people from Manitoba to Category:Canadian people of Ukrainian descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Potentially keep Booian people of fooian descent is common in WP and these are examples. If not kept merge to Canadian parent. Some of these are small categories, but many have at least 5 members which is enough to keep. I assume "First Nations" and "indigenous" are in fact identical and these should be merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

We have Booian-Fooian categories at the national level for many countries, yes. We do not subdivide them into categories at the state or provincial level. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 05:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Upmerge to relevant Canadian people categories where appropriate, per Marcocapelle. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:People with migraine[edit]

Propose deleting Category:People with migraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Hardly defining. Many, many people have migraine without it being a defying characteristic no more than having toothache or acne. Egghead06 (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete as verifiable yet non-defining per WP:COPDEF. Even in people with really bad migraines, and/or to whom fans have devoted large sections, this condition is not defining. I would eventually like to see heavy scrutiny and purging, if not outright deletion, of many health conditions at Category:People by medical or psychological condition. But for now the most trivial, lowest hanging fruit should be picked. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep Defining for migraine advocates like Jo Beckwith. Certainly defining in the case of Anne Conway (philosopher) who was well documented as a sort of medical experiment and whose philosophy is influenced by her experience with migraine pain (the latter not cited in the article but is in "A Philosopher and Her Headaches: The Tribulations of Anne Conway" and "The Central Role of Suffering in Anne Conway's Philosophy"). Basic google news search demonstrates migraine is defining (at least for the past year or two) for Nolan Patrick. As well, Lewis Carroll has an entire section dedicated to his migraine and epilepsy which suggests its at least somewhat defining. It may not be defining for everyone who has experienced a migraine but for wikinotables who have chronic migraine, it is often very much defining (can provide more examples but trying to keep it brief). If kept, there should be a note added at the top of the category that it's about migraine as a chronic condition and not just having a bad headache. (In the interest of transparency, I did create the category.) Samsmachado (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Jo Beckwith is in Category:Disability rights activists from the United States which suffices. No objection to a section in the Migraine article listing these people. That will also allow a further elaboration of how Anne Conway's philosophy was influenced by her disease. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 05:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete. I don't think this is a defining trait. Close to 40 million people in the United States alone have migraines. While surely a nuisance, it doesn't seem like an important fact related to the bulk of the people in this category. Nohomersryan (talk) 06:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom. NONDEF applies. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Jewish families[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Italian Jewish families to Category:Jewish Italian families

or alternatively:

Propose renaming Category:Jewish Hungarian families to Category:Hungarian Jewish families

Can we agree a pattern one way or the other? Then we could speedily nominate whichever of the dozen similar categories dont fit.

Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

A comparable tree of Category:Jewish diaspora uses option B with dash, so then it would become Category:Hungarian-Jewish families. Ultimately I am neutral, as long as it is implemented consistently. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 05:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Support. Don't know about the convention in North America and elsewhere but in GB it is usual to hyphenate per Marcocapelle's example. The main thing here is consistency. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Big Talk Productions films[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Big Talk Productions films to Category:Big Talk Productions

Nominator's rationale: The scope note says films and TV series. Fuddle (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose, TV series already are in a different Category:Television series by Big Talk Productions. Just remove the note. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Keep. The TV wing already has its own category and film production needs one too. The scope is incorrect. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Rescope: with a see also to the TV category. Fuddle (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

A "see also" note is a good idea, [7]. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Redirects[edit]

Aggin[edit]

Aggin → List of ethnic slurs (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Workation[edit]

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

Not mentioned at the target, sources online suggest that this is not an alternative term for staycation (taking a vacation in your hometown or nearby), but rather refers to a different concept (working remotely from somewhere exotic). I'm not sure the second topic is quite notable, but even if it isn't I don't think readers are well-served by the existing redirect and would suggest deletion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Retarget to Vacation § Impact of digital communications, which does not use the term but describes the general concept. That section needs a lot of improvement, but I think pointing there is better than deleting. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Sa element[edit]

Sa element → Ozarkodinida (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
M element → Ozarkodinida (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unlike the other four "element" redirects that previously targeted the page (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 9#Sb element for discussion about Sb element and Sc element, also I recently retargeted Pb element to Lead and Pa element to Protactinium), these two don't seem to have better targets (there are no chemical elements with these symbols, and as discussed before, these are minor properties of Ozarkodinida that aren't explained in detail in the target). As such redirects, delete, disambiguate, or retarget them wherever appropriate unless justification can be provided. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 19:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

List of Canis species an subspecies[edit]

List of Canis species an subspecies → List of canids (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Implausible typo of an implausible search term. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Looking at the page histories the redirect appears to have been a result of a page move as the first edit after page creation. No need to keep it as it was a mistake. The current redirect goes to a newer article with no record of the orginal article in the history. — Jts1882 | talk 19:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Chikoo Ki Mummy Durr Kei[edit]

Chikoo Ki Mummy Durr Kei → Draft:Chikoo Ki Mummy Durr Kei (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The redirect should be deleted because the target page is a draft. Zarif1511 (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Not sure if this is eligible for WP:R2 speedy deletion? The page has some history. (Despite the redirecting edit summary, it does not appear to have been copy-pasted from the existing draft.) --Paul_012 (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Speedy delete: This redirect crosses namespaces. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Fuck the dealer[edit]

Fuck the dealer → Euchre variations (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete as the target page makes no mention of this phrase and I can find no reliable sources that record it as a recognised variation of Euchre. In fact, both online sources and books (novels) indicate that it's a name used for one or more drinking games. Bermicourt (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete: Looking that the target, the relationship between it and the redirect is unclear. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Monika Krause-Fuchs (German sociologist)[edit]

Monika Krause-Fuchs (German sociologist) → Monika Krause-Fuchs (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unnecessary disambiguation. Article was originally created under this name, but there are no other prominent Monika Krause-Fuchs. CentreLeftRight ✉ 18:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep. This is a valid {{r from unnecessary disambiguation}}. While I wouldn't encourage someone creating a doubly-qualified redirect like this out of thin air, in this case, where it exists from a move, there's no reason to delete it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Shopping area[edit]

Shopping area → Shopping mall (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Over-specific redirect from a broad, vague term. To me it seems more likely to refer to a shopping district in a city, but since there's no article for that, I'm suggesting deletion. The Shopping mall article also states that shopping center is the broader term, so even that would be preferable. Paul_012 (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I created the redirect because I've always equated "shopping area" with an outdoor or open air type place, like a strip mall or what User:Paul_012 mentioned above. Feel free to delete if I'm wrong on this, though. Um, but before you do have you considered a disambiguation page at this title? If "shopping area" is, like User:Paul_012 said, a broad term maybe that would make more sense. Americanfreedom (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Stand-alone store[edit]

Stand-alone store → Shopping mall#Stand-alone stores (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Stand-alone stores → Shopping mall#Stand-alone stores (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Stand alone store → Shopping mall#Stand-alone stores (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Stand alone stores → Shopping mall#Stand-alone stores (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target. ~~not quite clear what concept the redirect is supposed to cover~~ Apparently originally redirected to a section that has since been removed, presumably due to a lack of references. Paul_012 (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Shopping parade[edit]

Shopping parade → Shopping mall (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target. Shopping parade seems to be a rather distinct concept, noted more for their historical and architectural aspects. Even if a redirect is desired, Shopping center (which is the wider overview article created last year when the topic was spilt) seems like a better target. I suggest deleting, though, to encourage article creation. Paul_012 (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Camp Creek MarketPlace[edit]

Camp Creek MarketPlace → Shopping mall (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

A stub which was created, PRODed, de-PRODed, then redirected, back in 2006. Not an appropriate redirect; not mentioned in target, and rightly so. Since the page existed as an article for only three months but as redirect for fifteen years, I think RfD is appropriate and restoring for AfD shouldn't be necessary. Paul_012 (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete: No one would ever use this redirect to get to the target article. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Even Steven (song)[edit]

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

Chaneil Kular[edit]

Chaneil Kular → Black Narcissus (TV series)#Cast (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Kular has appeared in four series, with Black Narcissus being one of the lesser notable appearances of his. Kular is not yet notable enough to have a page (per WP:NACTOR) but this shouldn't mean a redirect to a television series exists, as it provides readers with no information about the actor. – DarkGlow • 10:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

LTA:SGK[edit]

LTA:SGK → Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Supreme Genghis Khan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

LTA: is not a pseudo-namespace. WP:R#D6. Sun8908 _Talk 07:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete. LTA already walks a fine line between helping counter vandalism and granting it recognition. An XNR crosses that line. (Setting aside the rough consensus to not create new pseudo-namespaces.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete: This is a fake namespace that leads to a real one. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Nibin-Nogrim[edit]

Nibin-Nogrim → Dwarf (Middle-earth)#Petty-dwarves (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Ibun → Dwarf (Middle-earth)#Petty-dwarves (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Ibûn → Dwarf (Middle-earth)#Petty-dwarves (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Nibin-Noeg → Dwarf (Middle-earth)#Petty-dwarves (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Noegyth Nibin → Dwarf (Middle-earth)#Petty-dwarves (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Minor petty-dwarfs not mentioned in target; unless good sourcing can be found to indicate significance of these, I don't think this level of detail is within the scope of the target article (which rightfully limits the space given to the petty dwarves, who are less significant). Hog Farm _Talk 03:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom, can't see any reason for having this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Weak keep - presumably a reader knowing to search for these obscure character names would not be disappointed with being redirected to a page with general information on the topic. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete: The average person who has not read The Silmarillion and The Children of Húrin would not understand why these redirects lead to their target. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Susmuffin: So? How does the average person come into this? And even if the average person does come across this then surely they are able to infer that the redirects lead to this target because they are related to the target? — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Charlotte H. Johnson[edit]

Charlotte H. Johnson → Curtis Guild Jr. (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I can't find any reason this redirect should exist. The article about Curtis Guild Jr. where this redirects states that he married a woman with a different name. Toddst1 (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be in error. The (maiden) name of Guild's wife was in fact Charlotte Howe Johnson, not Charlotte Howe Crosby. This was apparently a misreading of the source (her father was Edward Crosby Johnson); other sources also confirm Johnson as her maiden name. That aside, I would question whether she satisfies WP:GNG, since mentions of her appear to be either genealogical or in connection to her husband. Magic♪piano 13:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Roku Netflix[edit]

Roku Netflix → Netflix#Products (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The Netflix Player by Roku → Netflix#Products (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The Netflix Player → Netflix#Products (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Roku Netflix Player → Roku (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Netflix Player → Roku (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These should point at the same target. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it's best to point to Netflix#Products, which better explains the product development and also links to Roku. But only the ones with "Roku" in the title, the others are too vague and should be deleted. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Stereotypes of Mongoloids[edit]

Stereotypes of Mongoloids → Stereotypes of East Asians in the United States (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Slur is not mentioned on the target page. Also offensive. Geschichte (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Retarget to mongoloid, which includes discussions about perceptions and stereotypes. While "Mongoloid" once referred to one of the (at the time) three accepted racial groups (Caucasoid and Negroid being the other two) it wasn't a slur in that context, however it is a slur when used to refer to a person with Down syndrome. This, too, is covered at mongoloid. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete: This redirect is too racist to be useful. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Being offensive is not, in and of itself, a criterion for redirect deletion. Have a read of WP:RNEUTRAL, or {{R from non-neutral name}}, or the 589 members of Category:Redirects from non-neutral names. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 20:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Templates and Modules[edit]

Miscellany[edit]

Draft:N. A. Khan Spondan[edit]

WP:Notability EdNg07 (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I've now realised that this is the wrong category, should be under AfD, but I don't know how to move it etc EdNg07 (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Since this is a draft, this is the correct venue. Articles for Deletion is only for articles. Curbon7 (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Keep clearly you're unaware of this EdNg07 but notability explicitly does not apply to draftspace,see WP:NMFD. Indeed WP:drafts are not checked for notability or sanity, now can you please just withdraw the nom so we can dispense with this in a hurry. MFD massively increases the number of people viewing a draft and this is one of those that are best quietly deleted in 6 months time (see WP:G13). Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#U5 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) 81.177.3.8 (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Sai aravind/Prasad V.Potluri Siddhartha Institute of Technology[edit]

abandoned draft MB 07:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep per WP:STALE. WP:RAGPICKING. WP:TIND. Please, no more; if the current ones end in delete somehow, then carry on with the flood. But a pause is preffered until then, so this does not get more out of hand. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

User:RAFIAMAN/Aeronautical Institute of Bangladesh[edit]

abandoned draft MB 06:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep per WP:STALE. Listing such pages here un-bundled en masse is a maintenance burden for those commenting. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Keep nominator has failed to advance a reason for deletion, this is not problematic even if blanked see WP:STALEDRAFT. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment My rational is that if you look at the edit history, there were two edits by the author and three edits by others fixing problem. This is typical of these types of pages. Deleting will prevent any future maintenance edits and wasting other editors time on abandoned pages. Since the subject is in mainspace at Aeronautical Institute of Bangladesh, I don't see that anything potentially useful would be lost. I will just blank this page instead; I thought deleting via MFD would be uncontroversial and simpler. MB 20:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Pcs123456/Pateros Catholic School[edit]

abandoned draft MB 06:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep per WP:TIND, WP:RAGPICKING, and WP:STALE. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Keep nominator has failed to advance a reason for deletion, this is not problematic even if blanked see WP:STALEDRAFT. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Looper2222/LAIAD[edit]

abandoned draft MB 06:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep per WP:STALE, WP:RAGPICKING, and WP:TIND. One might also raise the ponderance: why this userspace draft over any other userspace draft that has not been edited in a while? — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Keep and blank if you must, but no PAG based reason for deletion has been supplied. If a userpage is speediable then tag it for speedy. If you think the current content is an issue, blank it. If the page is not speeidable and the content is problematic even if blanked then and only then should an mfd be initiated. That means there must be a clear reason to conceal the history.
Using mfd to clean the userspace of others is not productive. The negative to the community of editors policing others userspace is a bigger negative than leaving these things alone. There's endless reams of abandoned junk in userspace but it's all noindexed and impossible to find, and the links are nofollowed and do nothing for seo. If we systemically went through all of it mfd would be completely overwhelmed, and to what purpose? Especially when there's so much junk in mainspace. If you want to use your time efficiently go start by cleaning out backlogs like Category:All articles lacking sources or Category:All articles with topics of unclear notability, or hell just Category:All pages needing cleanup and remember the articles in those are indexed and actually can be found. If you want to flood some place with deletion noms then flood afd where this actually matters. Bluntly stated noms like this serve no purpose except wasting people’s time, sorry. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Evergreen678/UNE16[edit]

abandoned draft MB 06:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep per WP:STALE and WP:RAGPICKING. @MB: No need to list such pages here. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Keep and blank if you must, but no PAG based reason for deletion has been supplied. If a userpage is speediable then tag it for speedy. If you think the current content is an issue, blank it. If the page is not speeidable and the content is problematic even if blanked then and only then should an mfd be initiated. That means there must be a clear reason to conceal the history. Using mfd to clean the userspace of others is not productive, and yes I am repeating myself.
MB as in the other nom you have failed to advance a reason for deletion in your statement making this arguably a speedy keep under WP:SK#1. Doing this en masse is disruptive and a waste of your fellow editors time, as I get time I'll go check on your other noms, but if they're all similar to this I strongly suggest just withdrawing them and reviewing the PAGs that govern mfd. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Dgiovag/sandbox/Popular Organizations at Illinois State University in the 1970's[edit]

abandoned draft MB 06:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep per WP:STALE and WP:RAGPICKING. No need to list such pages here. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Keep nominator has failed to advance a reason for deletion, this is not problematic even if blanked see WP:STALEDRAFT. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

User:DEFCON5/sandbox/Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Science[edit]

abandoned draft MB 06:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep per WP:RAGPICKING and WP:STALE. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Keep nominator has failed to advance a reason for deletion, this is not problematic even if blanked see WP:STALEDRAFT. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Cuindependent/Cuindependent[edit]

abandoned draft MB 06:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep per WP:STALE and WP:RAGPICKING. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Keep nominator has failed to advance a reason for deletion, this is not problematic even if blanked see WP:STALEDRAFT. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Aneebkmct/HM College of Science and Technology[edit]

abandoned draft MB 06:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep per WP:STALE. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Silly things/Sir Jimmy Wikipedia[edit]

I like humorous pages and have argued for several to be kept. But this isn't humorous, it's just dumb and it was created by sockpuppeteer User:Huff slush7264 who has stated he was a minor when he created his accounts. I really don't think it adds anything positive to the project and I think deleting it would actually make our editors smarter. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete This is not useful. No-one but article creator has contributed to it, and nothing links to it. Tagging garbage such as this with the humorous template should not protect it. The link vandalize (vandalism by a sock of user:My Royal Young) suggests that the creator of Silly things/Sir Jimmy Wikipedia might actually be be the LTA Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/My Royal Young. If that were the case this would actually be a speedy WP:G5. Meters (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete As someone who usually finds "dumb things" funny... I do not find this funny. It's just a younger user's attempt at being on Wikipedia. This isn't "so dumb it's funny", this is "so dumb it's genuinely dumb". Also agreeing with Meters on this, this has no use. Waddles 🗩 🖉 04:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review[edit]

File:Ap munich905 t.jpg[edit]

This photograph was published by the Associated Press without a US copyright notice. When it's file is not public domain in Germany, it is ineligible to upload on Commons. Commercial photo agency were strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, according to WP:NFC#UUI. 49.150.116.127 (talk) 09:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, a couple aspects to this.
- Being published without a copyright notice isn't enough by itself to be public domain the US; it also had to have either been first published in the US, or out of copyright in its country of origin before 1996. The onus is on you to show all aspects of that; I can't find any such claims. Publication by the AP without copyright notice, and first publication in the US (given that it was taken by a German photographer in Germany), both seem quite unlikely to me.
- In the much more probable case that it isn't PD, the image itself is going to need to be the subject of sourced commentary in the article, as UUI (which you've helpfully already linked) #7 says. All the article said before the image was removed was that it was "one of the most reproduced photos taken during the siege", which really isn't sufficient, and neither of the sources it cited even said that. (This poor source, for example, does, though.) Low-effort googling doesn't turn up much else that's usable; there's the recently-offline time.com version of the book that Deadspin cites, and two pages in this that I can't view. In any case, I can't help thinking it'd be excluded from our article as undue weight anyway. —Cryptic 11:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I think it's suitable enough for public domain, although by the Associated Press photographer Kurt Strumpf. Unlike other images by the Associated Press featuring a running Vietnamese girl (File:The Terror of War.jpg) during Vietnam War. --49.150.116.127 (talk) 12:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Regarding "I think", yes that's precisely the problem. I'd like to see you provide some proof/citations supporting your claims; your thoughts and opinions do not trump the law, and Cryptic has already provided a fairly detailed analysis above. -FASTILY 21:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
While DRV is not AfD round two, image and copyright issues do tend to be a specialized topic area, so pinging Keith Edkins, Whpq, Fastily for input. Jclemens (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Endorse The image belongs to the Associated Press and is eligible for speedy deletion under criterion WP:CSD#F7 as a non-free photo from a commercial source. For non-admins: image, description -FASTILY 20:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

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