WIKIDELETION

TODAY

19:57, Monday, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Page out of date? PurgeIt!™

About this page

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

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

See also: Wikideletion Yesterday

Articles for deletion

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 15	December 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Koeut Pich

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

No evidence that this football player passes WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT. The only sources I could turn up (or in the article) are databases, routine match coverage and routine transfer coverage. If you find any sources in Cambodian I may have missed, please ping me. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cambodia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Reth Lyheng

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

I can't find sufficient WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary sources for this footballer to pass WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT. We have perhaps one here but we need more. It's entirely possible I missed something in Cambodian, so please ping me if you know of additional sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cambodia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Dany Marques

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

Entire professional career was 15 minutes in two substitute games in the second division. Another example of a player who passed the antiquated WP:NFOOTY but falls far short of WP:GNG. There's a source for him joining Académica but that's...academic...if he did nothing of note for the club. [1] This obviously doesn't count for notability or not, but this club Facebook post (note the different spelling) may indicate that the subject is deceased, just thought I'd say. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Zé Miguel Esteves

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

Entire professional career was the 12-minute League Cup debut mentioned in the text (for a second division club). Never played a game in second division or higher, and a Google search is just giving me database results (his playing name, short for José Miguel, is very common, but even when combined with a club, yields me no sources). Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Premachi Goshta (TV series)

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

Edit war between three editors attempting to redirect and a LOUTSOCK who keeps removing. Looking at the sources, they are all unreliable as churnalism, general announcements, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Recommend redirect to Yeh Hai Mohabbatein which is the show this is based off of. Although, would also request protection of the title if that happens. CNMall41 (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Yeh Hai Mohabbatein#Adaptations: but given the fact that the plot is different, it has an obviously different cast, including notable actors, and coverage about this ongoing apparently popular series with almost 300 episodes exists I am really not opposed to Keep. What I am very opposed to is deletion. -Mushy Yank. 20:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 20:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep: The show passes WP:NTVNATL straightway. There is ample coverage on its production, plot summaries (episodic), and cast updates, all supporting notability (majority being from Marathi media). There’s no strong basis for deletion. After the deletion discussion (if it remains), a request for article protection could be pursued.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 12:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus split between redirect and keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Onais Bascome

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails notability and significant coverage criteria. This article is just a list of squads he was picked for and all the cited sources are routine match reports and squad listings. Shrug02 (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Caribbean. Shrug02 (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Neutral. There isn't much substance to the article, but he would have met the minimum inclusion criteria that were in place at the time (i.e., having played international cricket for an ICC associate nation in a global qualifier). The goalposts have shifted since then, and I agree that articles shouldn't be created for players if even if they do meet the minimum eligibility criteria unless there is a decent amount of information beyond squad selections. Bs1jac (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Bermuda Twenty20 International cricketers as I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Please ping me if sources are found. JTtheOG (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
As the proposer of this AFD I agree the suggested redirect would also be an adequate alternative. Shrug02 (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for a redirect as ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

List of basic settlement units in Brno

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

This recently created list fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It is an extremely detailed breakdown for specific purposes in a professional sphere, which goes beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. Other European metropolises do not have a list with such a breakdown (so Brno is very random in this context). Similar lists are not found on cswiki either. FromCzech (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

To be honest that's quite fair. I simply wanted to make a ranking of the basic settlement units by density and population since that's what I'm usually interested in, but if others agree for the deletion I am for it too. GreenWolfyVillager (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

comment I have to say this is largely incomprehensible without a map. Mangoe (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Since there is already the article Administrative divisions of Brno would it simply be way better to move the article there? GreenWolfyVillager (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

This does not solve the concerns I raised above. It doesn't matter if the list is stand-alone or not. FromCzech (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Orientls (talk) 07:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Lists are usually by county, state or country, so this could be made into a list of places (or statistical or administrative units) in the South Moravian Region or there could be separate pages for each district, including Brno-City District. Peter James (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Kenteman

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as passing WP:NMUSIC.
As always, musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to pass certain specific inclusion criteria referenced to reliable sources -- but the only attempt at a notability claim here, the confusingly-worded "His Royal Majesty Nene Sakite II, Konor of Manya Krobo - Ghana honours Kenteman and Queen Asabia Cropper" under an honours and awards header, is supported only by a reference that just says he was "acknowledged" alongside his sister for an award presented to her, at a festival that isn't prominent (or music-oriented) enough to pass WP:NMUSIC #8 in and of itself.
And the article is referenced entirely to sources in which he's a secondary tag-along in coverage about the sister, with absolutely no sources that are about Kenteman in his own right shown at all.
Further, this has already been sandboxed in draftspace, before being moved right back into mainspace by its creator with only minimal attempt at improvement, so just resandboxing it again would have to be discussed and would probably require move protection.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a stronger notability claim than just existing, and better referencing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ghana. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

John Gourlay (soccer)

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

Doesn't look notable, unless people can find offline significant coverage about him. Redirect to List of 1904 Summer Olympics medal winners#Football seems sensible, but worth having an AFD discussion in case anyone finds some coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, Olympics, and Canada. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Criticism of fascism

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

POV fork, mainly based on one part of this article, its faliure in WW2. Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, what? It's a full article with seven different content sections. Only one of those sections is "Poor record in war". Also, why didn't you object to the spinoff when we were discussing this on the talk page before? Sunrise (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Err, that is because there was no consenus to fork this off, what there is a discussion about one paragraph (loss on war), which is you Vs many (so did not have any consensus). Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I originally proposed one paragraph, and edited it to address feedback over several rounds of discussion. In my reading of the discussion, I addressed all the concerns presented, after which most editors were neutral or generally supportive, except for one editor who believed it had too much weight. As a result, I declared my intention to create a spinoff where the paragraph could be included, and there were no objections.

As a result, over the past month I have been researching this topic in order to write a full spinoff article, in accordance with WP:Summary style and the established precedent on "Criticism" articles for ideologies (WP:CRITSP). The resulting article has three subsections derived from the main article, the one section we discussed before, and three entirely new sections written from imported content and my own research. But I suppose we can do an AfD? Sunrise (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

TFD seems to generally object to it. And they never changed that stance. Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, hence my reference to "one editor" in my previous comment (out of 7, by my count?). Regardless, I undertook to address their concerns by offering an alternative solution, and they didn't reply (nor did anyone else) so I assumed it was acceptable. Sunrise (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment per WP:POVFORK There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, we have Criticism of … articles for Criticism of socialism, Criticism of capitalism, Criticism of Marxism

Kowal2701 (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

There is also WP:CRITSP: For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Sunrise (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

True, but as pointed out above there was no consensus to create this, which came out of a decision about the war paragraph which was (explicitly) rejected for inclusion in the main article. Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
As above - that is not my reading of the discussion (and you didn't make any objection yourself, even though you commented). Perhaps we can get an outside view on that? Regardless, there's no such thing as "no consensus to create" for an action that has been mentioned on talk with no subsequent objection. If your issue is about that single paragraph, then AFDing the entire subarticle would seem to be the wrong venue. Sunrise (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep as article creator, I suppose. I don't spend much time at AfD, so I don't really know what arguments will be accepted on this point. But there is a long precedent for "Criticism" articles about ideologies (WP:CRITSP, as mentioned above), with a full list at Category:Criticisms by ideology.

Normally, I would follow the organization of WP:Summary style, making a new article when a subsection gets too large for the main article, with a summary being left behind. That is what I was doing, and it's the opposite of a POV fork. (The main article is currently desynced due to a revert, but that's a matter for talk.) Certainly there should no question over whether there's enough content for a dedicated article; for one, there's quite a few things that I haven't currently added. The fact that an editor previously raised weight concerns about some of this content being in the main article (which is reasonable, and indeed this article was created in response to that) is a further indication that a dedicated article is appropriate.

AFAICT, I think the nomination may have been based on an error? The claim that it's mainly based on one part of this article, its faliure in WW2 doesn't make sense, as I noted above. The nominator has acknowledged an error (diff) but I'm not really sure what it is. Sunrise (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm inclined to keep this. This is a matter of editorial judgment, since we all know that the sources exist. It's IMO not an unreasonable summary-style split, and since we have Criticism of democracy, Criticism of socialism, Criticism of Marxism, Criticism of monarchy, Criticism of libertarianism, etc., it is certainly not an unusual choice. If you thought that the content was better off in the main article, then Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers would be a better way to handle it than AFD, but I'd point out that with the main article already at nearly 14,000 words and over 300 inline citations, WP:SIZE is an issue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep per WP:SUBPOV as an article whose subject is a point of view. "Criticism of fascism", as with criticism of most influential global ideologies, is notable enough for its own page. Photos of Japan (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Zemun Stadium

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable soccer stadium that fails both WP:GNG and WP:NARENA, which holds that athletic stadia are neither presumptively notable nor inherit the notability of any teams that play there. Significant coverage has not been demonstrated to exist, the article has been inadequately sourced for over fifteen years now (and was notability tagged for 12 years), its only current source is primary. Previous AfD went keep on the basis of several "It's notable," "It's big," and "Important games have been played there," among other illegitimate reasons. Ravenswing 09:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete zero notability established. Sole source is from the home club, their website also doesn't appear to exist anymore. Looking at the previous AfD (which you also nominated), all of the keep arguments completely violated WP:INHERIT and WP:NARENA (which some of them even used as a keep argument), and the closing admin looks to have simply done a vote count. Aydo h8^[contribs] 10:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Serbia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to either Zemun#Sport or FK Zemun if no coverage is found. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
That would run afoul of WP:XY. Ravenswing 04:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
To fix WP:XY, I would say redirect to Zemun#Sport if no coverage is found because the topic is broader than FK Zemun. --Habst (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
No objection. Ravenswing 18:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I would be absolutely astounded if this isn't notable. I'll try to do a source search in a bit. SportingFlyer T·C 19:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep per previous AFD which contains numerous sources. Giant Snowman 20:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Which of those sources do you claim provides SIGCOV to the subject? Ravenswing 05:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep the sources at the previous AfD demonstrate notability, along with [2] [3] and books such as Srbija: znamenitosti i lepote (1965) SportingFlyer T·C 21:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
The other issue is this stadium is known by several different names, making BEFORE searches more difficult. Recent coverage also includes [4] [5] SportingFlyer T·C 02:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding the sources identified here or in the previous AfD to the article would likely help garner consensus quicker.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Cassie Petrey

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

Mildly promotional biography of a music marketer who fails WP:NBIO, WP:GNG; moved to mainspace after being declined at AFC. She seems to have received some coverage for a past connection to Britney Spears, but her notability cannot be WP:INHERITED from Spears. The coverage of this connection is also tabloid coverage (Mirror, Daily Soap Dish, People), which is disallowed for establishing notability per WP:SBST. The remaining sources are limited to:

WP:ROUTINE coverage in WP:TRADES publication MusicRow ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10])
WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Q&A interviews ([11], [12], [13], [14], [15])
WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs ([16], [17])
Promotional material like coverage in Forbes of a Forbes-sponsored panel discussion ([18])

As for her 30 Under 30 listings ([19], [20]), there is no consensus that these are the kinds of awards that would make someone independently notable under WP:ANYBIO. (The Forbes 30 under 30 is "awarded" to 1,230 people each year across geographies and industries so is not a rare honor.) I didn't find any other qualifying coverage in my WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, and Kentucky. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Saiman Says

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

The sources do not provide WP:SIGCOV, and the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. The sources include four YouTube videos and three blog articles, such as TOI Readers’ Blog and Talk Esports. I don’t think GNG is met here. GrabUp - Talk 15:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GrabUp - Talk 15:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@GrabUp: I have replaced three of the four YouTube videos with news articles. It will be helpful if you can let me know which ones are the blog articles. Pur 0 0 (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

National Library of Cameroon

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

There is no "National Library of Cameroon". The current coordinates given are to the national museum. The national archives, which are the largest museum in the country, have their own seperate entry.-- NotCharizard ^🗨 15:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Organizations, and Cameroon. Skynxnex (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Smoothstack

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

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

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

Hafez Bashar al-Assad

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

Redirect to Al-Assad family as WP:ATD. WP:NOTINHERITED. Never held a government office, non-notable child of a dictator. Of course there will be coverage in this context, but the child is not inherently notable. WP:SIGCOV is in the context of the child's comments about their parent, not about the child. Middling math accomplishments fail WP:DUE and are insignificant to establish notability. Sanctions in the context of being a tool of his father's regime. Longhornsg (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Mathematics, and Syria. Longhornsg (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. There is an article about the daughter of kim-jung un (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Ju-ae). Never held a government office, non-notable child of a dictator. Hafez's recent aquisition of a PhD in number theory seems significant enough to me. If deletion is chosen, then I also think a redirect to the family page seems best. 157.193.117.76 (talk) 10:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

If you think that article is not up to standard, please nominate it for deletion as well. Oaktree b (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Simply having a PhD and being related to a famous person does not not meet WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep:The individual was expected to be the successor to Bashar al-Assad, having been designated as the future president. This anticipation has brought him significant media coverage from reputable news sources, as evidenced by the list of references provided, demonstrating that it meets the minimum requirement for WP:GNG.Instant History (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

There are a good number of sources attesting to his mathematical skill (he got an Honorable Mention at the IMO at age 15 - nothing to sneeze at!). Perhaps we could add his mathematical acheivements to the article. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

... so I nominate keep. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Doesn't appear to have done much for notability, could be a brief mention in an article about the family or about his father. Oaktree b (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep sources show WP:GNG, in-depth articles. I know "other stuff exists", but Wikipedia has lists and categories of heirs who never succeeded, so that doesn't invalidate notability, sometimes it is the hook to the coverage itself. Just the other day, in DYK, was Kim Jong Un's daughter of whom not even the name is certain. I don't know enough about mathematics to comment on his notability in that field. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep: While notability is not inherited, there are some subjects that are inherently notable because the media will cover such subjects. Children of heads of state are such subjects. Additionally, the article appears well sourced and some articles are in-depth on the subject itself. I cannot say for certain on all of the sources, as I do not speak or read Spanish or Arabic, and I would think there are a lot more RS out there in Arabic to further establish notability. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep history is important Yesyesmrcool (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep, under possibility of punishment against me. First of all, he is NOT a child, despite several claims in this AFD. Second, he is the son of a powerful head of state, despite that his father has left Syria. Due to the far reaching arm of Syrian intelligence, I cannot state any negative information about al-Assad, not even deletion of his article. However, I do note that there are numerous reliable source citations about the subject of this article, which would suggest keeping it. ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep , historical preservation is important as per Yesyesmrcool. Theofunny (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete, the subject is not notable other than being the son of a deposed dictator, usually articles like this are being made acknowledging the posibility of sucession, which in this case is not possible anymore (in contrast with Kim Ju-ae), and no, having mathematical acheivements and acquiring a PhD is not enough to reach WP:GNG and have notability by your own. So I nominate delete or redirect to Al-Assad family. Votbek (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Alluding to the existence of sources without citing any does not help establish the case for retention.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Little Fishes Preschool

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

No evidence of notability, no obvious redirect target. Sources are routine coverage or not independent. Fram (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Florida. Fram (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep Multiple new secondary WP:RS directly referencing the school over decades. Local newsapers as well as county & state government websites and reports ZebulonMorn (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
You added things like [21] and [22] but I can't find anything about the Little Fishes Preschool on these pages? Fram (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Please read carefully:

[23] Page 21 – Title:Little Fishes Preschool to begin registration

[24] Page 11 – Title:Community helpers week ZebulonMorn (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Considering that you linked to other pages, it was rather hard to find these. You can't expect people to read a whole local newspaper to find what you intended. Both articles are routine local coverage, not the kind of thing that makes a school notable. Fram (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Command F on mac at least takes 2 seconds? ZebulonMorn (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Search on Chrome returns nothing here, and the internal search of the website returns "Unknown error occurred We apologize for the inconvenience. Click here to return to the library. Click here to report the problem." And none of this explains why you would link to page 4 if the article is on page 21. Fram (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The second source references Paul Terry visiting the school. Terry would later become notorious [25] [26] [27] [28] ZebulonMorn (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
And did the school play any role at all in him becoming notorious? WP:NOTINHERITED. Fram (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
The reason he's notorious, murdering children, is separate. The fact he has interacted with and had a history with children, relates heavily. Additionally, this tragic incident has gained notability in recent years with a more modern outlook and approach to police reform which has altered public perception of domestic violence by police. The association of the subject with the school/children is an interesting example of the complex nature of mental illness and violence, as well as this school and the broader educations system's inability to detect potential threats. ZebulonMorn (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
So, no connection at all, just like I thought. Fram (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete Preschools usually do not hold N/GNG universally outside a few prominent ones, and this one is standard and WP:MILL. Nate • (chatter) 17:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Broden Kelly

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Australia. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Boriswave

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

I have never heard this term used before. As another user observed this appears to have been referred to by a single writer for the Telegraph. I suspect the intent behind creating this article seems to be to create chatter so that it becomes a meme, which is subsequently used as a reason to have the page. John Smith's (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

This term is widely used on Twitter. I've seen it like 20 times this year 213.147.110.205 (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think a term being used by 20 people on social media deserves its own article. John Smith's (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

It's in common circulation on twitter and other social media outlets.

And it's certainly not 20 people. The OP reference that they personally had seen it 20 times. There's no hard and fast statistical analysis on this - just like many cultural references.

I suspect there's political motivation to prevent this article as it criticises Boris Johnson and he has a large base of political supporters. Gp1v07 (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

So far I'm the only person that's suggested the page be deleted. In contrast there's a sudden influx of unregistered users and people with few historical edits arguing to keep the page.

You've not exactly contributed much to Wikipedia, have you? John Smith's (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a [omissis] measuring contest, or a place for open debate? 94.196.172.99 (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep, it is a well sourced article and the terminology has clearly been used in more sources than the Telegraph, as has already been pointed out on the Talk page. To say otherwise is disingenuous and it seems you were more quick to call it a "clearly ridiculous" article than to actually check the sources. 148.252.144.37 (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

As was pointed out on the talk page, there is already an article called Modern immigration to the United Kingdom and a section on immigration following the UK's departure from the EU and the Covid pandemic. It would make more sense to add a reference to "Boriswave" in that section if it's really that common, rather than create an entire article to duplicate the topic. John Smith's (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
There is already a reference in the ‘modern immigration to the U.K.’ article, and it links to the nominated page, where more high quality sources are available. I see no reason to delete considering the number of reliable and relevant citations. 2A01:CB06:9002:F604:C07F:821B:4642:E424 (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep — @John Smith's has assumed bad faith in this discussion.

Mass third-world immigration and the Conservative Party’s repeated choice not to reduce or end it (as they promised) are two of the major topics in contemporary British politics. They deserve their own article outside Modern immigration to the United Kingdom. Keeper of Albion (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

So have a descriptive title rather than use something that is not common. If you asked the man on the street they wouldn't know what the "boriswave" is. Not least because the "wave" hasn't ended - net migration to the UK remains high. John Smith's (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep, but with the caveat that I would not be opposed to a name change. I think there are clearly two different issues here - the phenomenon of increased migration from non-EU countries to the UK after the 2019 elections seems to be noteworthy enough to deserve its own article in my opinion. On the other hand, there isn't really any reliable evidence that the term 'Boriswave' is in widespread in any mainstream media. I could only find one article in the Daily Telegraph. It's unfortunate that there is no generally accepted term for this phenomenon, but it isn't Wikipedia's job to coin one. Sides-Daren? (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep - the phenomenon is worthy of coverage, and is reliably sourced. Elshad (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment I can find a few reliable sources that use the term to describe the recent surge of migration to the UK: Unherd, The Critic, The Telegraph, Reaction. The issue seems to be that they're split between using "Boriswave", "Boris Wave" and "Boris-wave"... A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep. There was a qualitative change in immigration to the United Kingdom after Brexit, in countries of origin and the inflection point in numbers. Both the phenomenon and the name are supported by the sources. I see no need to merge into another article, Wikipedia is not limited by space, so we can go into detail in a dedicated article. cagliost (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete. This is a term created by a right-wing twitter subculture, and nearly all of its uses outside of this twitter subculture have been in polemical articles by writers who are part of that subculture. This article contains no information that couldn't be folded into Modern immigration to the United Kingdom. And considering that the guy who created the term also created this article, or at least is implying that on twitter, I see some conflict of interest.Theodore Christopher (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete None of the sources focus on the term, only really mentioning the term as a passing, trivial reference so therefore it fails WP:SIGCOV. Even a basic search doesn't bring the term up in connection to what it purports to. I agree with Theodore above, anything of substance can easily be merged into the UK immigration article. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
We're meant to take a user called "The C of E God Save the King!" seriously when discussing Conservative Party policies!? 81.158.176.237 (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- - IP @81.158.176.237:, may I suggest you please read WP:NPA? The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep, it is a well sourced article and a simple search on Twitter shows hundred of entries simply for the past week. The term is clearly in active use and frequently referenced. Arugia (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

No, Twitter is not a reliable source, and usage of a term does not make the term suitable for Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete: "Boriswave is a term" - but Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICT, not a dictionary. Contrary to the assertions of some !voters above, the article is not strongly sourced: the sources are of variable quality, full of errors, and offer only passing mentions which briefly use the term (or variants of it) without discussing it. That is clear deletion territory. The substance of the article, such as it is, concerns Modern immigration to the United Kingdom which already exists as an article. There's basically nothing worth merging, either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Not all the sources are good, but enough of them are. cagliost (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment is this supposed to be an article about immigration to the UK in recent years since Brexit (which happens to be called a boriswave), or an article about a notable term (boriswave) which has been applied to recent immigration? If it's about recent immigration, then sources exist and it might be notable, but I'm dubious because immigration has been a continuous, perennial issue in the UK since the Romans turned up, so it's questionable whether the sources justify a new article specifically for recent immigration. On this basis I'm a maybe-weak-keep provided it's moved to a better title. But if it's about the term, it's definitely not notable, because no matter how prevalent a term is in Twitter, we need it to be recognised in longer-lasting, serious sources, which would make me a delete. Elemimele (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Elemimele: It seems to me to be a bit of a WP:COATRACK, which would then make it fall foul of being a WP:SYNTH article. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Soft Keep. The sources that support its use are of variable quality, but the way in which the pace and composition of immigration to the United Kingdom changed so dramatically post-Brexit, and the political controversy it has caused, may be worthy of a seperate article that goes into the phenomenon in depth. Regarding the views of an editor above that the term is a product of a social media subculture, I share this concern and think a name change might be worthwhile, but believe the article should stay at least for now. Holyisland (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Merge: to the "Modern immigration" page where the term is already used, seems like a decent option instead of deletion. Oaktree b (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Seconded - I believe that User:Oaktree b's proposal of merging the article with the "Modern Immigration" page to flesh out where the term is already used seems like a sensible solution to this issue. BillyDee (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment This term will probably come to be used for this immigration wave (I can think of no other word to use despite wanting to avoid such a word) and so wish to make clear that this AfD should not be used to prevent future articles titled so if it is nominated for deletion.

EPEAviator (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Merge to Modern immigration to the United Kingdom as per User:Oaktree b, there's way too much WP:SYNTH and WP:OR here, with at least three of the references in the lead alone[29][30][31] being to articles or primary sources about UK migration in general, which don't use any of the terms. Comment a twitter account (@PolitlcsUK) with 330k followers has drawn attention to this article's creation which may bring extra attention. Orange sticker (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Rat Race (video game)

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment I've added some sources. Timur9008 (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete The sources do not convince me it has notability as a standalone article. There seem to be some mentioned links in the previous AfD, but they are permanently dead - oops. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep - per the consensus and sources found in the first AFD. Not sure how hard the above looked but they're easily found, and some cover things beyond the simple announcement and cancellation.

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

David Czyszczon

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

Semi-professional footballer who mostly spent his career in the reserve team. The only secondary source I found is Raciborz, a brief mention in transfer announcement, but not enough to merit a standalone article of himself. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Poland. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Old Grandma Hardcore

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

No real establishment of notability. The sources provided are: a blog site, the MTV homepage, a BusinessWeek article about her gaming career which seemed quite trivial, and a forum post-esque story pointing back to the aforementioned blog site. Been notability tagged since 2012. I should also add, I suggest not looking up her nickname lest you find links to 'the Hub'. Aydo h8^[contribs] 10:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and United States of America. Aydo h8^[contribs] 10:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Internet, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Some coverage in Fox and CBS News [32], [33], Endgadget [34]... The name does bring up porn links, but we can still find some things about this granny. Oaktree b (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete I am not convinced there is enough WP:SIGCOV for her to pass WP:NPERSON. There is an article on Igromania, but mostly an interview (primary source). Otherwise, she is largely mentioned in short anecdotes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep With the additional sources found by Jovanmilic97, I change my !vote to a keep. It's clear that NPERSON is passed at this point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep Significant coverage in NBC News [35], Der Spiegel [36], The Columbus Dispatch [37], The Spokesman-Review [38], cz:Aktuálně.cz [39], has some brief commentary in The Village Voice [40]. Meets WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It would be helpful to evaluate whether they are solely known for being an older person playing games, which might be better to merge somewhere. The name and blog appear to be run by her grandson and how long did the MTV G-Hole segment run, not to discredit her part. IgelRM (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's a consensus to keep, but some input from community and the other !votes will appreciated regarding the comments by IgelRM. Another round of discussion can't hurt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Laurence James Ludovici

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

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

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

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

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

Keep. The several archived reviews of the biography of Fleming in the article show that that book is notable. I picked one other book at random to search at the British Newspaper Archive and immediately found this review. I won't bother looking for more, since this author clearly meets the GNG, but I suspect many more sources exist. Toadspike [Talk] 12:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Sophie Moleta

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. I found this article because Moleta redirects here and I wanted to determine whether it should be a disambiguation or if Moleta (kgosi) should be the main subject. Searching suggests this is a run-of-the-mill musician. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Australia, and New Zealand. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep -- there are four sources fully cited in this article talking about her. They appear to be reliable, secondary, and independent sources; the two I've managed to access myself provide significant coverage and I assume the others do as well, particularly the news article in The West Australian with her name in it. That's three GNG-qualifying sources right there. Quoting, GNG is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." -- just because the sources in the article were not linked does not mean they do not exist. Whether a person seems "run-of-the-mill" is irrelevant as long as they pass GNG; and if you read the news articles which were cited in the article at the time of the nomination she does have a somewhat interesting style.

I would make this a strong keep if I could track down the URL for the West Australian article, but I can't currently. Probably searches are failing because the news source does not keep archives from 2001. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Relatedly I think it will likely need to be a disambiguation page -- the kgosi while arguably more historically significant is likely much more obscure. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Ref 2 is significant (partially interview based but with more than sufficient additional coverage); ref 4 is the same author in the same source a couple of months later with a cut down para about a live appearance, so I don't give that particular weight. There's basically a paragraph of review included at De Morgen[41] (the article covers releases from multiple bands/muso )- it looks like this is the same as ref 3 since it's the only mention of her in the archives. Ref 2 (GTranslated) suggests that she has had more success in France than elsewhere, however she has hardly any appearances on French sites currently. The West Australian smells like an interview and/or a festival appearance (Kulcha was WA's multicultural arts body), but would need someone with access to the archive to check. I can't see any other reviews around for her albums including via sampling archive snapshots of her website. In the absence of additional reviews -- particularly for her other work -- I think that a case can be made that her album Dive weakly meets WP:NALBUM (the Liberation and De Morgen articles, plus two of its songs were in the soundtrack for Pretty Things (2001 film)), that her albums other than Dive are clearly non-notable, and that she does not meet WP:NMUSICIAN. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Ashampoo Burning Studio

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

Unremarkable software, mostly seems liked an advert UKWikiGuy (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. UKWikiGuy (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Definitely fails WP:GNG in its current form.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Gaël Campan

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

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

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

Alexious Kuen Long Lee

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

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

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

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

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

Comte Samitier

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

I've been unable to confirm the existence of this alleged title. Of the cited sources I can only access two but those two don't check out, and I see no reason to suppose that the other two are any different. This author has produced other articles on the same family, none of which can be verified either (House of Samitier, Barón de Saint-Boissec, Draft:Carlos Samitier, Draft:Barony of Highmere) - presumably a genealogical fantasy / outright hoax. Their articles on the same family have been repeatedly deleted on Spanish Wikipedia. Ingratis (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages as above:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, France, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Pump Aid

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

An article based on 2 sources. There's 9 google news hits but on closer inspection most of these are not WP:SIGCOV that would meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Africa, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, Africa, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep several citations with non-trivial coverage referenced within the article, including press and academic journals. This WP:NONPROFIT has provided water to c. 1.2 million people. I see no issues with the subject meeting WP:GNG. ResonantDis_tortion 23:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep I agree with ResonantDistortion's logic Czarking0 (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

List of international cricket centuries at the Gabba

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

WP:NOTSTATS. No evidence that this is a notable list topic. While it is verifiable, there are very few sources who pay attention to which stadiums have hosted which centuries, normally the interest is in which player/team made centuries, not where. See also these related AfDs: 1, 2, 3, 4 Fram (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, Lists, and Australia. Fram (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete as per WP:NOTSTATS and existing consensus that these lists are not notable. LibStar (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

2024 Kīngitanga election

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

Doesn't meet the standard for WP:NEVENT/WP:NOTNEWS. All relevant sources are primary and I cannot find secondary sources on this specific event. No opposition to a merge/redirect although I'm not sure which article would be suitable as the target. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Olfactophilia

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

Non-notable term and essay-like. Found no reliable sources online (use incognito if you're gonna search this up. I was gonna draftify this but it was already draftified, before it being recreated without much improvement so here we are... '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Non-notable topic, which doesn't even warrant a standalone article. Page is also poorly formatted, and would need to be significantly improved if kept. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Dexter Construction

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

Lacks notability --Altenmann >talk 07:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG. This news article only makes a brief reference. Other articles available online are mostly social media and user generated content. WP:ORGSIG. QEnigma (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, Environment, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete Fail to meet WP:GNG.--Tristancr (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Sanjay Passi

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

I don't see any significant coverage. Likely doesn't pass WP:GNG. LKBT (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, India, and Delhi. LKBT (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep: GNG is definitely met. Even though a lot of his fame comes from his wife, who's an internet sensation for her luxury lifestyle and appearance on a popular reality show and Netflix series, he's made a name for himself too. WP:SIGCOV have been identified from sources like Economic Times, Motor India Online india.com, DNAIndia, Hauterfly, Times Now, Hindustan Times.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment: This nominator appears to be a WP:SPA, unfamiliar to criteria's. Initiated a new AfD for Shalini Passi just days after the previous AfD was closed, reopening the discussion only 4 days later. The user's Afd history reflects a pattern of similar behaviour.— MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Vertical penetration

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

I don't find any sources for this use of the title term. Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Mathematics, and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete - this looks like something the (all but SPA) creator made up one day. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete - WP:NOTGUIDE this one uses aircraft to explain it, but online this term can also refer to specifics of high rise building construction. Or any number of other uses. — Maile (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Principal Snyder

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

This Buffy character doesn't meet WP:FICTION or WP:GNG, there is no SIGCOV of him. Everything about the character is all in universe information, to make it worse, it only sites one unreliable source. Merge or Redirect to List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. Toby2023 (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep BEFORE not articulated, please search Google Scholar with the additional keyword Slayage. I see plenty peer reviewed independent RS on a cursory search which can be used to improve the article. Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Redirect (or merge) to LoC. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT and is just a supporting character. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
A supporting character does not mean that they are not notable. There are some supporting characters with GAs DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Redirect for failing WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Did you do a search, or are you basing things on the current state of the article? Because if you did a search and found nothing, I'd like to help you improve your skills. Jclemens (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep - I agree that BEFORE was not articulated - I have checked online and also have seen SIGCOV that Jclemens has included.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Redirect or merge, per Sgeureka. What few sources provide only trivial mentions or WP:PLOT, and this doesn't pass WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Darel Chase (bishop)

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

A non-notable clergy person. Sources that mention Chase are limited to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (his personal website, a blog from a bishop in his church, his church's official website x2 x3 x4, x5, his church's international communion website, and corporate documents on the KY secretary of state's site); and an apparent WP:SPS WordPress blog. Several sources do not even mention Chase at all ([42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]); these are contributing to WP:SYNTH to draw connections about the subject not present in the sources. I found nothing qualifying in a WP:BEFORE search. Finally, let me address WP:BISHOPS since I am guessing it will come up. While AfD participants have debated the applicability of BISHOPS (and I have generally accepted it as a quasi-guideline since WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES align with it, even though it's not a P&G), this bishop does not even qualify under BISHOPS. The church he leads is a micro-denomination that is not part of the Anglican Communion or recognized by any of its member churches. Moreover, Chase is the pastor of an individual congregation, and bishops in this category are per CLERGYOUTCOMES not typically found notable by virtue of their office. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Definitely an interesting character, I'd say. He does definitely have a marginal case of notability, so I'll vote for it to be kept. And, isn't it a bit biased to call it a micro-denomination? It is a Christian denomination nonetheless, regardless of its size. It is also quite clear that he is not within the Anglican Communion. Is this a publishing house for authorized religions, or an encyclopedia? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I think it's completely unbiased and reasonable to call it a "micro-denomination". Its own website parish directory lists just four churches. While another part of its website claims 43 churches (scroll down), there's no validation of this. Chase's own diocese appears to have just three churches. Two other dioceses (Diocese of St. Ignatius Loyola Diocese of the North-East appear to have just one church each, and a fourth (Diocese of Pelican Bay) has no website with information. And WP:BISHOPS and WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES, to the extent they are relied upon, specify "Anglican Communion" -- while I might prefer a different dividing line, I didn't make that up. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

DELOSYS

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

Declined G11. Mildly promotional article on a Slovak fire-control system. Article only includes one source, which appears to be primary, and reliable sources are clearly lacking. No evidence that this warrants a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Konštrukta – Defence, the producer of this system, as an AtD. Agree that it doesn't warrant a standalone article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Products. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Vintage Real Estate

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Previously speedy deleted. Recreated by WP:SPA. Imcdc Contact 02:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Business, Companies, and California. Imcdc Contact 02:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Fred Sands: as an ATD. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Fred Sands (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to target listed above. Would recommend protecting the title or we will be right back here in a few months. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete per G8 by BusterD. (non-admin closure)‎ Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

SMART Commute Fleet (OMSI 2)

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

Current article content is a WP:NOT violation. OMSI 2 (deleted as article by WP:PROD and then deleted as redirect by RfD) appears to be a video game where you can pretend to be a bus driver, [50], from my WP:BEFORE search the game doesn't meet WP:GNG. This article is about a specific bus fleet within the game so is WP:CRUFT and I also can't find a WP:GNG pass for it, even if it were to be re-written in an article manner. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 01:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete: It would definitely seem very difficult for a bus fleet contained within a video game established to be non-notable to somehow attain its own independent notability. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this ends up falling under at least one speedy deletion criterion, though I'm not going any further than that for the moment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete, speedy G8 (dependent on OMSI 2, which was AFD'd to that deleted redirect, as a note) per nom. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:06, 16 December 2024 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Negative keyword

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

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

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

Keep. Seems notable enough to me. Documentation from Microsoft [51] and Apple [52] can be added to the references. The blog post reference can be removed. That makes room for others: [53] [54] [55].

Book references are also forthcoming: [56] [57] [58] [59]

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

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

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

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

Yin-yang-style baguazhang

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment Revirvlkodlaku, what did you think of the existing sources? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and China. Shellwood (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Liz, I'm not sure what there is to think. There are two hyperlinks, both of which are of Chinese text, and the rest are books. It's not clear to me how anyone can easily verify the content, but more importantly, this still seems like a rather small and obscure school of martial arts, and I don't think it warrants its own article. I think the topic should perhaps be redirected to Baguazhang. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Ai, Hu 艾虎 (2013). "田氏阴阳八卦掌探源及发展" [The Origin and Development of Tian's Yin-Yang Baguazhang]. 中华武术 [Chinese Martial Arts] (in Chinese).
  The article notes: "阴阳八卦掌，明末清初时，早在四川峨嵋山与青城山一带，碧云、静云两位道长所传。由田氏远祖田如銨始习阴阳八卦掌。在反清复明特殊的历史背景，阴阳八卦掌只在田氏族中秘密传承。传承序为鹏、利、富、海、山、回、克、子、金、川。"
  From Google Translate: "Yin-Yang Bagua Palm was passed down by Taoist priests Biyun and Jingyun in the Emei Mountain and Qingcheng Mountain area of Sichuan in the late Ming and early Qing dynasties. Tian Ruquan, the distant ancestor of the Tian family, began to practice Yin-Yang Bagua Palm. In the special historical background of the anti-Qing and restoration of the Ming Dynasty, Yin-Yang Bagua Palm was only secretly passed down in the Tian family. The order of inheritance is Peng, Li, Fu, Hai, Shan, Hui, Ke, Zi, Jin, and Chuan."
  The article notes: "为弘扬中华武术，田迴先生于上世纪60年代将祖传阴阳八卦掌始传外姓，1990年9月田迴所著《阴阳八卦掌·蟒形掌》一书由人民体育出版社出版，并列为中国武术协会审定的《中国武术文库》“拳械部”所属的“拳术类”，后又作为经典，被选录入《中国武术百科全书》和《中国武术拳械录》。"
  From Google Translate: "In order to promote Chinese martial arts, Mr. Tian Hui passed down the ancestral Yin-Yang Baguazhang to foreign surnames in the 1960s. In September 1990, Tian Hui's book "Yin-Yang Baguazhang·Python-Shaped Palm" was published by People's Sports Publishing House and listed as The "Boxing Category" belonging to the "Boxing Department" of the "Chinese Martial Arts Library" approved by the Chinese Wushu Association was later selected as a classic and included in the "Chinese Martial Arts Encyclopedia" and "Chinese Martial Arts Boxing and Weapons Record"." The book from Tian Hui:
  - Tian, Hui 田迴 (1995). 陰陽八卦掌 : 蟒形掌 [Yin Yang Baguazhang: Python-Shaped Palm] (in Chinese). People's Sports Publishing House [zh]. ISBN 978-7-5009-0508-0. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
2. 天津通志: 体育志 [Tianjin General History: Sports History] (in Chinese). Tianjin: Tianjin Academy of Social Sciences Press 天津社会科学院出版社. 1994. p. 71. ISBN 978-7-8056-3498-2. Retrieved 2024-12-02 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "芦忠仁(正文)近年献艺整理出版了《阴阳八盘掌》一书。阴阳八盘掌最显著的特点是,它的走转行动毫不停息,手法腿法步法身法变化多端,姿势时正时斜,时转时翻,时起时伏,并且各个动作组织严密,技法纵横游击,左右盘旋,大有冲锋陷阵威力。演练时,给人以强烈的艺术感和实战感。其器械套路较多,这里只记“八盘刀”、“八第一篇传统体育"
  From Google Translate: "In recent years, Lu Zhongren (text) compiled and published the book "Yin Yang Ba Pan Zhang". The most striking feature of Yin Yang Ba Pan Palm is that it moves around without stopping, its hand, leg, footwork and body movements are ever-changing, its postures are upright and diagonal, turning and turning, rising and falling, and each movement is tightly organized. , the technique is vertical and horizontal guerrilla, circling left and right, and has great charging power. During the drill, it gives people a strong sense of art and practicality. There are many equipment routines, here we only remember the "Ba Pan Knife", "Eight Pan Knife" and "Eight Pan Knife". The first traditional sports"
  The book notes: "阴阳八盘掌在清代也称“阴阳八卦掌”。此拳强调“八盘” (指人体的八个部位)的锻炼。因传授的人不同而变得多种多样。但在董海川以后,尹福和程廷华传授是主流。李振清前期弟子萧海波( 1863——1954 ) ,将此拳从民间传入清朝王府。萧的传人芦忠仁在津门潜心钻研,并向下传续了此拳,另有人称“醉鬼张三”的张长祯,与萧交往很密切,对萧述及所学的“内八卦'乾字门'拳法” (即此拳一支)"
  From Google Translate: "Yin-Yang Baguazhang was also called "Yin-Yang Baguazhang" in the Qing Dynasty. This boxing emphasizes the exercise of "eight pans" (referring to the eight parts of the human body). It varies depending on who teaches it. But after Dong Haichuan, Professors Yin Fu and Cheng Tinghua became the mainstream. Xiao Haibo (1863-1954), a former disciple of Li Zhenqing, introduced this boxing from the people to the royal family of the Qing Dynasty. Lu Zhongren, Xiao's descendant, devoted himself to studying in Jinmen and passed on this boxing to the next generation. Zhang Changzhen, also known as "Drunkard Zhang San", had a close relationship with Xiao and told Xiao about the "Nei Bagua" Qianzi he had learned. "Men'quanfa" (that is, this fist)."
3. Liu, Jun-xiang 刘峻骧 (1996). 东方人体文化 [Oriental Human Body Culture] (in Chinese). Shanghai: Shanghai Literature & Art Publishing House [zh]. pp. 107, 109, 115. ISBN 978-7-5321-1488-7. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
  The book notes: "《阴阳八卦掌》则以蟒形学为首,顺序是按后天八卦图的排列,分别狮形掌、虎形掌、熊形掌、蛇形掌、马形掌、猴形掌、鹏形掌等。但不管哪一派,都讲八方、八位、八掌型。其掌型分别为仰,俯,竖、抱、劈、撩、穿、挑。"
4. Hao, Xinlian 郝心莲 (1998). 中国武术百科全书 [Encyclopedia of Chinese Martial Arts] (in Chinese). Beijing: Encyclopedia of China Publishing House. p. 518. ISBN 978-7-5000-6087-1. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
  The article notes: "《阴阳八卦掌》《中华武术文库·拳械部·拳术类》之一。田廻著。中国武术协会审定。 1990 年 9 月人民体育出版社出版。全书共分上下两篇, 8 册。上篇总论,主要介绍了阴阳八卦掌的源流、内容、特点、练习步骤、阴阳论等;下篇讲述蟒形掌等一至八掌的掌势套路练法和技击作用。第 1 册蟒形掌,第 2 ~ 8 册依次为狮形掌、虎形掌、熊形掌、蛇形掌、马形掌、猴形掌、鹏形掌。... 它与董海川所传八卦掌不同,实为八卦掌另一流派。该书材料翔实,图文并茂,文字简练,通俗易懂,便于自学,利于查阅。"
  From Google Translate: "The Yin-Yang Bagua Palm is based on the python form, and the order is arranged according to the post-natal Bagua diagram, including lion-shaped palm, tiger-shaped palm, bear-shaped palm, snake-shaped palm, horse-shaped palm, monkey-shaped palm, roc-shaped palm, etc. But no matter which school it is, they all talk about eight directions, eight positions, and eight palm forms. The palm forms are upward, downward, vertical, hugging, chopping, lifting, piercing, and picking."
5. Ren, Zhicheng 任致诚 (2001). 阴阳八盘掌 [Yin Yang Ba Pan Palm]. Jiaolong Library Ancient Boxing Manual Series 矫龙文库古拳谱丛书 (in Chinese). Vol. 2. Shanxi: Shanxi Science and Technology Press [zh]. Retrieved 2024-12-02 – via Google Books.
6. Tian, Keyan 田克延 (2005). "阴阳八卦掌基础套路八卦阴阳鱼" [Yin-Yang Bagua Palm Basic Routine: Bagua Yin-Yang Fish]. 中华武术 [Chinese Martial Arts] (in Chinese). No. 9. pp. 54–57. Retrieved 2024-12-02 – via CQVIP [zh].
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yin-yang-style baguazhang (simplified Chinese: 阴阳八卦掌; traditional Chinese: 陰陽八卦掌) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Those all seem to show that the "Yin Yang Ba Pan Palm" may be notable, the subject of the article doesn't inherit notability just because one of their forms has been mentioned widely. JeffUK 12:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

"Palm" here is a Google Translate error for "zhang", and according to source 2 above, yin-yang baguazhang 八卦掌 seems to be a synonym for yin-yang bapanzhang 八盘掌. ('阴阳八盘掌在清代也称“阴阳八卦掌”'). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! JeffUK 14:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be nice to get a second opinion on these recently discovered sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

DELETE The Chinese sources appear to be Chinese State revisionist propaganda to support some minor apparatchik's region, which is a very common practice in that country. Using Google translate to generate article topics ? What next ? ChatGPT ? Really !!! Arcot Shankar (talk) 07:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC).
- This account was created a little over three hours before participating in this AfD. I used Google Translate to generate the quote translations here as manually translating them would be too time consuming. Google Translate was not used to generate the text of the article. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 332#RfC: China Daily was closed as (bolding added for emphasis):
  In this RfC, the community assesses the China Daily. The discussion below contains a lot of detail and nuance that doesn't lend itself to a pithy summary and, when future editors are making a tricky decision about the use of this source, they are encouraged to read the debate in full. There is much disagreement, and I am confident that if there were better sources for China, then the China Daily would be deprecated entirely; but a narrow majority of the community, just about amounting to a rough consensus, feels that there are so few good sources for China that it's needful for us to lower our bar. The community concludes that the China Daily may be used, cautiously and on the basis of good editorial judgment, as a source for the position of the Chinese authorities and the Chinese Communist Party; as a source for the position of the China Daily itself; as a source for facts about non-political events in mainland China, while noting that (a) the China Daily's interpretation of those facts is likely to contain political spin, and (b) the fact that the China Daily doesn't report something doesn't mean it didn't happen; and, with great caution, as a supplementary source for facts about political events of mainland China (supplementary meaning that the China Daily shouldn't normally be the sole source for these things). Editors agree that when using this source, context matters a great deal and the facts should be separated from the China Daily's view about those facts. It would be best practice to use plenty of in-text attribution as well as inline references when sourcing content to the China Daily.
  I consider this to be a good guideline to follow for other state-affiliated sources. The martial art Baguazhang and this style of Baguazhang are not political topics so I consider these sources to be sufficiently reliable. Cunard (talk) 10:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

REMARK The issue is not the sources, the issue is of Notability as per the deletion proposer. I'm a martial arts practitioner myself, so it is true that the martial art (Wushu) Baguazhang technique is notable (the final climax fight in Jet Li's The One), all the other so-called "family" variations are just schools of a particular not-notable long dead teacher being cashed in by his children and relatives. In reality they are all variations on the 8 animal techniques. So you have Yin-Baguazhang by Master"A", Yang-Baguazhang by Master "B" and then Yin-Yang Baguazhang by this master. All completely not notable and essentially spam pages to promote a particular school running somewhere. Arcot Shankar (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still hoping to get some sort of consensus on the value of the additional sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 01:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Cunard has shown that this topic clearly meets the GNG. I highly doubt that all of these sources from apparently reputable scholarly publishers across various provinces of China are somehow paid promotional pieces created to puff up some local official. Toadspike [Talk] 08:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep per sources found by Cunard. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Michael Beint

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Beint does meet WP:NACTOR, his role as Duke Frederick in As You Like It (1974) in Broadway is notable, first billed [60][61]. He also has a biography in the Cast Section in the Playbill website [62]. He also appeared in over 100 notable films and television programs, which there are definitely more significant roles he played out there. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete Per the nomination. Everyone who appeared in a Broadway show is not thereby notable. This article lacks WP:RS citations and is fails WP:GNG criterion. I vote delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment His Broadway role was actually the main character in the Broadway play As You Like It (1974). [63]. Nobody said "Everyone who appeared in a Broadway show is notable". MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Delete: As You Like It only ran for 8 performances on Broadway.[64] It toured elsewhere, but this is the only review I can find with Beint mentioned -- which is really not sigcov of him as an actor -- and there's hardly any appearances of his name in the GNews archive[65] (though this is obviously a far from complete repository, particularly of The Times). Even if something approaching sigcov of his AYLI role could be found, we'd likely still need additional sigcov for his other acting. His IMDB listing shows guest and short recurring TV roles, and what looks like minor movie roles. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Templates for discussion

December 16

Template:FCC letter

Template:FCC letter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The FCC has announced that the database system to which all uses of this template refer is being discontinued on January 2, 2025. All uses must be manually transferred to new links that use UUIDs, not five- or six-digit numeric IDs, in the newer Licensing and Management System. Further information and basic instructions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations#CDBS is going away. I migrated the history card information to Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations/History Cards to ensure its preservation. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Template:Hiero/doc/sandbox

Template:Hiero/doc/sandbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused doc page that hasn't been edited in 3 years. Gonnym (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Template:Grading scheme/doc/table/sandbox

Template:Grading scheme/doc/table/sandbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused doc page that hasn't been edited in 8 years. Gonnym (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Hindu temple/doc/sandbox

Template:Infobox Hindu temple/doc/sandbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused doc page that hasn't been edited in 5 years. Gonnym (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Template:Icon/doc/sandbox

Template:Icon/doc/sandbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused doc page that hasn't been edited in 14 years. Gonnym (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Template:Automobile history eras

Template:Automobile history eras (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Multiple issues with this one - firstly it only links 4 discrete articles other than the main one so WP:NENAN applies, but also there seems to be a very US-centric bias to this, and the implied main article title U.S. Classification of Automobile history eras, doesn't show the actual title of the article History of the automobile. Some of the links are already in {{Automobile configuration}}, maybe the rest could be too, or included in {{Automotive industry}} rather than this navbox. --wooden superman 13:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Template:Chu-accounttakenusurp

Template:Chu-accounttakenusurp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A duplicate of {{CHU|usurp}}, with no talk page and minor edit history. It would be better to have a single source of notices like this instead of duplicates that serve no real purpose. Gonnym (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Files for discussion

December 16

File:Jordan Wharf, Guimaras mango monument (Jordan, Guimaras; 01-25-2023).jpg

Copyrighted sculpture, no Creative Commons licensing permission from the designer or his heirs. Not an architecture so not eligible for {{FoP-USonly}}. Not eligible for Wikimedia Commons because there is no Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines. Not eligible for fair use tagging as there is no article about this unfamous monument itself. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

File:3 Ace Tolkien.jpeg

Fails WP:NFCC#8 as the inclusion of a non free image of book covers does not significantly enhance the biographical article Donald A. Wollheim. Also, so many free images in the article already that non-free ones are not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Tolkien's design for The Two Towers cover.jpg

There are two non free image book covers that are reasonably similar, and so violate WP:NFCC#3- minimal number of non-free images, as well as WP:NFCC#8- this secondary image does not significantly enhance the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the rationale here. Tolkien's own artwork showing the two towers of The Two Towers as Orthanc and Minas Morgul definitely significantly enhances the article (and the WP:Non-free use rationale at File:Tolkien's design for The Two Towers cover.jpg spells this out rather clearly: The image shows the two towers as Minas Morgul and Orthanc, agreeing with Tolkien's note at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring, but conflicting with other statements that he made. The illustration shows his design and his intention in 1954, and illuminates the discussion in the article.), and inherently cannot be replaced by any alternative. The difference between the two book covers is substantial. TompaDompa (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Agree with TompaDompa. The image is remarkably central to the article, not least because it directly expresses Tolkien's intention for the book via his design for its cover. This is extensively discussed and fully cited in the article, and I explained the rationale clearly and in full in the file's Non-free use rationale. It should certainly be kept as its loss would seriously damage the article, indeed a sizeable part of it would make no sense without it. As for "similarity" between the two covers, they share precisely nothing graphical, only the wording. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Mia Asano 2024 with Red Electric Violin.jpg

Is this really under a CC-BY 4.0 license? No immediate source is given in the description, but it is probably here, and I don't see a CC license there. Rosenzweig (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories for discussion

December 16

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:People from Barrancos

Propose merging Category:People from Barrancos to Category:People from Beja District

Nominator's rationale: Barrancos is of anthropological and linguistic interest as the home of the unique Barranquenho mix of Spanish and Portuguese, but it's also a town of just 1,800 people, only one of whom has a page on Wikipedia. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:People from Miranda do Douro

Propose merging Category:People from Miranda do Douro to Category:People from Bragança District

Nominator's rationale: Despite the anthropological interest in the home of the Mirandese language, there is only one article in this category. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:People from Mesão Frio

Propose merging Category:People from Mesão Frio to Category:People from Vila Real District

Nominator's rationale: Category has one page. Town of 4,000 inhabitants offers little chance to populate the category. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:People from Mealhada

Propose merging Category:People from Mealhada to Category:People from Aveiro District

Nominator's rationale: Category has one page. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:People from Cuba, Portugal

Propose merging Category:People from Cuba, Portugal to Category:People from Beja District

Nominator's rationale: Category has one page. Town of 4,000 people offers little chance of growth. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:People from Constância

Propose merging Category:People from Constância to Category:People from Santarém District

Nominator's rationale: Category has only one page. Town of 4,000 offers little chance of growth. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia

Propose dual merger/renaming of both Category:Massacres of Poles in Eastern Galicia and Category:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia into Category:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure why these two categories are separate from each other? They both have the same main article (Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia) and both share the same related subcategory (Category:Genocide of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia perpetrators). So yeah we should just combine them together. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Fictional parasite characters

Propose renaming Category:Fictional parasite characters to Category:Fictional parasites

Nominator's rationale: Adding "characters" at the end is just unnecessary, plus I don't see why this should be restricted to (individual) characters that are parasites, rather than making it inclusive of any and all parasitic creatures and organisms in fiction, including species of parasites. "Parasite" is a biological term for a type of species, rather than an attribute of an individual. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Execution sites in England and Wales

Propose merging Category:Execution sites in England and Wales to Category:Execution sites in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Only one category in this. If needed, there can be a seperate one made for Wales. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Origin stories

Propose deleting Category:Origin stories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Is this really a defining category? This has recently been added to several film articles related to pop culture IPs, particularly films about characters' origin stories, but most of them have a WP:RECENTISM bias and it has been removed from others. There are only two other articles about specific origin stories beyond this parent subject (those being for Batman and Superman), and no inclusion of other literary origins or even the basis of these works. This feels to me like an WP:Overcategorization issue. The parent article on this subject makes little to no mention of the works presently included in this cat, anyway. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Selectively upmerge per nom, this is unavoidably going to lead to WP:OR. But move Origin story, Origin of Superman and Origin of Batman to Category:Origins. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose moving Origin of Superman and Origin of Batman into Category:Origins, given Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles (see the part of confusing fiction for reality). Neutral on the rest of the proposal. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 06:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC) (fixed links at 15:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC))

Ok, that is a good point I hadn't thought of. Then either delete, or rename to Category:Origins in fiction and keep the three beforementioned articles only. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete Nominator is correct. Origin of what exactly? I can see what the creator might have intended, but this starts to become a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT when it starts going outside of comic superheroes/villains. At least half of fiction describes the origin of something. (The subcategories can find another home.) Jontesta (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I think renaming to Category:Origins in fiction (and purging) is a great idea. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 15:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:People who have sacrificed their lives to save others

Propose deleting Category:People who have sacrificed their lives to save others (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Vague and nondefining category ^SMason_Garrison 16:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I find this preposterous. How is this vague? Should it be "People who have knowingly sacrificed their lives to save others"? "People who have knowingly died when directly acting to save others"? Blockhaj (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Only two articles in a category that does not fit anywhere, we better add a direct link in the See also section of the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
There are tons of people throughout history which can be added to this category. Blockhaj (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- They do not all get a Wikipedia though. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  Sure, but there surely must be tons of articles out there which fits this category no? The current two articles were just the ones i could think of in the moment of creation. Blockhaj (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  If you don't add any other articles yourself it'll be very unlikely this category gets further populated. Other editors will not be aware that the category exists because it doesn't naturally belong in any category tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  I do not see why that is a reason to delete it? Blockhaj (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  I have now added more articles and placed it under the category of altruism. Blockhaj (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  That does not help. Editors expect to find topic articles in this tree, not biographies. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  
  The purpose of categories is to help navigation. This category doesn't do that, and even if it did the question of whether this meets the criteria of a defining feature. ^SMason_Garrison 15:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  Shouldn't categories help with gathering articles with the same or similar nature? I never find that categories help with navigation, at least on English Wikipedia. Anyhow, which "tree" should this be put under? Blockhaj (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  They don't help with gathering, they help with reading articles about a similar topic after the gathering has been done. And your last question is exactly my earlier point, it does not fit in any tree so it'll never be populated by anyone else. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep Seems to be well defined and useful — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the nominator. If kept, it should be renamed as something like People who died after attempting to save others/People who died after saving others, because the intention to sacrifice their life is hardly determinative baring exceptional circumstances. Even then it is somewhat clunky and opaque.Respublik (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
The construction "sacrificing one's life" (etc) is cherry picked as it is the most common poetic phrase for this (next to "giving one's life" which is more ambiguous). A more strict and direct name will make the category harder to find i think. Instead, the category itself has a specifying note written on it: People who have knowingly died when directly acting to save others.. This can further be expanded on if needed. Blockhaj (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Rename.' I think a good title might be people who died due to efforts to save lives. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
That is vague imo and not what the category is about. Its about people who knowingly died to save others. Blockhaj (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
I guess that in many cases, the person did not know whether they would die when attempting to save someone else. They acted despite the risk to themselves, but they could be certain of the exact outcome beforehand — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
ok, perhaps rename to people who knowingly died due to efforts to save lives. Sm8900 (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
The idea for the category is to list people who knew they would most likely die as a result of attempting to save others lives. Ie, they would sacrifice their life (not in the sense of using one's whole life span to invent or create something to save others). Take Vince Coleman (train dispatcher) as an example. Blockhaj (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Alvarado wrestling family

Propose renaming Category:Alvarado wrestling family to Category:Alvarado professional wrestling family

Nominator's rationale: Opposed on Speedy. The article is at Alvarado wrestling family but this is a subcategory of Category:Professional wrestling families, so I thought the rename made sense. Mike Selinker (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it makes more sense to have Category:Professional wrestling families renamed to Category:Wrestling families. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Probably a good idea, though it's a subcategory of Category:Professional wrestling. So, if so, it should move to be a subcategory of Category:Wrestling.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Neapolitan families

Propose renaming Category:Neapolitan families to Category:Families from the Kingdom of Naples

Nominator's rationale: A request to rename to Category:Families from Naples was opposed on Speedy, in favor of this better name. Mike Selinker (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Bailey family (Rugby)

Propose renaming Category:Bailey family (Rugby) to Category:Bailey family (rugby league)

Nominator's rationale: Opposed on Speedy. Revising to the name of the specific rugby sport, as others in this category structure do. Also decapitalizing "rugby." Mike Selinker (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Families that don't need disambiguation

Propose renaming Category:Abdullah political family to Category:Abdullah family

Nominator's rationale: I don't see any other family categories with these names. Mike Selinker (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

There is another category of Morozov family, see ru:Категория:Морозовы (боярский_род). Aronlee90 (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the Russian Wikipedia establishes precedent here. This is the only one on the English Wikipedia. Mike Selinker (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Procedural oppose, this is just too many at the same time as we need to evaluate these one by one. Some may be unambiguous but others won't. A very easy example of ambiguity is Cooke. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Seems like it would be easy to just put a note at the top of any we have concerns about, as there is in Category:Cooke family of Virginia: "The Cooke family of Virginia was a prominent political and military family in the U.S. state of Virginia." There are many hundreds of family categories with surnames that could be ambiguous to who is permitted in it, and the category text's job does a good job in taking care of it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  - In fact I expect the large amount to be ambiguous, starting with Abdullah (name)#Surname. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Strong oppose - I see no benefit here. While some of the families may unique names/high visibility notoriety, there is nothing wrong with the disambiguation by locale. The colonial Taliaferro family of Virginia will have little to do with any Taliaferros from Italy. Patterson, Evans, Campbell, etc are all such popular surnames that renaming them without the geographic indication could imply connections that don't actually exist between people with those surnames. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion

December 16

Rodrigo Seiji

Rodrigo Seiji → Roman Hrabec#Winners (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

List-cruft about a tournament was added to an article about a person, and this redirect was created to that list-cruft. UtherSRG (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodrigo Seiji. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Future The Voice American seasons

The Voice (American season 28) → The Voice (American TV series) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The Voice (American season 29) → The Voice (American TV series) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The Voice (American season 30) → The Voice (American TV series) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The Voice (American season 31) → The Voice (American TV series) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

WP:TOOSOON / WP:CRYSTALBALL. As far as I can tell, the show has only been renewed for a 27th season at this point in time. If it is renewed further than that, these redirects are still misleading, as there's no relevant information at the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject AOW WildBunch

Template:WikiProject AOW WildBunch → Template:Wild Bunch image map (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Confusing because it's not a WikiProject banner Frietjes (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Shitpyit (15°36′N 98°6′E)

Shitpyit (15°36′N 98°6′E) → Sinpyay (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Same rationale as below nomination, no one's gonna type coordinates. Procyon117 (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete - For whatever reason mass-creators, rather than recognising that possibly they had made a mistake by creating two articles with the same name about supposed "villages" in the same area with the same name, and not having any other way of disambiguating, created articles with co-ordinates in the title to disambiguate them. In the vast majority of cases there aren't two villages with the same name in the same area, and what they were doing was using a source that had errors in it. GEONet Names Server is a classic example of a source that includes a lot of these kinds of errors - typically what's happened is there are two (or more) potential locations for a single place (which may or may not actually be a village) and both locations are logged in the database, so there appear to be two places with the same name close to each other.

Most of these articles have since been deleted or redirected. Where they were redirected you end up with a redirect like this one, but it simply isn't plausible that anyone is going to type this location - the wrong location - into a search bar. In reality even if it were correct I don't think anyone is going to type it. FOARP (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Shitpyit (15°36'0"N 98°6'0"E)

Shitpyit (15°36'0"N 98°6'0"E) → Sinpyay (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Let's be honest, no one's gonna type these coordinates. Procyon117 (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete - For whatever reason mass-creators, rather than recognising that possibly they had made a mistake by creating two articles with the same name about supposed "villages" in the same area with the same name, and not having any other way of disambiguating, created articles with co-ordinates in the title to disambiguate them. In the vast majority of cases there aren't two villages with the same name in the same area, and what they were doing was using a source that had errors in it. GEONet Names Server is a classic example of a source that includes a lot of these kinds of errors - typically what's happened is there are two (or more) potential locations for a single place (which may or may not actually be a village) and both locations are logged in the database, so there appear to be two places with the same name close to each other.

Most of these articles have since been deleted or redirected. Where they were redirected you end up with a redirect like this one, but it simply isn't plausible that anyone is going to type this location - the wrong location - into a search bar. In reality even if it were correct I don't think anyone is going to type it. FOARP (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete - per above. Barnt Toust 17:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Snou Strait

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

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

Keep Regardless of the validity of this spelling, an article existed at this title from 2006 until last week. Since then, the spelling has been picked up by several travel sites in both Russian ([66]) and English ([67]) according to my Google searches. I think keeping is warranted given this error has now been in circulation for some time. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

الولايات المتحدة

الولايات المتحدة → United States (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"US" in Arabic based on translation tools. Delete as a redirect in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (point 8 of WP:R#DELETE)/per WP:RFOREIGN. Note that a discussion for the similar redirect of "United States of America" in Arabic resulted in deletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

delete again per nom cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Howdunnit

Howdunnit → Inverted detective story (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

admittedly on the weak side of noms, but whatever. a "whodunit" is a mystery story where the mystery is the criminal. a "howcatchem" (or the longer name used in the target i guess) makes catching the very known criminal the mystery. a "howdunit" is somewhere in between, referring to how the do was did. it can overlap with any amount of whodunit and howcatchem. is death note a howdunit? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

should also mention that there's a section on howdunits in whodunnit, but it's entirely unsourced and may be erroneously treating them as synonyms cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Canadaa

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

~~Typo with extra "a" added. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)~~ — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs).

Keep: this redirect is more used than many articles. J 947 ‡ ^edits 23:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Retarget to Canadas (disambiguation) which contains both "Canadas" and "Canada", and is the error form for both of these (the [S] key is next to the [A] key on QWERTY keyboard) -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
If we are talking about plausible typos, then Canada would still be valid since accidentally mashing the "a" button twice is a fairly common mistake on some devices. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 05:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC) — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs).
Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Has some use. Doesn't seem ambiguous with Canadas (disambiguation) to me; "a" and "s" are pressed by adjacent fingers on the same hand, so it seems unlikely to me that if your aim was to press one then the other that you would end up with two "a"s, unless both fingers are somehow placed over the "a" key. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep - possibly phonetic for "Canada, eh?" The page saw 47 total views in the full year prior to the nomination, so it's not particularly well-used, but it's also harmless. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete as an arbitrary typo, no more deserving of a redirect than any other typo; let Mediawiki suggest possible matches rather than trying to make billions of redirects ourselves. And as pointed out, this one is ambiguous with Canadas. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep maybe they were trying to spell Canadá, Canadà or another variation. Web-julio (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Then wouldn't it target Canada (disambiguation) ? -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per 13.139 above. Let the search function do its work. Ca ^{talk to me!} 23:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete per 35.139.154.158 - all of the above arguments feel like grasping at straws, not a seriously plausible term. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete, agree with Pppery that the keep arguments feel like straw-grasping. -- asilvering (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
This redirect being used more than a significant proportion of articles, grasping at straws? If that's the case 90% of redirects should be deleted as little-used. I do certainly agree that this typo being equally plausible as one for Canadas is grasping at straws, given how the probability of a reader searching for Canada totally dwarfs that for Canadas. J 947 ‡ ^edits 06:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Strong keep: unambiguous and harmless. Search results show plenty of usage of this typo "in the wild", with "Canada" consistently being the intended meaning [68], ranging from social media posts to websites. There is no reason to delete this, but the very healthy and consistent page view stats [69], WP:CHEAP, and the lack of any ambiguity point to keeping. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 21:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Participants are still split between keeping and deleting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep It's not the unlikeliest misspelling and has consistent pageviews. I think deleting would do more harm than good, as clearly it is helping readers navigate to the right place. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Breathing (noise reduction)

Breathing (noise reduction) → Noise reduction (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Pumping (noise reduction) → Noise reduction (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 10:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete I searched around a little bit and I believe these redirects are referring to literally making pumps and breathing less loud. However, the current target is about a computer science concept, and I could not find a mention in related articles. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

There are plenty of incoming links, which are all about said computer science concept. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment: There's also Noise pumping, which would be identical in scope to the Pumping (noise reduction). --Paul_012 (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep - Pumping (audio) discusses pumping from dynamic range compression and could be improved to discuss pumping from noise reduction systems which typically feature some sort of dynamic range compression and thus are subject to pumping. ~Kvng (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Pale Garden

Pale Garden → Minecraft#Gameplay (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The current redirect is the only remotely plausible one in the page history, else I would've probably deleted or draftified. But since it's not mentioned at the target, I'm not sure this works either. Thoughts? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ as clean-up after a blocked disruptive editor. No prejudice against good-faith creation if someone actually thinks such a redirect would be beneficial (as opposed to a red link). --Paul_012 (talk) 08:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to List_of_Minecraft_characters#Creaking, where it is mentioned. Oppose deletion per WP:NOTBURO. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

That is an incredibly poor target, as it's only a passing mention that explains nothing about the term all. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
The Pale Garden is a place added in the newest update of Minecraft, notable for featuring the newest monster creaking. I think the target provides information about whats the most notable about the place, which is the monster. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
And I would have thought that the WP:NOTBURO argument would be in support of quickly deleting junk redirects resulting from pages created in bad faith instead of going through huge bureaucratic discussions to find accommodation for them. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Normally my argument would be same as your's, but since I believe the redirect should be kept, enforcing BURO would require pointlessly deletion and restoring/retargetting. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough. I did say that there should be a redirect if someone thinks one would be beneficial, and since you do, I'm striking my above !vote. (Though I'm still not quite convinced that's an optimal target.) --Paul_012 (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete as wikitrashing. 67.209.128.31 (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

What is a "wikitrashing"? Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The practice of inserting irrelevant and unnatural nonsense junk into wikis. It is also known as "wikilittering". 67.209.128.31 (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I have never heard that term before, but I'm assuming that it's a synonym for WP:CRUFT User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 03:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to List_of_Minecraft_characters#Creaking. I do not agree that this target contains no information about the subject of this redirect. It tells you, 1) It is a biome location in Minecraft. 2) The biome is in greyscale. 3) The biome contains the monster known as "Creaking". There is no further information that is really needed, this says everything we're going to say about the subject, and since we have the information, we should provide it to the user when searched. Fieari (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete The above section is now List of Minecraft characters#The Creaking, but it only references "pale garden" once in passing which isn't enough substance to warrant a redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

WGHC (defunct)

WGHC (defunct) → WGHC (1400 AM) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This disambiguator may itself be ambigous; the WGHC disambiguation page lists two other defunct "WGHC"s, though neither of those have articles. (That multiple stations with a given call sign can eventually end up defunct is a large part of why "defunct" is no longer used as a disambiguator for broadcast station articles.) This probably could be an {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} to WGHC, but WGHC (1400 AM) being the only article doesn't make that a slam-dunk. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Carthaginian general Hasdrubal d. 207 B.C.

Carthaginian general Hasdrubal d. 207 B.C. → Hasdrubal Barca (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. We don't have redirects for each person with their year of death. Lucjim (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep WP:CHEAP gets you where you want to go if it comes up in the searchbox. Distinguishes from Hasdrubal the Fair (died 221 BC) or Hasdrubal the Boetharch (died 140s BC) or Hasdrubal Gisco (died 202 BC) -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
CHEAP isn't a reason to keep redirects; it's just there to counter arguments about redirects wasting system resources, which no one is making. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Not a plausible search term. Has a grand total of 100 views in ten years. Procyon117 (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
You can probably safely exclude the views from 9 December 2024 and onwards as they're most likely RfD noise User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 03:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep @Procyon117, page views only serve a marginal if that role in RfD submissions. If UK had 2 pageviews per year, it would still likely be kept as it's a plausible acronym, whereas if I LOVE CHICKEN NUGGETS redirected to McDonald's and had 10000 pageviews daily it would still be deleted as implausible and making no sense. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 03:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete as a highly implausible search term, and useless for linking as well. I.e., no one is going to put "carthaginian", let alone "d. nnn". 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

List of federal lands in Alaska

List of federal lands in Alaska → List of areas in the United States National Park System (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
List of federal lands in Arizona → List of areas in the United States National Park System (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
List of federal lands in Oregon → List of areas in the United States National Park System (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
List of federal lands in Virginia → List of areas in the United States National Park System (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
List of federal lands in New York → List of areas in the United States National Park System (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The target only includes federal lands that are part of the national park system, omitting large national forests and lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, among others. Delete to encourage article creation. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't stubbify all of these titles right away. BD2412 T 14:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: I just created a list of this sort under List of federal lands in Alaska. This can be replicated, and expanded with the suggested categories of information. BD2412 T 14:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

But like the redirect target, the stub is missing national forests, BLM lands, military lands, etc.. Not opposed to creating list articles at these titles of course, but until someone wants to undertake making a comprehensive list, these should be red. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete all per nom. The newly created list basically duplicates List of the United States National Park System official units#Alaska and related pages, is wildly incomplete since there's far more than NPS areas, and incorrectly includes sites that are affiliated but not actually federal land; this should draftified or also deleted. I don't think these should be hastily made just for the sake of it. Some states instead have a related list of protected areas that includes state lands. Reywas92^Talk 04:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion

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

Speedy deletion

See Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.

Proposed deletion

See Category:Proposed deletion as of 16 December 2024.