Wikipedia:XfD today

Shortcuts

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

Speedy deletion candidates

Candidates for speedy deletion

Portal:African Americans

Alia Al Shamsi

User:Daniel Redburn Time Magazine

Ali Mohammad Dar

User:Dr.Kalaimagan S.Venkatesan/sandbox

User:Pgdmaditya231/sandbox

Sematary

The White Lotus season 2

User:Zayn Hesham

Articles

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 22	September 24 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

List of Veterans Benefits Administration regional offices

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

Fails WP:NLIST - Wikipedia is not a directory for listing government's regional offices (that's what the Department's website is for - no indication any of these offices are remotely notable. Dan arndt (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. Dan arndt (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot Flight 31

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: A search reveals that there exists no (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects and no long-term impact on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Russia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. There are no independent, reliable sources of information about this crash. The ASN source cites airdisaster.ru as its source of information, airdisaster.ru does not cite any sources itself and has been the topic of a past discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_446#airdisaster.ru. Most of the currently uncited material in the article is a close paraphrase of the limited information that appears on airdisaster.ru, and the baaa-acro.com source is a WP:SPS. I've spent some time trying to find even a brief mention of this accident in reliable sources, and have failed. While Wikipedia's notability guideline is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the current state of sourcing in an article, the policy does state that information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1950s. Incident is sufficiently covered there. ~~Once suitable sources are found, it can be made a standalone article. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Soviet aviation task force/Notability.~~Meltdown627 (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Davood Noroozi

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

No inherent notability, fails WP:GNG, WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO. BEFORE was not productive. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Journalism, and Iran. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find anything notable but if someone finds some sources in German or Farsi please ping me. Dr vulpes (Talk) 07:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smyrna, Decatur County, Indiana

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

A 4tgh class post office, not a town. There's almost nothing there, and what little there is was mostly built in the 1950s. Mangoe (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something wrong with being built in the 1950's? Of the "almost nothing", does that indicate there is actually something there? — Maile (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two modern houses and one older, with no obvious relationship to each other. Three houses vaguely near each other is not a town, and in any case the name of the spot is much older. Mangoe (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nyrika Holkar

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

A promotional biography of a businesswoman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Majorly citations are WP:ADMASQ, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. TCBT1CSI (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Pan

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

There doesn't seem to be significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Law, and Argentina. toweli (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of Sound (exhibition)

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Music. Netherzone (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: further expansion of the article and context was needed. AlphaLemur (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tanha Dar Mazrae

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

No reliable sources (a.k.a. no wiki links) and no reliable reviews. This may fail Wikipedia:Notability (films). This article about a short film is short because no other sources exist.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sayeye Penhan. I am also nominating the following related page because it is also is sourced by a similar website (akhbarrasmi, is it notable?):

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, no participation so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this movie in Iranian cinema.

Khosli is attractive and spectacular and this movie has found many fans.

In our opinion, Iranians, this is the best movie in the Middle East, and if there is a little source now, it is because this movie has just been waiting and the article will gradually mature and grow, and I ask you not to show too much sensitivity on this issue and let it remain an article to avoid wiki law. 5.233.227.181 (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article should stay in English Wikipedia 5.233.231.50 (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting, not much participation thus far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Corporation Limited

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Single ref is effectively WP:OR. No indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 06:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Andhra Pradesh. Shellwood (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant organization, state-owned power distributor having vast network and consumer base, has more than one reliable citations now. Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We will go through your new references to check them. scope_creep^Talk 19:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited, presumably into a "regional operations" section. Dan • ✉ 15:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with a totally unrelated company? Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited is a power generation company owned by Andhra Pradesh state government, the Andhra Pradesh state government owns lots of companies.

The Power Generation Corporation generates and supplies power to not only this distribution company but it supplies power to whole Power Grid of India. So according to me it doesn't make sense to merge two separate companies just because they sound same or owned by same owner. They are literally DIFFERENT COMPANIES. Thewikizoomer (talk) 04:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It states here: [1]] that the electricity generators were deregulated in 1999. The main monolithic supplier APSEB was split into a grid supplier and the Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited. The regional generator were split off from this organisation into regional supplier. They are all owned by Andhra Pradesh government. Even though they are seperate companies, they can be one article, because all companies are owned by one entity. scope_creep^Talk 16:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
10s of companies are owned by Andhra Pradesh state government, it is still unfair and doesn't make sense to merge, just because they are owned by the same party. Thewikizoomer (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same comment as the Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is still unclear here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 06:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Andhra Pradesh. Shellwood (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant organization, state-owned power distributor having vast network and consumer base. Google search reflects a lot of sources showing the kind of significance the org. holds. Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited, presumably into a "regional operations" section. Dan • ✉ 15:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with a totally unrelated company? Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited is a power generation company owned by Andhra Pradesh state government, the Andhra Pradesh state government owns lots of companies.

The Power Generation Corporation generates and supplies power to not only this distribution company but it supplies power to whole Power Grid of India. So according to me it doesn't make sense to merge two separate companies just because they sound same or owned by same owner. They are literally DIFFERENT COMPANIES. Thewikizoomer (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewikizoomer: If you don't stop WP:BLUDGEONing every comment that made has been made on this, I will take you to WP:ANI. scope_creep^Talk 16:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears like a personal attack, accusing other users of doing something that they are not and within accordance with Wikipedia policies is personal attack. I can take you to WP:ANI and instead of threatening, you can directly take it there. Thewikizoomer (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It states here: [2] that the electricity generators were deregulated in 1999. The main monolithic supplier APSEB was split into a grid supplier and the Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited. The regional generator were split off from this organisation into regional supplier. They are all owned by Andhra Pradesh government. Even though they are seperate companies, they can be one article, because all companies are owned by one entity. scope_creep^Talk 16:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
10s of companies are owned by Andhra Pradesh state government, it is still unfair and doesn't make sense to merge, just because they are owned by the same party. Thewikizoomer (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same comment as the Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is still unclear here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Similar to another AfD discussion... Independently, this company doesn't qualify for its own Wikipedia page as it doesn't meet the WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. A merger is also not feasible since it isn't a direct subsidiary of APPGCL. Charlie (talk) 07:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chimele Usuwa Abengowe

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

Firstly, the content on ref 1 which is a magazine can't be verified by any reliable source same as ref 5. Ref 2 and ref 5 are also the same link on the article current state. The only source here was this which just only talk about his death. Ref 7 which is a YouTube video showcasing a church service cant be use as a source neither any YouTube link can be use as a source. Ref 3 which just only mentioned his name as part of the medical list and not like he was talked about. Subject just totally fails WP:GNG. Gabriel (……?) 01:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Nigeria. Gabriel (……?) 01:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly a much respected citizen but WP:NOTMEMORIAL Xxanthippe (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
thank you for your response. Please note that @Gabriel601 has been trolling my articles and marking them for deletion. There's an established case of "nominations in bad faith here". Cfaso2000 (talk) 05:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

welcome again for marking another article of mine for deletion. After the last episode, you should have recused yourself from my articles and leave other editors to go through and arrive at their own conclusions. Cfaso2000 (talk) 05:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't verify certain details about this person like the date of birth and death. My search for the various information yielded "result not found" and I was wondering about the origin of other information like the award, OFR. After all these, I can say that the article doesn't meet WP:NPROF and WP:SIGCOV. Also, Gabriel's source analysis is thorough and well-documented. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Due to being a recipient of one of Nigeria's highest national awards (WP:ANYBIO The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor) National Honour of Member of the Order of the Niger (OON) by President Olusegun Obasanjo on the 16th November, 2000 - now sourced to Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]
The link you provided still doesn’t have his name on it that the president honors him with the title of OON. I opened the link used the control+F to find and paste his name still zero not found. Subject still fails WP:GNG. Gabriel (……?) 10:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It has on page 605 as the third entry.... under the heading OFFICER OF THE ORDER OF THE NIGER (OON) Professor C. U. Abengowe ... Abia
  - https://archive.gazettes.africa/archive/ng/2000/ng-government-gazette-dated-2000-10-09-no-69.pdf Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 11:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    @Msrasnw, winning an award is a WP policy/guide that WP:SIGCOV may exist for an article. Oppositely, there isn't any coverage for this article, hence doesn't meet our general notability guidelines. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think there is significant coverage in Nigerian media for eg in an important newspaper Independent Nigeria ... we have Emejor, Chibuzor (2023) NGO Immortalises Prof Abengowe, Featured News, Independent Sep 4 [3]
    - and Vision Africa (2013) Professor Abengowe Chimele Usuwa: Pragmatic Icon In The Field Of Teaching And Guidance, Profiles, Vision Africa 08/04 [4] And here (https://archive.upf.org/united-nations/international-day-of-peace/2013/5312-conference-in-abuja-on-education-and-national-development) he is giving a keynote at a serious conference. And there is lots more. I think it is shame that too many Wikipedia editors are too willing to delete what are to my mind clearly notable people that can with a little effort be reasonably sourced. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]
      Vision Africa is a non notable platform. Upf is a non notable platform. There is till nothing notable about this man as per Wikipedia notability. If he was that respected a lot of news papers would have carried his news death. But nothing rather than just one news that’s not even all about his death. Gabriel (……?) 13:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject satisfies notability guidelines as have been severally outlined above. Cfaso2000 (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One source ain't enough to justify notability. Other editors needs to be aware ‘Cfaso2000’ was the article creator. Gabriel (……?) 11:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a disagreement over the quality of sourcing. A source assessment at this point would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Subject meet WP:Notable and there are enough references to back it up Tesleemah Talk 08:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skagit Environmental Endowment Commission

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP for not having significant coverage of independent, reliable sources for verification. Cassiopeia talk 00:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 00:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think with enough digging that sources could be coughed up. I have three sources ([5][6][7]) but they might be WP:PRIMARY or may not do enough coverage of the topic at hand. ✶Qux yz ✶ 00:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is kept, I might work on improving this article. ✶Qux yz ✶ 00:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Narwhal reference is excellent! I can't see the text of the Seattle Times one. See also this article in BC Studies. It's hard to imagine that a binational commission with jurisdiction on the environment wouldn't be notable. Nfitz (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rules lawyer

AfDs for this article:

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

Simple failure of WP:NOTDICTIONARY as the article only consists of a definition. A potential WP:ATD is merge to Letter and spirit of the law, but that one is more in a legal context than a gaming one, and not exactly well-sourced or stable in itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Games, and Psychology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. come on, this is the stuff we come to Wikipedia for. Suppose it could be merged somewhere; would support that if appropriate placement is identified. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ILIKEIT. While you may enjoy the article, personal preference doesn't factor into AfDs, only evidence that a full article can be created based on the idea of "rules lawyering". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m satisfied what’s there shows it can. Tell me where you would merge it. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Role-playing game terms seems like a better place to merge it than letter and spirit of the law given its predominant use in RPGs. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article as it is now, although short, already has some content which would not fit into a dictionary. And a WP:BEFORE search shows that various sources dealing with table-top roleplaying games have more to say: On A Roll p. 45, The Civilized Guide to Tabletop Gaming p. 66 and The Postmodern Joy of Role-Playing Games all have about a page of content, including commentary. And the journal Analog Game Studies Vol. IV has a full essay on the topic. How can 6+ pages contain "only a definition"? So it seems to me the nomination is mostly talking about the current status of the article, which is not decisive when deciding about deletion. All that said, the first and primary paragraph could be merged in to Role-playing game terms, and later be spun out again as soon as someone uses the listed sources further. But aside from that fact that I see no advantage in that, it would already be akward to fit in the other contexts where same term may pop up, but more rarely so if the Google Books search is any indication. Daranios (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Analog Game Studies is a good source, the others seem like definitions or brief mentions in the middle of talking about something else. Usually one solid source is still not enough to merit a full page. Therefore I am still not "convinced", though I will admit there is a non zero amount of coverage about the concept of rules lawyering in RPGs. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: The first two books (sorry, I had a wrong link there) each have a specific section dedicated to the topic, so brief mentions in the middle of talking about something else is not correct here. The third one does talk about the concept in a larger context, but has significant analysis way beyond a definition (what it means for the game, contrast to other concept,...). So is there material to expand the article beyond the length of a stub? Absolutely! Daranios (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources found by Daranios. BOZ (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge that one paragraph into Role-playing game terms. The relevance of the "Related terms" seems very tenuous to me. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 00:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with merge, Related terms would appear to be NOTDICTIONARY. IgelRM (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge main article content into Role-playing game terms, alongside Rule as Intended and Rule as Written which discuss two sides of the same coin. A list is a better place for this, since a standalone article is borderline WP:NOTDICTIONARY.Jtwhetten (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage is sufficient to meet WP:N and we have more than just a dictionary definition. I could see a broader article on this plus related things such as RAW and RAI (as mentioned above). Hobit (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments are divided between editors advocating Keep and those pushing Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gamesmanship

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

Fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY, with the article besides the pure definition of gamesmanship (which, in itself, is partly WP:OR) being an example farm of different sports. Beyond that, it mostly cites the book written by the person who popularized (and possibly invented) the term, a primary source that doesn't contribute to notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Psychology, and Sports. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Competition. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is certainly in rough shape, but it already contains secondary sources establishing notability. For instance, The Timelessness of Steven Potter's "Gamesmanship" discusses the concept and its origins and impact ~~at length~~. That essay also contains pointers to additional potential sources such as this apparently-famous book which applies the concept to the behaviour of corporate executives. Similar sources appear to be plentiful on Google Books and Google Scholar. So this looks to me like WP:SIGCOV. Botterweg14 (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say it discusses the concept at length, but it appears to be about the book itself. Do you have access to the book to pinpoint where exactly it discusses the concept alone and then demonstrate that evidence? Right now we have no way to know whether you have read the book or if it is simply an assumption. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. My comment above was based on a skim of the essay, and looking back now I do think I overstated things. You're right that the essay is primarily a literary discussion of Potter's book. However in its discussion of the book's legacy and impact it does verify that the concept of gamesmanship has had an enduring life of its own. So in combination with the other sources, I'm still satisfied that this counts as WP:SIGCOV. Botterweg14 (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep largely per Botterweg14. This is a reasonably well-sourced article on a notable concept that does not at all read like a dictionary definition. Frank Anchor 12:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dhiraj Sonawane

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

Moved to mainspace, perhaps before it is ready. I certainly do not see any pass of WP:NPROF here. The best sources in the article look like human interest coverage of surgeries by the subject, and I think they fall a bit short of WP:BASIC. My search did not find much more. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 05:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and India. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 05:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is a malformed AfD Apparently the page is being targeted for deletion because the page had so many bugs it was straight up targeted for AFD instead of being cleaned and fixed a lot. should consider why the page is being targeted for deletion. which the article subject easily meets, is WP:GNG India Today has significant coverage in reliable sources such as the India Today newspaper also Passes WP:NGEO I don't believe the nominator checked all sources. However, there does appear to be in-depth coverage in sources which I assess as probably reliable, covering multiple events / aspects of this WP:BLP.Monophile 💬 11:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article makes no claim to notability - he runs a department at a hospital, no named chair professorship, nothing showing he's a big player within his discipline. I have reviewed all the citations and see nothing but routine mentions and quotes, other than what looks like a complex spine surgery case (but WP:BLP1E suggests this would need to have lasting impact). GScholar shows some papers with low citation counts (there's a DP Sonawane who has some high-citation counts, but U.S. based and unlikely to be this gentleman).
@Monophile you should spend some time familiarizing yourself with the various notability policies and guidelines especially those for living persons and professors. Had you done this you'd probably agree the deletion rationale is clear. Continuing to create these articles may be a waste of time, both yours and other editors', if the article subjects are unable to meet notability rules. Oblivy (talk) 07:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now it can be see that both the users, @Oblivy, @Russ Woodroofe are being targeted this page will be created from my account. It can be clearly seen in the previous AFD how they like to target and vote for delete pages.here It is with great regret that I have to say There are Millions of editors and users on Wikipedia, they should get a chance to review the page and see how it is done. The page is targeted without checking the references without checking the page itself These users should be stopped from doing this continuously, this is the urine of Vandalism is being done continuously on Wikipedia etc. of their account edits here, here are checked, they are just constantly targeting this pages. Continuously targeting a page should not be acceptable on Wikipedia. It is a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines. Monophile 💬 01:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ramli Mall

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

Shopping mall in Bahrain fails WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iyana-Iba, Lagos State

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

article does not meet WP:GNG and No significance importance aside they are opened by a former president, all references are not significant coverage of the subject Tesleemah (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheus Society

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. No WP:SUSTAINED WP:INDEPTH WP:DIVERSE coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject Polygnotus (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Psychology. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Prometheus Society has been active for over 40 years. It has had hundreds of members, and its journal, Gift of Fire, has had over 200 issues printed. Every article I know of that discusses high IQ societies more selective than Mensa mentions it. There's no other high IQ society more selective than Mensa which is better known, with the possible exception of Mega. Promking (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Prometheus Society holds a prominent place in the history of high IQ societies. It accepts people who have an IQ at the 4 sigma level, with a minimum IQ of 164. As stated, this is the best known IQ society above the Mensa level. I've been a member for many years. 2604:2D80:A682:5800:E0EE:FD15:96AA:925A (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:GNG. Polygnotus (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Research Superfund Site

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

Fails to establish notability. None of the article's sources appear independent of the subject, and are thus not reliable enough to support a claim of notability. A quick check before the nomination did not turn up any other sources with significant coverage which would help. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and California. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping for AfC reviewer Garsh2. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The following articles exist:[8] [9][10]. The first two constitute significant coverage. The third is a passing mention but worth noting nonetheless. Additionally, I would argue some the government sources in the article may be secondary, as well as number 5. Garsh (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Garsh2: I saw the California Aggie article in my search but did not mention it here as that publication is a campus newspaper run by students at UC Davis; see their Instagram profile. The Sacramento Bee article looks good, but I'm highly skeptical of the reliability of ToxicSites (citation 5), and I'm not sure if the government sources are independent enough to count towards notability as the site seems to be managed by the US Department of Energy. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Trejo

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

Played two professional games in MLS Next Pro and now plays for a university. Everything I could find from a Google search was related directly to his career at Ohio State University (almost all of it coming from OSU match reports and write ups). At this point, it looks like this fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 02:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Mexico, Florida, Kansas, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indianola Records

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

Fails WP:NCORP, which is the applicable SNG rather than WP:MUSIC, because it's a company. Graywalls (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Georgia (U.S. state). Graywalls (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Storm (webzine)

AfDs for this article:

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

OK, this seems to be something of a borderline notability case. I'm nominating this because there may be decent sourcing that exists to establish notability, but also because this could potentially wind up getting deleted in the end. There was no consensus about this article at AfD back in 2008, but many of the "keep" votes from back then could only cite things like Google search results and sponsorships (see WP:INHERITED), when not just resorting to copouts with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Most of the sources cited are WP:PRIMARY, and I can't find much information about this site via Google outside of unreliable, WP:NOTRSMUSIC databases. I'm not saying this positively needs to go, but if it's going to stay, it needs serious improvements. But for now, I would like to invite other people to comment with what they think. JeffSpaceman (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Music, Websites, and Estonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Real Malabar FC

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

Fails the general notability guideline, which is the recommended guideline for teams under the sports sub-guideline. Many of the sources cited in the article are unreliable, and the ones that are don't have significant coverage. Quickly searching for more sources did not turn up anything else. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, India, and Kerala. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina women's national under-18 softball team

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NORG or WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Softball, and Argentina. Let'srun (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

200 Plus

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

Fails WP:GNG. All the sources contain passing mentions rather than WP:SIGCOV. I couldn't find anything online that could be utilised. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Sports, and Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wouldn't be opposed to a draftify as an alternative to deletion. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wasn't able to find any reliable sources, and aside from the Producey Podcasts source, the only sources on the page that might be argued to count as "reliable" focus entirely on a single incident (and don't really talk about the podcast). I don't think draftifying is a good solution given that there don't appear to be any RS at all. At the very least, it falls under TOOSOON, but it's likely that it will never pass the GNG. Ships & Space_(Edits) 00:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Bray

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

Fails WP:NACTOR because he’s only appeared in one film. The Film Creator (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Television, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not at all relevant or useful, low quality article. Alon9393 (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR is not met here either. Let'srun (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not going to !vote, but I must add that I saw the solo film he starred in and it’s gloriously bad, a true bomb that is a cult classic. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @Let'srun - A very simple Google search shows multiple scans of articles that were written about him. What kind of search were you doing that missed all of those? See: 1, 2 and 3. KatoKungLee (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: can only fail WP:NACTOR as he played in only one film. But meets the general requirements for notability, see article and sources mentioned during the course of this discussion. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grange Road, Adelaide

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

Fails WP:GEOROAD. Most of the references are simply maps like https://location.sa.gov.au/ . LibStar (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article about a major arterial road in western Adelaide. It is also part of a set of Adelaide roads. The article has existed for over six years with no concern. Scott Davis ^Talk

"The article has existed for over six years with no concern" is not an argument for keeping. LibStar (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Bduke (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PERX. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 sources were added since nomination, however I don't see evidence of third party coverage to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article as per norm Tesleemah (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough sources exist to meet GEOROAD. ([11][12][13]) GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will assume 1 and 3 are indepth as they are behind a paywall. Source 2 above is a 1 line mention of Grange Road. LibStar (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yavin

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

This article is a non notable fork of Yavin 4 where the Battle of Yavin actually takes place, making it the third article covering basically the same material. Most source talk about Yavin 4 with only trivial mentions for Yavin itself. (Probably because Yavin appears on screen for a few seconds.) Jontesta (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Film. Jontesta (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Yavin 4, the actual important location in the franchise, and very likely what people are actually looking for if they search for "Yavin". Per WP:NOPAGE, these should really be covered together, and Yavin 4 is the obvious primary topic here - case in point, the vast majority of the content of this article is actually talking about Yavin 4. There are some sourced bits of information here, such as the history of its development in the first part of the "Depiction" section, that are not present in the Yavin 4 article, so a bit of a merge should occur. Rorshacma (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pandoran biosphere

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

Fork of Fictional universe of Avatar. We do not need two articles about the same thing. Both are doubtfully notable based on trivial mentions but I believe that Fictional universe of Avatar has more upside as more sources talk generally about the setting of Avatar. Jontesta (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 02:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files

Categories

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Drum Corps International members

Propose deleting Category:Drum Corps International members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Marching drum corps, and Drum Corps International groups in particular, is not a defining trait for any of these people Why? I Ask (talk) 06:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories named after Canadian Premier League seasons

Propose renaming Category:2019 Canadian Premier League to Category:2019 Canadian Premier League season
Propose renaming Category:2020 Canadian Premier League to Category:2020 Canadian Premier League season
Propose renaming Category:2021 Canadian Premier League to Category:2021 Canadian Premier League season
Propose renaming Category:2022 Canadian Premier League to Category:2022 Canadian Premier League season
Propose renaming Category:2023 Canadian Premier League to Category:2023 Canadian Premier League season
Propose renaming Category:2024 Canadian Premier League to Category:2024 Canadian Premier League season

Nominator's rationale: The names of these eponymous categories should match the title of their main articles. RedBlueGreen93 20:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Classical guitar makers

Propose merging Category:Classical guitar makers to Category:Guitar makers

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between the type guitar and occupation. Mason (talk) 04:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flemish battle painters

Propose merging Category:Flemish battle painters to Category:Flemish war artists

Nominator's rationale: overlapping categories Mason (talk) 03:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Modern musical instruments

Category:Modern musical instruments and it's subcategoriess as follows:

All arbitrary and original research; Wikipedia is supposed to be timeless. it's not like musical instruments have censors on them so that whenever they're picked up, a central database records their usage statistics; such a system would have extreme security and privacy concerns, at the very least. Also, many of these categories are small with no potential for growth. Graham87 (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, the categories should be limited to instruments invented after about 1800. Certainly delete Category:Modern clarinets as the only article is about an instrument invented around 1700. And if the siblings are kept then certainly merge Category:Modern miscellaneous woodwind instruments to Category:Modern musical instruments per WP:OCMISC. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Saw this earlier today. Should certainly all be deleted as it is vaguely defined and unhelpful. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prehistoric Asia

Propose merging Category:Prehistoric Asia to Category:Prehistory of Asia

Nominator's rationale: merge, it is unclear how the two categories are supposed to be different from each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the former. Category:Paleontological sites of Asia is not Prehistory in the usual sense, & should be kept out. Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The latter is a fair point, I purged this subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge direction? (I will tag Category:Prehistory of Asia.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 06:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a preferred merge direction, maybe User:Nederlandse Leeuw has, one way or the other. I do notice however that not just Asia has this issue, it applies likewise to all other continents. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer: I'm not sure what to advise here. Seeing my previous proposal for renaming Ancient Fooland to Ancient history of Fooland was a failure, I'm reluctant to to suggest any direction to take into making these catnames more consistent, certainly as long as the main article titles are not in some way WP:TITLECONned first. But that is a discussion that should probably take place elsewhere and not here.

Long answer

Purely by catname and main article names, Category:Prehistory by country seems to show Prehistoric Fooland is more commonly used than Prehistory of Fooland or Fooian prehistory. But there are some notable differences that should make us cautious to make a WP:C2C argument too quickly.

These three continents almost consistently have subcatnames like Prehistoric Fooland, usually (but not always) with correspondingly titled main articles:

Category:Prehistoric Europe by country > Prehistoric Europe

Category:Prehistoric Africa by country > Prehistoric Africa

Category:Prehistoric Asia by country > Prehistoric Asia

But, present-day countries have inconsistent article titles, so there's no easy WP:C2D argument to make here. To take Europe as an example:

Prehistoric Fooland

versus

Prehistory of Fooland

versus

Fooian prehistory
- Basque prehistory
- Hungarian prehistory

A casual observation may be that Prehistoric Fooland is much more popular for articles on the British Isles, other islands and peninsulas, but Prehistory of Fooland seems more popular for areas in continential Europe those geographical borders may not be that clear-cut.

The other continents are more inconsistent, and we've got a lot of redundant layers, like

Category:Prehistory of Central America:

Category:Prehistory of Costa Rica‎ (1 C) > fossils of
Category:Prehistory of El Salvador‎ (1 C) > fossils of
Category:Prehistory of Guatemala‎ (1 C) > fossils of
Category:Prehistory of Honduras‎ (1 C) > fossils of
Category:Prehistory of Panama‎ (1 C) > fossils of

There is a lot of cleaning up we could do, but where do we even start? Like I said in my short answer, I think main article titles should be made consistent first if we want to harmonise catnames afterwards. WP:C2D stipulates that catnames follow main article titles, not the other way around.

NLeeuw (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming we go for a reverse merge, the list of all continents becomes as follows. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Prehistory of Africa to Category:Prehistoric Africa
Propose renaming Category:Prehistory of Antarctica to Category:Prehistoric Antarctica
Propose merging Category:Prehistory of Asia to Category:Prehistoric Asia
Propose merging Category:Prehistory of Europe to Category:Prehistoric Europe
Propose merging Category:Prehistory of North America to Category:Prehistoric North America
Propose merging Category:Prehistory of Oceania to Category:Prehistoric Oceania
Propose merging Category:Prehistory of South America to Category:Prehistoric South America

Comment: There is currently the article title Prehistoric Asia, and also Prehistoric Africa (but "prehistory of Africa" is used in the article body) and Prehistoric Europe. There are no dedicated articles, only redirects, for Prehistoric Oceania/Prehistory of Oceania and Prehistoric South America/Prehistory of South America. Prehistory of North America is a broken redirect to History of North America § The beginning of North America (which is no longer the title of any section of that article); however, Timeline of North American prehistory does exist. There's nothing for Antarctica. Ham II (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do people support a merge from "Prehistory of Foo" to "Prehistoric Foo"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greek mythology by region

Propose renaming Category:Aeginetan mythology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Aegina
Propose renaming Category:Aetolian mythology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Aetolia
Propose renaming Category:Attic mythology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Attica
Propose renaming Category:Eleusinian mythology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Elefsina
Propose renaming Category:Boeotian mythology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Boeotia
Propose renaming Category:Theban mythology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Thebes, Greece
Propose renaming Category:Locrian mythology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Locris
Propose renaming Category:Corcyraean mythology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Corfu
Propose renaming Category:Cretan mythology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Crete
Propose renaming Category:Cypriot mythology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Cyprus
Propose renaming Category:Epirotic mythology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Epirus
Propose renaming Category:Arcadian mythology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Arcadia, Peloponnese
Propose renaming Category:Troezenian mythology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Troezen
Propose renaming Category:Corinthian mythology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Corinthia
Propose renaming Category:Elean mythology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Elis
Propose renaming Category:Laconian mythology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Laconia
Propose renaming Category:Messenian mythology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Messenia
Propose renaming Category:Rhodian mythology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Rhodes
Propose renaming Category:Salaminian mythology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Salamis Island
Propose renaming Category:Thessalian mythology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Thessaly
Propose renaming Category:Pierian mythology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of ancient Pieria

Nominator's rationale: These categories are for mythology relating to the places rather than mythology necessarily originating in those places, as the current titles imply. There are many Greek myths about places didn't originate in those places and many for which it is impossible to know where the myths originated. Some of the subcategories of Category:Greek mythology by region already follow the proposed naming convention. Mclay1 (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Mythology of X" any better a naming convention? To me that implies that it's mythology from that place just as much as "X-ian mythology" does. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the proposed names work for both much more than the current names. I'm open to suggestions, however. Mclay1 (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The rationale proposes a distinction without a difference. Additionally, renaming these will make them harder to search for, since there are already too many entries for "Mythology" to display in the search window, while most of the articles using demonyms appear right away when someone starts to type them. Consistency is not a strong argument when balanced against convenience. A handful of these names may not be familiar to readers, but readers who are familiar enough with the topics to be searching for them would probably recognize them; and many of the proposed names are equally objectionable.

For instance, "Mythology of Elefsina", rather than "Eleusis", since inexplicably the entire history of ancient Eleusis is covered under the unrecognizable modern name of the town; "Mythology of Corfu", as though "Corfu" were the name of a place one encounters in classical history or mythology; "Mythology of Corinthia", when "Corinthia" is the name of a modern administrative region of Greece that did not exist in antiquity; "Mythology of Arcadia, Peloponnese", as though any other Arcadia would have distinctive mythological topics; "Mythology of Salamis Island", when Salamis was never so called "Salamis Island" in antiquity and will not generally be encountered under that name, and there is no corresponding mythological topic for the other Salamis, in Cyprus. P Aculeius (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are not named based on the convenience of searching for the category name; most readers are not finding categories that way, and helping users get to them quickly is not a consideration. First and foremost should be accuracy, and these current names are not accurate. There is a distinction between the mythology relating to a place and the local mythology of the people from that place, but there is of course overlap and the proposed names work for both.

Secondly, using the modern names of the places would be consistent with the rest of the category trees for those places (we use "Greece" and not "Hellas"); however, if it would be better to use the ancient names of the places, we can do that rather than discarding the entire rename for that reason.

To address two specific ones: Corinthia is used for the ancient region (see Regions of ancient Greece#Corinthia), and the disambiguation in the category tree for Category:Arcadia, Peloponnese is necessary to distinguish it from other places called Arcadia. We generally keep subcategory names consistent for clarity even if they wouldn't be ambiguous. Just because we don't currently have mythology categories for other places of the same name, doesn't mean it wouldn't be confusing without disambiguation. Mclay1 (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will concede that the searching convenience is not a strong argument for categories, the way it would be with article titles. But the proposed titles are still counter-intuitive, so it is not entirely irrelevant; and if your argument is for consistency, then both categories including the subject and their corresponding articles should begin with the name of the place represented, rather than a generic word such as "mythology". When you're researching mythological subjects, do you look under "Greek Mythology" or "Mythology of Ancient Greece"? "Norse Mythology" or "Mythology of the Norse?"

There may be an argument to make for moving some of these titles, where the demonym is not as familiar as the name of the place, e. g. "Mythology of Cyprus, Epirus, Salamis" may be more logical than "Cypriot, Epirot, Salaminian mythology", but this would be the case for only a few of them, which again demonstrates that consistency, while not entirely irrelevant, is less helpful for determining titles than natural language.

With respect to the modern names, they are simply anachronistic in speaking of subjects from antiquity, and virtually all scholarship written in English over the last three centuries will use Greek- and Roman-era names in preference to modern ones. In some cases such as "Greece", there is a further convention of Anglicization, but it forms on the Roman-era "Graecia" rather than Greek "Hellas". But you will have trouble finding any scholarship referring to the "Elefsinian mysteries", or similar descriptions, and if there is any, it will probably be in recent translations of modern Greek works.

I will retract my criticism of "Corinthia", finding that the term is used for the territory belonging to Corinth in antiquity. However, "Corfu" is as anachronistic as "Elefsina" and even less recognizable; and consistency within category trees is a weak argument for disambiguation when there is no risk of confusion. Nobody says "Arcadia, Peloponnese" or "Salamis Island", and there is no need to do so in these category names just because disambiguation is unavoidable in other contexts.

It's not merely that we don't currently have categories for mythology of other, similarly-named places, but that it is unlikely that such categories would exist in the first place. For instance, the Salamis in Cyprus would presumably be covered under the mythology of Cyprus; and there is no other ancient Arcadia that would have any distinct mythology; the barely-known Cretan town is usually called "Arcades", and other places called "Arcadia" were not established or did not bear the name until after paganism was stamped out. The strongest argument for disambiguation would be "Thebes, Greece", but the corresponding article and category on the mythology of Thebes in Egypt are under "Theban Triad". There is not much risk of confusion, and a hatnote would probably be sufficient to help anyone who arrives at the wrong topic.

To re-iterate, consistency is not a strong argument for renaming categories that are already unambiguous, particularly when the extant names are what readers would most likely expect to find; and in many cases renaming them to be consistent with each other would make them inconsistent with article titles that readers would expect to encounter. It would be better to deal with these on a case-by-case basis. P Aculeius (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to form consensus; additional comments would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 06:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have an opinion about "fooian" versus "of foo", generally, but I concur with P Aculeius that we should not use modern names when it conflicts with common names of ancient Greece as used by classical scholars. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still need more participation :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games about aircraft

Propose merging Category:Video games about aircraft to Category:Aviation video games

Nominator's rationale: These are overlapping categories. THe merge target is older and was merged into this one outside of the cfd process. Mason (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These cannot be overlapping categories as Category:Aviation video games currently does not contain any content. I also believe you are saying I should have renamed Category:Aviation video games rather than creating a new category. Though these two categories are technically different, as the name and subcategories have or had a different structure, also Category:Helicopter video games wasn't a part of Category:Aviation video games before I redirected the category. Furthermore the category Category:Video games about aircraft is very small, just saying. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You removed all the content from the Aviation category. All of the excuses/explanations you've listed does not justify circumventing the CFD process. Mason (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the original category of Category:Aviation video games was always too small, overly-vague, and conflicted with Category:Flight simulation video games. It is a better idea to instead just delete both Category:Aviation video games and Category:Video games about aircraft.

QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. The right process is to request a rename at this forum. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The current name of category actually works better, especially because it is a child category of Category:Video games about vehicles. When the page Category:Video games about aircraft is deleted and merged, we will have to rename the category to the original name I desired. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant that the current name works better. You should have proposed a rename instead of recreating a category. Mason (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually going to say that first because I changed my mind. We're doing any of that. We'll just merge it instead and leave it as is. The category is very small though. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you think that the size of the category is relevant? It doesn't matter about the size. The problem is that you're circumventing the process. Mason (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not all flight simulation games are about aircraft. Apparently some people don't realize that things that can fly, but are not aircraft also feature in games, such as dragon riding, bird riding, and other manner of fantastical creatures. Therefore, games about aircraft and flight simulators should be separate categories. Rather, delete Category:Aviation video games as overly vague. I am also concerned about the tree of Category:Works about aviation and whether that is vague and overlapping. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have an issue with converting "aviation" to "aircraft". The discussion is mainly about proper procedure. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This CfD process has been a disaster. Finding a non-vehicle based-simulator under Category:Flight simulation video games category is like finding a needle in a haystack, Category:Video games about aircraft will end up being a largely-overlapping category with Category:Flight simulation video games. So it is a better idea to just delete both Category:Aviation video games and Category:Video games about aircraft.

QuantumFoam66 (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop double voting. The issue is that you circumvented the CFD process and are now suggesting delete because you don't like the verdict. Mason (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I just added Airplane Mode (video game) which would appear to be your supposed "needle in a haystack" given that it's about aircraft but has nothing to do with piloting them. This only further proves my point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Aviation video games, which I will note is currently a {{category redirect}}.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of the Jews in the Middle East

Propose merging Category:History of the Jews in the Middle East to Category:History of the Jews in West Asia

Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, and keep a redirect, Middle East and West Asia are very overlapping concept. I will tag both categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. ME includes all of Turkey and Egypt, but not the South Caucasus. WA excludes parts of Turkey and all of Egypt, but includes the South Caucasus. Ergo ME =/= WA.

I could possibly get behind "Middle East and West Asia", but that's a mouthful. Keeping separate ME and WA lists seems the better alternative. Lewisguile (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ME is a subcat of WA, which is certainly defensible. But much of the content of WA is clearly ME. If we decide what ME actually covers, say it in a note, & rearrange accordingly, won't that fix things? Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The three Caucasus countries may or may not belong to either Middle East or West Asia, we can't "decide" that they do belong in West Asia but not in the Middle East. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can and should decide what these terms cover for the purposes of the category, and say that. We should be doing that for all such ambiguous terms, such as Central Europe etc. Otherwise chaos. Johnbod (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 06:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per above, not seeing useful improvement in this proposal. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think a more holistic solution is needed here, but more participation is needed to form consensus in this particular discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Appalachia-stub

Propose deleting Template:Appalachia-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Stub template which populates the WikiProject category Category:Stub-Class Appalachia articles. Fewer than 60 members and Category:United States stubs is a very full tree, so unlikely to be helpful as either a stub category or a stub container category. Delete the template and re-sort the contents. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 109 entries in Category:Stub-Class Appalachia articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:7thC-document-stub

Propose deleting Template:7thC-document-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Orphaned stub template with no associated category. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I made that template for some stub article I came across if my memory serves me right. I don't care about that template now that the page has been deleted, so delete it is.

(Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 02:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not0nshoree, reasonable. Just as a note for the future, new stub types should be proposed following the procedure at WP:NEWSTUB. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Subdivisions of the Dutch Republic

Propose merging Category:Subdivisions of the Dutch Republic to Category:Former subdivisions of the Netherlands

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge this underpopulated category Mason (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge but to Category:Dutch Republic, the article is about occupied territories rather than a subdivision. The Seven Provinces might offer seven entries for this category but I presume they do not have an article. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military of Curaçao

Propose merging Category:Military of Curaçao to Category:Government of Curaçao

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge this underpopulated category Mason (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Economy of Loosduinen

Propose delete Category:Economy of Loosduinen
Propose merging Category:Companies formerly based in Loosduinen to Category:Loosduinen
Propose merging Category:Transport in Loosduinen to Category:Loosduinen
Propose merging Category:Mayors of Loosduinen to Category:Loosduinen
Propose merging Category:Paintings of Loosduinen to Category:Loosduinen

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated categories, upmerge for now to the former village, Loosduinen. There's only one page per category, and the vast majority lack relevant parent categories. Mason (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Field guns by company

Propose merging Category:Field guns by company to Category:Field guns

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This is a redundant category layer with only on parent category. Mason (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Martha Atwater

Martha Atwater → WordWorld (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This is a TV writer and producer who worked on this show along with others (e.g., Horrible Histories, Arthur, Clifford the Big Red Dog), and was killed in a hit-and-run accident in 2013 as a Google search can attest. She may have won an Emmy award for her writing on WorldWorld in 2009, but I'm not sure that's a good enough reason to redirect her name to that show (don't get me wrong, it was part of my and my sister's childhood, but I'm not sure Atwater's work on it would warrant a redirect to that specific page), since it might mislead readers looking for information on her, especially since she isn't mentioned on the target article unlike those of or relating to the other three shows I mentioned. I'm thinking we should delete this redirect to encourage article creation if plausible, but I'm open to being swayed otherwise. Regards, SONIC 678 04:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pentinat

Pentinat → Josep-Lluís Carod-Rovira (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I (creator) honestly don’t have a clue what this redirect is supposed to mean. Roasted (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete per WP:G7.~~ A7V2 (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively, potentially Roastedbeanz1 you meant to target this to Josep-Lluís Serrano Pentinat? A7V2 (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You’re right Roasted (talk) 05:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case I'd say retarget there unless there's an ambiguity issue. A7V2 (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Over by over

Over by over → Liveblogging (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target. Suggest deletion unless a sourced use can be added to target or elsewhere enwiki Mdewman6 (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for no good target. Every hit is related to cricket (directly or by metaphor) not blogging (although google does reveal some live blogging of cricket) but none of them would make a good target for this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Guardian live blogs of cricket are all called 'over by over' [14]. So are those from Sky Sports, and formerly The Times. While that might not be sufficiently notable to justify a standalone article, or an statement in liveblogging, it's still sufficiently common to justify a redirect. There are dozens of sports articles per yet that use this name. I'm open to better targets if one exists, but a redirect of some kind should definitely be retained. Modest Genius ^talk 04:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Disinformation report

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Disinformation report → User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist/sandbox/Draft:Disinformation report (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I understand that this is a redirect left over from a page move, but I think that the intent may have been to not perpetually leave this as a redirect. This is a borderline G6, but I wanted to raise it here in case I've misunderstood the cause for the move. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the redirect is linked from other talk pages, including archives, so should be kept or otherwise the navigation is lost. Raladic (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules

Template:Indian Cricket League

Template:Indian Cricket League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All entries were deleted, leaving nothing to navigate. ✗plicit 03:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: pointless navbox. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 04:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Katakana

Template:Katakana (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hiragana (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions in articles. At least one editor argues that it is easier to type the characters. These templates were created in 2006; it appears that other input methods are preferred. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany

Deletion review

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