Wikipedia:XfD today

Speedy deletion candidates

Articles

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 20	April 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Gerard van den Bergh

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

Another WP:LUGSTUBS moved back into mainspace but without any qualifying WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:NSPORT. I didn't find any more in my BEFORE search (a similarly named but different person in Suriname appears more often). Don't see an obvious redirect here but open to that alternative. If sufficient coverage is found please ping me and I am happy to withdraw. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Beckett (diver)

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

This WP:LUGSTUBS entry has been returned to mainspace but still does not appear to pass WP:NSPORT for lack of WP:SIGCOV. Nothing qualifying comes up in a BEFORE search (including in the British Newspaper Archive). Since it was only recently returned to article space, I'm not WP:BLARing it, but I think a redirect to Great Britain at the 1908 Summer Olympics would make sense here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Law and Mr. Lee

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

This is not a film, but a TV pilot (for CBS) that was filmed and not picked up - an extremely common occurrence in TV. It never aired and it never will, despite this implying it did in 2003. Coverage is routine for pilot production. DoubleCross (‡) 17:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Film, and Television. DoubleCross (‡) 17:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has no claim of significance, and I can’t find any source talking about this pilot, besides IMDB (not reliable) and some random blog. Given the extremely short article and utter lack of coverage, it doesn’t seem like there’s much to write about it. ApexParagon (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable television pilot, certainly not a film. Nathannah • 📮 18:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some confirmation [1] but it's purely fan sites or imdb listings. This is non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Danny_Glover_filmography#Television. If there was confirmation it had aired or otherwise received a release it could redirect to List of American films of 2003, but we don't have that so filmography it is. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kevin Rodney Sullivan: (Director). Notable crew and extremely notable cast so that this the most standard alternative to deletion for not so notable films/series when the director has a page. Opposed to deletion. (added one source and the presence of Rosanna Arquette in the cast) -Mushy Yank. 23:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 23:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review the changes made and to explore the ATDs suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Student World Impact Film Festival

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

I have strong belief that this subject does not meet the notability criteria mentioned in WP:GNG or WP:NGO. This article relies excessively on the use of primary sources, and when searched up, I can only see some reliable/secondary sources, and even then they are not independent of the subject (e.g interviews with the founder). WormEater13 (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Organizations, and New Jersey. WormEater13 (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this can help but I found some sources : yorku, gonzaga, the movie buff, troy today, connecticut college, some interviews including one on WBGO radio Prudential Emerging Visionaries winner Mark Leschinsky of Mahwah, NJ is changing the youth film festival landscape, northjersey, as well as a few mentions including one for the Diana Awards people.com, new jersey business. Regards, 2A01:CB05:871B:2C00:11B9:7740:BB9B:E8E (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a source eval for the new sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fishbone 101: Nuttasaurusmeg Fossil Fuelin' the Fonkay

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

Album that fails WP:GNG. No in-depth sources found expect profiles and 1 sentence mentions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that User:WhoIsCentreLeft rapidly nominated six album articles all created by me for deletion, after I critiqued one of their other nominations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidney Bingos. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe that this article could fit WP:NALBUM. Although, I would be open to hearing different perspectives from others.

WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ZX Touch

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

The sources are two links to the brand's website and two YouTube videos. I couldn't find any other sources through a WP:BEFORE that demonstrate this product's notability. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As noted, two of the refs link to the company website, and the other two are videos on YouTube which appear to be reviews of the topic. When searching the subject, most of the links that appear are on shopping sites such as eBay and Amazon, and there doesn’t appear to be any real significant coverage of the subject on websites not affiliated with the subject. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 05:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Products, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of ZX Spectrum clones. One good reference in Retro Gamer (paywalled [2] or [3]), and one where I'm unsure of reliability: [4], and I think we have enough for a mention. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per A412. Retro Gamer reference is sufficient for inclusion. Pavlor (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per A 412. Both Time Extension and Retro Gamer are reliable per WP:VG/RS. --Mika1h (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created the page. It was reviewed in PC Pro, Retro Gamer and Crash magazines. It's a proper boxed manufactured product. It served as continued reading from the ZX Spectrum Vega+ article. The mag reviews mention Vega+ (notorious product). Happy if you think it belongs elsewhere but I'm unsure if it's defined as an actual clone (a "copy"), as per merging it to the ZX Spectrum clones page mentioned above. Isn't clone defined as around the same hardware? I am familiar with N-Go and it's a clone of the ZX Spectrum Next machine, for instance. Revolt (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide references to those sources such that they can be evaluated? The question being evaluated is one of notability.

~ A412 ^talk! 15:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pretty near to merge, but would like to see Revolt's probable references they mentioned.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 San Diego earthquake

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

No indication of notability or damage in the article. Luckily it seems to have been unimpactful so an article isn't needed. The elephants are oddly the subject of the most coverage but in that case should be on San Diego Zoo or some variant; the earthquake itself is not notable. Departure– (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a list somewhere? Surely we list the quakes. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merging currently doesn't appear possible. List of earthquakes in 2025 requires earthquakes to be over 6.0 magnitude; List of earthquakes in California has a "notable earthquakes" section this would likely fail; same for List of earthquakes in the United States. Departure– (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:SIGCOV. Not significant enough to merit a single article, most cases focuses on the San Diego Zoo elephants, not the quake's impact in the rest of Southern California. This isn't "2025 San Diego Zoo elephant alert circle incident". ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haryana Olympic Association

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

Fails GNG; there are little sources directly about this article, especially reliable. What little info already here is poorly cited. GoldRomean (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gabor sisters

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

Redundant WP:CONTENTFORK. All three sisters already have rich articles, at Zsa Zsa Gabor, Eva Gabor, and Magda Gabor. Having a separate page about them collectively serves no encyclopedic purpose and is highly aberrant. "Gabor sisters" is not a band/troupe of any sort – i.e. it is not like The Jackson 5 or even like Marx Brothers. It's simply a description of incidental familial relationship. We do sometimes have family articles, like Barrymore family, but not for just some siblings, versus something more dynastic. Gabor sisters should exist as a page, for navigational purposes, but simply as a WP:Disambiguation page with three bullet-list items in it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Theatre, United States of America, Hungary, Popular culture, Actors and filmmakers, and Women. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Best, --Discographer (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination rationale as an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. jolielover♥talk 18:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong High End Audio Visual Show

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

All sources in article are Template:Third-party violations. Sources I found online seem to be run-of-the-mill reporting, and don’t say anything noteworthy about this event. Roasted (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Asia. Roasted (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Ball Gardens

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

The article is quite incorrect; the last time it was even vaguely correct was WikiWikiWayne's version of from 19:43, 10 February 2018; the sources listed in the current version are either unavailable or just don't say what the article says; quite certainly the arcade started before 1973, since I was playing there in 1971; and really, it has no encyclopedic significance as it stands. With great regrets, having spent far too much of my college years there, and just having included it in my autobiographical blog... --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Travel and tourism, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Central Arizona Valley Institute of Technology

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

Joint educational district that fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. All I could find was either passing mentions or sources linked to the district. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joint technological education district as article creator. There is not enough SIGCOV. There is a need to bolster that article, but the concept is notable, and there is at least a redirect to list ATD. A lot of the smaller JTEDs (though not some of the ones covering metro Phoenix like EVIT or the Pima County one) probably fail the GNG too. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 16:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I think the JTEDs for the smaller Arizona counties should be merited to merge as an ATD. Though I do not oppose merging all of them into the Joint technological education district. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Qatari involvement in higher education in the United States

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North America-related deletion discussions. Manyyassin (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Manyyassin (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of independent reliable sources throughout this article, I argue that the majority of this article falls under Wikipedia:NOTADVOCACY. Wikipedia should not amplify reports (such as the ISGAP reports and the NCRI report) whose only evidence is an established correlation and not causation. Citing subsequent reporting by the media that further dramatizes the conclusions made by these reports certainly does not help the factual accuracy of this page. Furthermore, there are many statements in this article about critics "speculating", showing that this article is not seeking to provide facts behind this matter, but is simply repeating the speculations of a thinktank. An encyclopedia is not the place to do this.

Overall, the article relies on the speculation of critics and thinktanks and lends undue weight to their reports whose only evidence is flimsy correlative studies. Manyyassin (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An obvious COATRACK ESSAY that overwhelmingly deals with one issue and nothing else; it's one thing if this article talks about many effects, positive or negative, but this is just too much about one topic that does not feature many neutral sources. Nathannah • 📮 16:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG with sources like [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. A rename to something like "Foreign donations..." might be appropriate, since Qatar is the largest donor but other countries such as Saudi Arabia and China are also involved. The ISGAP/NCRI reports have been mentioned in reliable sources, so claiming that "Wikipedia should not amplify" them is puzzling. Also puzzling is the claim that the page "overwhelmingly deals with one issue" - yes, that is what a single Wikipedia page is expected to do. Other complaints about "undue weight" and "speculation" are content disputes about what should be in the article, not about whether it should exist. Astaire (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suman Shringi

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

Mayors may be notable, if they got substantial coverage in secondary sources other than some routine media coverage. This subject lacks SIGCOV in secondary sources and thus fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. TheSlumPanda (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Rajasthan. TheSlumPanda (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Freeman (Mormon)

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

Fails WP:NBIO. This person does not appear to be notable except in connection with the 1978 Revelation on Priesthood and the content of this article should therefore be merged into that one. Jbt89 (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Discrimination, and Latter Day Saints. Jbt89 (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Colorado, Hawaii, North Carolina, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep ~~as well as being an elder he served for a time as a LDS bishop and we usually keep articles about bishops of major religions.~~ The article includes references/ notes to reliable newspaper coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note that LDS bishops are not the same level of hierarchy in most other christian denominations like catholicism. They are more analogous to priests. I am neutral about this page otherwise.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet WP:GNG to me due to the sources around him. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one incident. As Anonrfjwhuikdzz pointed out, bishop in the LDS Church is equivalent to a priest or pastor in most churches. Bearian (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Table football (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary dab page. Nothing listed in this page with "Table football". Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing ambiguous about this list of related variations on a concept. BD2412 T 01:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda keep Seems useful enough to me. Govvy (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reasonable list of games that can be referred to as "table football." Frank Anchor 14:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Govvy, seems sensible and useful. Giant Snowman 17:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is reasonable that someone could refer to any of these as table football. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a useful disambig. There's also Table football. -- mikeblas (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only Penny football claims it's also referred to as table football, but the closest source doesn't support that. These entries should all go into Table football#See also. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway Touch Pad

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only two references on this page (one of it's release and one of its discontinuation), and all I can find on Google are more outlets reporting on it's release. Madeline1805 (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arts Council~Haliburton Highlands

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

Arts council that fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. A BEFORE search, I could not find any other sources that weren't liked to the organization or a brief, trivial mention, it has got some local news coverage, but I'm not sure if that can cement notability. Not to mention almost the entire article's tone is promotional. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Arts Council- Haliburton Highlands has received independent + detailed in local news at the very least [16][17]. The events they put on in the region have also received non-trivial coverage [18]. They received direct support from the Canadian government to start an ongoing symposium on performing arts in rural communities [19]. News about the organization has been presented in the Toronto Star as well [20] .This coverage spans at least a decade, so it's not a small burst. Between the primary source of its website and local coverage that is sometimes included in major Canadian newspapers, it seems like the council is notable + provides a significant amount of arts programming in the Haliburton region. I vote to keep though I agree the article should be updated.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply sources 1,2,3 and 5 come up with 404 pages, are they availble on the Wayback Machine? ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I malformatted the links. The links are fixed and the pages are still live. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Organizations. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is more of a promotion for the orgnaization than anything else. Was created by a single pupose editor in 2009 with not much editing from any other editor since. Probably COI issue. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - The original author itself was banned in 2009 for being an advertising account, something seems fishy here. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A lot of the article text concerns the history of arts initiatives in the area prior to the formation of this Arts Council: such content probably belongs in Haliburton_County#Arts_and_culture (suitably referenced, though). That leads to a wider suggestion that a merge and redirect may be a possibility? AllyD (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy with this outcome. There is probably enough coverage available to make a standalone page about the arts in the Haliburton area if the section in Haliburton County becomes too lengthy. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - although I'm starting to get on the fence of notability, the article does have a pretty large COI and PROMO issue. Maybe the article should be WP:TNT? ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 15:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources provided in this discussion - particularly the Toronto Star article - confirm notability. The content itself should be improved - but that's a different discussion. Nfitz (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Parliamentarians for Israel

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

FLAG PAGE FOR DELETION.

Nothing relevant on this page. Info is already contained in the wiki pages of individual members.

It is very short as a wiki article and contains next to no pertinent information.

Most MPs listed no longer sit in commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchMonth (talk • contribs) 15:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Arul Carasala

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

This article fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG. The sources are very weak and do not prove that this killing is notable enough to have significant impact on the world. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 11:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, United States of America, and Kansas. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 11:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: This event is still under investigation, and new details might emerge. I wouldn't immediately jump to deletion. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 11:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LunaEclipse, WP:CRYSTAL. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 12:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reading Beans, ??? My intention was to draftify the article and wait for new info to come out, and not add speculation to articles. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 15:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. Some parts read like you were expecting some more coverage to come in the future. I should have kept my opinion to myself. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 15:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the assassination of a working priest is notable. Period. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:N, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL There's no article for Arul Carasala, so I don't see how their death/killing is notable. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 16:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quite often articles for killings are notable without the need of a separate biography article. Whether a previous biography exists is irrelevant here. MarioGom (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per Eclipse, it could potentially meet notability requirements if more details are revealed, however in its current form it is not notable.

Madeline1805 (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slide (FBG Duck song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Affiliated with artist article deleted after nomination which was recreated. DBrown SPS (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources present in the article already establish notability. The song is discussed individually in e.g. the Pitchfork reference, so this shouldn't be redirected. Stockhausenfan (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not even gonna principate in this discussion because its an obivous Keep Imao. Momentoftrue (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Obivous Keep Imao" is not a policy and guidelines based argument, and will be discarded as such. If you don't wish to participate in this AfD, there is no need to come here and inform us of your wishes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Clout

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

Lacks WP:MUSICBIO and WP:RELIABILITY. Also affiliated with article recreated third time following deletion by nomination. DBrown SPS (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination rests on flawed reasoning and misapplied policies. Big Clout is a released studio album, distributed by Columbia Records, a major label already a solid claim to notability per WP:NALBUM Criterion 1.

Coverage includes a contemporaneous album review from HotNewHipHop, a site consistently accepted in similar music AfDs. In addition, DailyLoud and RateYourMusic supporting reception and while not all these sites are perfect individually, collectively they contribute to WP:GNG by showing ongoing attention and critique of the album.

The deletion rationale claims "reliability" and "affiliation with a previously deleted article," but this doesn't hold. FBG Duck's article was not deleted, but kept after discussion, which invalidates arguments based solely on association. Even if it had been deleted, notability is not inherited but it's also not denied based on supposed guilt-by-association. That logic is unsound.

Finally, per WP:NOTCLEANUP, AfD is not the place for challenging article quality or formatting. If reliability or sourcing were truly the issue, the proper action would be tagging or improving, not deletion. Momentoftrue (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vissa

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

Nominating for deletion as the subject appears to fail WP:GNG. The article relies on references from industry portals Indiantelevision.com and idlebrain.com. These types of situational sources (WP:SIRS) generally do not provide the multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources required by GNG. A WP:BEFORE search confirmed the lack of adequate additional sourcing needed to establish notability. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Andhra Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Reconstruction Front

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

not notable, no sources, this is a dictionary entry, not a wikipedia article Yilku1 (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Haiti. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jail (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is much notability of the song's origins being discussed in background and the info around inclusion of "Pt 2", as well as Jay-Z's feature and chart positions are obviously not the be-all-end-all yet the song charted in so many countries these obviously have an affect on notability. --K. Peake 07:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notable songs need to be the subject of multiple in-depth independent sources—album reviews do not count. Do you have sources that show this? WP:NSONG is explicit that charting is only a positive indicator that a search for significant coverage will be successful—charting history does not relax coverage standards for song notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 09:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 08:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Burn (¥$ song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 08:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After Midnight (Chappell Roan song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". I believe 1, 2, 3 have more than trivial mentions, and along with the other sources used in the article, allow for a reasonably detailed article. Medxvo (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NSONG is explicit that album reviews do not establish notability for songs. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two of these sources are track rankings, not album reviews. Per WP:GNG "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)". An article has to meet either GNG or NSONG, even though it meets NSONG in my opinion for having a reasonably detailed article and two certifications. Medxvo (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Full-album track rankings are definitely album reviews. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They still have more than trivial mentions, which should meet WP:GNG. Medxvo (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question I agree with Medxvo that the article passes WP:GNG insofar as it has "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". However, I also simultaneously agree with Zanahary that this fails WP:NSONG. I think there is an inherent conflict between WP:GNG and WP:NSONG here because multiple instances of in-depth, detailed discussion within album reviews clearly passes the plain language of WP:GNG, but also clearly fail the specific criteria in WP:NSONG. I'm inclined to lean towards a keep vote because WP:GNG says either its language or the subject-specific notability policy can both work, but for them to be basically directly contradictory seems odd. Can anyone provide insight about which one governs - has this issue been discussed by the community in the past? Does this merit an RFC or a modification to these criteria to avoid such a blatant contradiction? Flip^and Flopped ツ 05:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Upon consulting other AfD noms, I see some evidence from prior AfDs that the community has interpreted WP:GNG to save the article even when WP:NSONG is not met; see e.g. this 2024 AfD to that effect. In the absence of an RFC clarifying otherwise, I say Keep per WP:GNG's statement that "the article can meet either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)" (emphasis added). Flip^and Flopped ツ 17:13, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV: there are plenty of reviews that more than name-check the song. As I've said before, mixed reviews are the best way of ascertaining the significance for a book, song, or play. The Pitchfork and Buzzfeed reviews for this single are illustrative of this phenomenon. Bearian (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent album. The album reviews don't write more than a sentence about the song. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crybaby (SZA song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; no WP:SIGCOV of this song. Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the rationale of "no WP:SIGCOV" is baffling; a HotNewHipHop source cited in the article proves otherwise. That aside, there was coverage of this song back when it was still unreleased, starting with the BST Hyde Park teaser (Wonderland magazine, Nylon, Teen Vogue). It was teased again at Lollapalooza 2024, which Rolling Stone covered (although briefly, I will admit). Regardless, all of these sources highlight the lyrics, composition, and/or accompanying visuals (that specified some sort of bug aesthetic), in some form or another. I'd argue these constitute enough SIGCOV for the song. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 19:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A single HNHH review is not sufficiently significant coverage, in my view. Without a source that connects those pre-release sources to Crybaby, it’s original and irrelevant as far as establishing the song’s notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Without a source that connects those pre-release sources to Crybaby" I do not know what this means and I am sure no enwiki deletion guideline (or any guideline for that matter) supports this either. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 07:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating what I've said about SIGCOV somewhere else: for an article subject to have SIGCOV, there should be "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." With most of the sources above that is clearly what is happening. And SNGs do not supersede GNG; "A topic is presumed to merit an article if (1) it meets either the [GNG] or [SNG]", to quote WP:N. Furthermore, there is enough content in this article such that merging it to the album article in a way that would keep the essential, cited information would give the subject undue weight (all this to say that NOPAGE does not apply). Quoting a sample of the references used in the article to show the coverage the song has received:
In Nylon, "After hinting at something new in the works, the SOS singer just shared an ethereal and mysterious clip featuring new music — and an earthy and fresh aesthetic. 'I know you told stories about me,' she croons over a groovy bass line and distant nature sound effects. 'Most of them awful, all of them true. Here's some for you.' In the clip, which appears to be for new track 'Storytime,' a camera pushes through a dark forest before stopping in front of a blue-colored, insect-like creature with long antennae. As it turns out, the bug in question is none other than SZA herself [...] And if there was any doubt about what the visual pivot implied, she confirmed that her long-awaited follow-up is, in fact, coming after playing the 'Storytime' snippet in London. 'New album, you ready?' she shouted to an enthusiastic crowd."

In HotNewHipHop, "Its origins supposedly trace back to a Hyde Park set in London during the summer of this year. Then, it was teased at the end of the full music video for 'Drive' yesterday. Now, the completed version is here, and it's got some great writing and stunning singing, which is what you come to expect from SZA. It finds her taking on her flaws and insecurities and embracing them. Overall, she's faced a lot of pressure throughout her career; something she acknowledges on the first verse. But the way she was able flip the narrative around on her 'Cry Baby' is special. [indicates what the writer believes are 'quotable lyrics']"

In Teen Vogue, "She also teased a snippet of an unreleased track called 'Storytime' during her set and made things official on Instagram by posting a teaser of her forthcoming album featuring the song and mimicking her new set’s aesthetics, ending with a closeup of SZA herself transformed into a bug [...] Fans believe all the teasers are in reference to Lana, which the singer had previously announced as her next album [...] There have been plenty of teasers for the project to date, but her BST performance is the first time the singer has referenced a 'new album' explicitly in a while."

Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 01:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to the album; as I said in the last AfD, charting at 71 (or 70) in this case isn't terribly notable. Sourcing used is focused on the album as a collection of songs, not about any song in particular. The package of songs/album maybe remembered, but each song barely got critical notice by itself. Oaktree b (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elias's rationale above, but also note that the outcome of this AfD nom is potentially dependent on outcome of the ongoing RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music). Flip^and Flopped ツ 02:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Was a proper WP:BEFORE actually done on this? There are three song nominations in 3 minutes from Zanahary, not to mention another 10ish in the previous 15, all from exceptionally popular artists. I'm not convinced due diligence is being done on any of these nominations, and it's just putting a burden on other editors.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are definitely other sources going in depth about the song itself:

https://www.stayfreeradioip.com/post/sza-crybaby-meaning-and-review

https://www.hercampus.com/culture/sza-crybaby-lyrics-explained/

These are more blog-like sources and ultimately may be deemed unreliable, but I would expect them to give some pause for reading between nominations. Considering WP:PRESERVE quickly nominating a bunch of articles based on NSONG should not be a first resort. Start by tagging the articles at least, and if nothing changes come back and then nominate for deletion. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources don't seem reliable at all. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 11:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of current Jesuit cardinals

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

This content is largely overlapping with the Wikipedia page List of current cardinals, where readers can see which religious orders are represented in the College of Cardinals and how many cardinals are associated with a particular order. The article is largely out of date and has but a few sources, other religious orders don't have such articles for listing current cardinals. Killuminator (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Christianity. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not seeing any coverage of this subject as a group to pass WP:NLIST. The source in-article that describes this group is an WP:SPS college faculty member's personal webpage and thus not a reliable source. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Baker (entertainer)

AfDs for this article:

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

Was nominated by Badbluebus back in February, and was closed as a soft delete, with only one other editor !voting for delete. No oppose votes. There simply is not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show that they pass notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Field Trip (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2014-08 move to → Field Trip (Toby Keith song)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am objecting to this AfD to prevent it being closed as soft delete/redirect. The first source in the article seems to be specific to the song. This deserves further discussion. Toadspike [Talk] 08:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdi Awad Ali

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

He gets a lot of mentions, but I can't find any significant coverage of him in independent, reliable sources. The current sourcing barely mentions him at all. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Somalia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Debendra Green Grove English High School

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

Does not pass WP:NORG as there are no WP:RS to support. WP:BEFORE can't reflect enough citations to support the case. Bakhtar40 (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Assam. Bakhtar40 (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in It

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are multiple articles discussing the context of Assassin's feature on this song, not Yeezus itself, multiple remixes, 1 this source is dedicated to the song and it charted in the US. --K. Peake 19:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is the only source about this song. The guideline asks for multiple. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 08:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There have been too many Article For Deletion AFD for Kanye West, I don't listen to him but seeing that this one has improved considerably my vote is Keep. Iban14mxl (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No edits have been made to the article at all since deletion—what do you mean when you say this article has been improved? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: arguments to keep would be strengthened with clear discussion of what sourcing exists to establish notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dafuniks

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

The band does not meet criteria set out by WP:BAND and has not been the subject of coverage to meet WP:BASIC. Uffda608 (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Denmark, Music, and Bands and musicians. Uffda608 (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2025 (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/2025 April 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Singhal (entrepreneur)

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

I can't see any significant coverage which can justify the topic's notability. Fails WP:GNG. SatNam20 (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, India, and West Bengal. SatNam20 (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zaur Hasanov

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

The person is not a notable. Yousiphh (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Illest Motherfucker Alive

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 08:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of seven nominations by this nominator being pointlessly relisted today alone (Frank's Track (AfD discussion), Hoodrat (AfD discussion), Jail (song) (AfD discussion), I'm in It (AfD discussion), Illest Motherfucker Alive (AfD discussion), God Is (AfD discussion), Burn (¥$ song) (AfD discussion)) that are a waste of everyone's time because deletion is not requested either by the nominatior or by anyone else at all even after a week. This is Articles for deletion. If it does not involve the administrator deletion tool, this is not the place. Uncle G (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This How I'm Coming 2

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

Fails WP:RELIABILITY; affiliated with article of artist deleted following nomination. DBrown SPS (talk) 09:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article meets the criteria for standalone notability under WP:NALBUM. The mixtape features "Slide," which became one of FBG Duck's most notable singles, peaking at #15 on the Billboard Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart.^[1] and went certified gold^[2] That’s significant coverage in a highly reliable, independent source.

The album is also part of an established mixtape series. Momentoftrue (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Shaikh (actor)

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

The sources cover the person in brief and in a passing manner or using his citations primarily. No significant independent and multiple sources per GNG or ANYBIO. Cinder painter (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Repost of deleted and salted material: Salman Shaikh/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salman Shaikh. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pppery the nomination you mentioned was about 4 years ago and the subject of the article has from then, received significant roles in television and movies and also has received good amount of coverage from TOI and more sources. The title was salted because apart from this subject there were several more subjects with the same name trying to create articles on this title page. Knowledgedghoul (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has several lead roles in television and films, supporting roles and decent coverage. If you consider that there are tons of pages on Wikipedia which are kept having lesser coverage and work credits. Knowledgedghoul (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Knowledgedghoul (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP: NACTOR- various significant roles (recurring/supporting) in notable productions. -Mushy Yank. 19:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Salman Shaikh: meets WP: NACTOR with multiple significant roles in various notable shows. The actor has played several parallel and negative lead roles in various shows and currently playing the parallel lead in Pocket Mein Aasman.--Iamaninnocentsoul (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vulnerable (Selena Gomez song)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no revelant sources to support the song on its own. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rare (Selena Gomez album). Has received coverage independent of the album at Glamour, Business Insider, Time, but coverage can probably adequately be incorporated in the album article as I don't see this article's body being more than 4 paragraphs long. Heartfox (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Top 20 song on two charts, and three reviews of at least a full sentence, indicating significant coverage. I'm not opposed to a merger. Bearian (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Bearian, The song entered charts in different countries and was featured in reliable sources like Time, Business Insider, and Glamour. Even if the article is short, it meets WP:NSONG with independent and relevant coverage. 06:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NSONG Iban14mxl (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or ATD Merge, or Redirect to Rare (Selena Gomez album) per Heartfox. Not seeing independent notability. "Three reviews of at least a full sentence" would be an indication of "NOT" meeting NSONG or GNG when deciding if an article should have a page. "indicating significant coverage", becomes moot when notability is challenged and would be satisfied by a HEY. As far as I can tell, almost every source in the article would meld into Rare as that is the main topic. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled (Lee Kelly, 1973)

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

I'll admit this one is pretty difficult to search for, but I don't think it's notable; the site for the capitol grounds appear to be the only real coverage of this piece of public art. Belongs on a list of the artist's works and a list of public art installations in the city. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the work is cited as being among the Washington Capitol collection, a prominent sculpture collection in the Northwest U.S. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- This appears to agree with the nominator that the collection is the subject. Uncle G (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of public art in Olympia, Washington, which Uncle G did a nice job touching up. The offical source is not even substantive. An artwork does not inherit notability from its location or the collection it's in, that's no basis for single-sentence, single-source pages. If the collection is prominent, you are welcome to expand Washington State Capitol#Art and monuments as well. Reywas92^Talk 13:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources shared on the article's Talk page and now included as bare citations in the entry. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Give us one fact from those sources that is neither in the Washington State official blurb nor the Crooks book. (Hint: Historians can read newspapers, too.) Uncle G (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not the standard for notability, but the first article says that the model for the statute was created in wood. A fact (among several at least) that's in the article and not in either the official blurb or Crooks. Jahaza (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a way to evaluate the depths of the sources being waved around, which have been merely described as "this" and "a bit weak"; and notability is very much about the depth of sourcing. If you aren't looking for depth, you aren't doing it right. Uncle G (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok ... But no response to the fact that the articles do contain facts not found in Crooks or the official blurb? Jahaza (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the coverage seems to have happened because of the prominent location of the work, but the coverage exists. Jahaza (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gojo (character)

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

This article has been unsourced since 2023, all the Raj-specific sources I could find are unreliable, and people searching this are more likely looking for Satoru (which, to be fair, IS hatnoted but still). I know this because this article has gotten 433 pageviews in the past 30 days BUT the article on Satoru alone has gotten 15,160 in the past 10 User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 10:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haroon-Gavin

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

Non-notable music composer duo. Sources are just passing mentions and reworded press releases. Nothing in-depth or independent. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Junbeesh (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Maharashtra. Junbeesh (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Film, and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Languages (YouTube)

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

This YouTube channel does not meet the inclusion criteria. After reviewing the cited sources, it is clear that there is a lack of significant, independent, and reliable coverage necessary to establish notability. The first two sources are interviews with the subject, which are inherently not independent and cannot be used to demonstrate notability. The third source, published by the University of Münster (uni-muenster), also fails the independence test, as the host of the YouTube channel appears to be an alumna of the same university. The fifth source cited in the article does not mention the YouTube channel at all. Junbeesh (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Germany. Junbeesh (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I fixed a broken link which was the reason why the fifth source was being claimed as irrelevant. In addition, the idea that writing about an alumna is a conflict of interest seems spurious to me. This seems like the same idea as arguing that academic journals are default biased by focusing on a specific topic; the topic here is just "alumni/ae of the University of Münster" instead of something like "education". Mcavoybickford (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aap Ke Liye Hum

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreleased film that does not meet WP:NFILM or WP:UNRELEASED. This isn't like Batgirl or Marudhanayagam whose failure to release or even complete filming made headlines. I'm not opposed to merging this with June R. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as you say. Given the announced cast. But what makes you say it was not released? -Mushy Yank. 13:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Over here, one of the film's actors says, "As far as 'Aap Ke Liye Hum' is concerned, I don't know what is the status of the film, or when is it going to release". Kailash29792 (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -Mushy Yank. 14:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Super Blood Hockey

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

Fails GNG via a lack of significant coverage. All the sources are routine coverage of the release of a game and are short sentences or paragraph of basic descriptions of the game. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with the characterization of the Nintendo Life source as "short sentence", "paragraph", or "basic description of the game". It's 531 words, six paragraphs, and contains substantial review content. In addition to the sources in the article, other sources considered acceptable per WP:VG/RS: Nintendo World Report [21], Nintendojo [22], and Gamestar [23]. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The dumbness of the EU cookie consent law

AfDs for this article:

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

This looks like an example of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT, an op-ed/blog post about EU law. It looks like the EU cookie directive section on the HTTP cookie page covers this topic well enough. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is fundamentally not Wikipedia material and it looks like just the opinion of one editor. If it really represents a commonly held idea on criticizing the EU cookie consent law, its title would not have the word "dumbness". As far I have seen, I have not seen any criticism page which contains the word "dumbness", much less has it in its title. Dr. Hyde, muahahaha _{jekyllthefabulous} (speak, or you shall die) 05:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Chock full of WP:OR, all sources are unreliable (Reddit as a source, really?), complete violation of WP:NPOV throughout, even in the title. Blow it up! jolielover♥talk 06:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
quick comment, the first nomination isn't formatted properly and was created about the same time. Should we merge this? jolielover♥talk 06:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. Dr. Hyde, muahahaha _{jekyllthefabulous} (speak, or you shall die) 07:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unencyclopedic essay, POV-fork, etc. I know essays don’t get speedy deletes, but I would support… a really fast delete! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (WP:SNOW or WP:IAR) From the title of the article onwards it is clear this is an opinon piece and not encyclopaedic content. Dorsetonian (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was nominated for speedy deletion a few hours ago, and then it was contested by someone who thought that it was just the tone that was the problem, such that it could be improved. Dr. Hyde, muahahaha _{jekyllthefabulous} (speak, or you shall die) 07:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy was rejected because A7 did not apply - it is not about a website. Dorsetonian (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As Dorsetonian said, A7 does not apply to this article. I removed the speedy tag for that reason alone, not because I thought the article had much potential. I considered redirecting it to the target of EU cookie directive, but I didn't think a title with "dumbness" would be a plausible search term. I tagged it with {{tone}} because that was the clearest issue I could identify, and planned to come back to it the next day to decide whether to tag it with PROD or nominate it here at AfD. Now that someone's beaten me to it, I have no objection to its deletion. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to tag it for speedy deletion immediately after one CSD got rejected, and I don't actually know if there's a CSD criteria for editorializing. It isn't G1, G10 or A11, so AfD might be the right process? BuySomeApples (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Websites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per blatant WP:NPOV violation and common sense (low-effort opinion piece).
Delete. Blatant op-ed with lousy sourcing. 2405:DA40:5017:7800:6C96:474B:278:A7AD (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Click-bait title, this isn't something wikipedia needs. The opinions mentioned could be a sentence in the main European cookie article, but none are from a RS regardless. Oaktree b (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely biased and non-encyclopaedic. Could be a WP:G11 ("promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc.) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a place for posting your rants. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOT / WP:NPOV Squawk7700 (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: That even the title, much less the actual content, fails WP:NOTOPINION probably says all that needs to be said here. I'm not entirely sure if any speedy deletion criterion perfectly fits, but I don't expect this to need the full seven days either. (And the only reason this is the "second nomination" was because the first nomination by Mcduarte2000 (talk · contribs); was incomplete and unformatted; I also note that just before that one, new user DeltaWeb (talk · contribs) attempted to nominate this via the talk page. Both prior attempts more-or-less expressed the same concerns pretty much everyone else has.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur that this is what we're NOT supposed to do... Just one person's opinion, fine for your instragram page but not here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and probably eligible for speedy, it is not neutral at all. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adwaidh.R (dancer)

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

Not notable. None of the listed references mention an "Adwaidh", and a Google search didn't turn up any reliable sources. (NPP action) jlwoodwa (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Dance, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promo with only insignificant sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Animecon (Netherlands)

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

Cannot find sources. All sources in article are Template:Third-party violations. Roasted (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Video games, Anime and manga, Entertainment, Events, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jedi Quest

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NBOOKS, I didn't any reviews or appearances on bestseller lists. Suggesting a redirection to List of Star Wars books. Mika1h (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Mika1h (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm seeing VALNET stuff like this listicle, so they clearly exist and are discussed, but it's not clear to me whether the series is notable or not. Of note, however, I like the fact that we have one article for a series, rather than one for each of the 11 books, so for that reason, I'm leaning towards keep. Jclemens (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are some sources I found about books in the series:
1. Thomas, Harry (2001-10-21). "Anakin's trek to dark side". San Antonio Express-News. Archived from the original on 2025-04-14. Retrieved 2025-04-14.
  The review notes: "Star Wars Jedi Quest: Path To Truth ... While the novel is mainly aimed at the 9-12 set, older readers interested in the "Star Wars" universe will find this book interesting, if a little slower than the more adult-oriented novels."
2. "The Way of the Apprentice review". Canadian Review of Materials. 2002-10-18.
  This book verifies that the book was reviewed in Canadian Review of Materials.
3. Szadkowski, Joseph (2001-08-11). "Weapon Kosher deployed to fight the Evil Produce". The Washington Times. Archived from the original on 2025-04-14. Retrieved 2025-04-14.
  The review notes: "3. Star Wars: Jedi Quest, No. 1 (Dark Horse Comics, $2.99). If Anakin is to become a Jedi, he must follow the teachings of his master, Obi-Wan Kenobi. One of the first steps on the long and intense journey to becoming a Jedi is to overcome fear, and the young former slave who now trains to be a Jedi has encountered more than his fair share of fearful elements in the universe. Now, as a Jedi-in-training, Anakin accepts a mission that will force him to confront his deepest, darkest fears - first on a spiritual training exercise, and eventually face-to-face with the memories that haunt him most. The force permeates through 32 pages of Kenobi-inspired color. Why should I (the consumer) care? This four-issue miniseries provides a graphic companion to the Jude Watson's Bantam Star Wars novel of the same name, being released later this month. Readers will get the background on a 12-year-old Anakin Skywalker as he learns the Jedi craft, battles space pirates such as Krayn the ugly, builds his lightsaber and develops a personality only the Dark Lords of the Sith would admire."
Cunard (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided above. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Wow, I remember reading this book. It wasn't very good but that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't notable. Kevin J. Anderson's first novel in the SW Extended Universe, was it?~~ EDIT: I am clearly thinking about the other Jedi Quest. I see that the only two sources listed in the article are TheForce.net. Let's see if we can do better. I don't think that the fact that any individual book in the series had a brief review in an RS necessarily proves the series' notability. I'd rather see an analysis of the cultural significance of hte series overall. In this case, we've got our work cut out for us what with the Anderson novel of the same name jamming the search results. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

José Antonio Sossa

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

Insufficient coverage, limited to talking about BLP court cases. I compile part of the conditions of a BLP "Biographies of living persons should be written conservatively and respecting the neutrality of the subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: its function is not to be sensationalist nor to be the main vehicle for the dissemination of judicial statements. Iban14mxl (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2025 (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/2025 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL. Seems like he held a national high position (attorney general). But I think the article needs to be clean up significantly but AFD is not clean up Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 01:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

apart from the fact that it is unknown when he was born Iban14mxl (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a reason to delete the page. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After reviewing all the sources, it's clear they do not support notability under either WP:GNG. The WP:SIGCOV of the subject is in unreliable sources 190.33.41.159 (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)— 190.33.41.159 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Jacoby (political consultant)

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:CRIMINAL. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources, just trivial one-sentence mention that he:

Worked as a canvasser on the 2020 Kanye West presidential campaign, collecting signatures.
Was arrested in 2008 and later pleaded guilty to charges of voter fraud. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment subject is mentioned in several reliable third-party publications and may meet WP:NBASIC if deeper search is performed. Mekomo (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being arrested does not exclude him. He was arrested in CA for doing Republican work. He personally did not commit the fraud. Jacoby has built things up since then to prevent the same thing happening. Jacoby is INNOCENT. Alympia.verougstraete (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the subject of the article has been subject to a huge about of coverage over the past four years, and if not a public figure, is very close. The article itself needs clean-up, but it's not so bad it needs a clean break. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, or at least through last week, but we are not the jury. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: Can you list some sources that provide a "huge amount of coverage" that is biographical, and not just trivial mention of his work with Kanye West, and his criminal conviction? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His work outside of Ye was discussed here, there, and yonder. Is that significant enough? Discuss. Bearian (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also discuss: is People magazine reliable enough? Bearian (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources do not support notability.

The first source describes his criminal activity and his company, with almost no biographical detail.
The second source describes his criminal activity, with almost no biographical detail.
The third source describes his criminal activity, with no biographical detail.

Please note that "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability", per WP:BASIC. --Magnolia677 (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meme hack

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

This seems to be an article on an obscure, disused term that was coined in the late 90s to early 2000s and is only used in two sources, and doesn't even seem to be meaningfully distinct from something like culture jamming or détournement. The second source is particularly weak as it doesn't even really provide anthing other than a definition on a defunct right-wing blog with very little information or further context. Iostn (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Détournement as an WP:ATD per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any more support for Redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Détournement as an WP:ATD .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
re: redirecting, I'm not actually sure if this should go to Détournement as there are several other articles this could go to, such as culture jamming or subvertising Iostn (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is Détournement the best redirect target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Term seems to have evolved into something else [24], but that's the only use of the phrase I can find. There are no RS discussing it regardless. Oaktree b (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if Détournement or any of the proposed targets really count. All of those involve defacing the meme, while the definition provided for Meme hack sounds more like Co-option#Second sense. What about we redirect there? (Also, about Oaktree's link, that seems to me a neologism that article attempted to coin and failed to popularize.) Aaron Liu (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, everyone is working hard to find a synonym to redirect to, but none of these are quite right, and Co-option is dangerously close to WP:DICDEF (if not a disambiguation or index page) and very poorly cited. Suggest we just get rid of Meme hack, given the lack of support for it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nemrah Ahmed Khan

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

The article is about author. I have searched about the subject but didn't find significant coverages.. That can pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Although I did come across a few mentions about the person, they were news-related and not about the work for which the person is known as an author. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am trying to find sources, not easy when I do not read Urdu. However, it looks like she may have had more than one bestseller - Mus'haf as noted (but not yet sourced) in the article, and Jannat Kay Pattay, mentioned in this [25] and this [26]. I will try to find better sources. I note too that on the Talk:Nemrah Ahmed Khan page, there is mention of other Romanised spellings of her name, including Nimra Ahmad. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Faradj Al-Shalawi

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

Declined prod. All the sources added are databases and not in depth coverage for meeting WP:SPORTSCRIT. I believe Olympians.sa is a primary source as a website of the Saudi Olympic Federation. LibStar (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Saudi Arabia. LibStar (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on WP:NEXIST, and not all sources added are databases, for example the olympians.sa source is a non-SIGCOV mention but not a database. I expanded the article just before it was nominated. I think the NEXIST case is strong here because the subject competed at multiple international championships and not just the Olympics, and had some significant achievements as the second-best cross country runner in Saudi Arabia, unlike most Olympian stubs. I'd expect more coverage to be found in Saudi newspaper archives from the 1970s. --Habst (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails SIGCOV. As for the NEXIST argument, I'm not convinced. Not sure how big on track and field the Saudis were in the 1970s, or even are now for that matter, and this guy didn't exactly set the world on fire with his performances. Seems like tilting at windmills to me. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indanan Kasim Daud

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

This page is not notable. A former mayor of a normal municipality is not a notable position to hold. Barely any reliable sources inside and outside the article. The article being a stub does not help the case any better. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 03:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Philippines. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 03:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG, NPOL. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 03:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Casimiro Andrada

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

This person is not notable. An old mayor of a 35k populated town does not seem notable. Barely any reliable sources are presented in the article and outside the article. Even though a high school is named after him, it does not bring any more reliable sources to his name. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 02:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Philippines. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 02:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WellPoint Systems

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

Subject doesn't appear to be notable - the current references in the article are almost (if not all) all primary sources, and upon search, I can't seem to find any reliable, secondary sources about the subject. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Canada. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, not to mention there is also a slight COI issue. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reformed systematic theology bibliography

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

without sources and all material is a newspaper archive or redirect to Systematic theology Iban14mxl (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2025 (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/2025 April 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: I don't see any valid rationale here. (The books themselves are sources, so it is not unsourced.) I don't see anything to do with a newspaper archive. These kinds of bibliographies have a valid rationale as standalone articles (see WP:BIB). This appears to be a malformed nomination from someone who has recently been warned by Liz for their AfD activity. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1953 Saarland national football team

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

No significant coverage. I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - article itself can't be sustained with no coverage; better idea is to merge/redirect these articles to country season articles if available. Also raises concerns on the existence of this template. FastCube (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Saarland national football team results Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't exist, and there would still need to be coverage. SL93 (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just found this discussion, where it was briefly discussed to merge them with Saarland national football team - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 168#National football team seasons. However, the needed information is already present in that article. SL93 (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or Merge -- No SIGCOV, either create and merge to Saarland national football team results or simply expand (if necessary) the information present in Saarland national football team.MWFwiki (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Saarland national football team results.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Saarland national football team results – As suggested above. Svartner (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - the article alone can't hold up, but I think a merger of all of them together would be the best solution. Squawk7700 (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gilberto Martínez (Mexican footballer)

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

The subject played three matches in Liga MX and a few more in Mexico's second tier. I've been unable to find anything beyond database entries, passing mentions in match reports and transfer announcements. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In concurrence with Robby.is.on and Svartner, it fails WP:GNG. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no RS. GoldRomean (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files

File:NISI20250102 0001741788 web.jpg

No appropriate licensing info given; likely copyvio. User has previously uploaded copyvios in the past seefooddiet (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: why is this image even here? There are no comments or description or places where its used. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unencyclopedic, not an image host. Buffs (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy seasons

Propose merging Category:The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy seasons to Category:The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy

Nominator's rationale: Only contains one article. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kuna people

Propose renaming Category:Kuna people to Category:Guna people
Propose renaming Category:Colombian people of Kuna descent to Category:Colombian people of Guna descent
Propose renaming Category:Panamanian people of Kuna descent to Category:Panamanian people of Guna descent

Nominator's rationale: Articles for Guna people and Guna language now both have the updated spelling, so for consistency the categories should be updated as well. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of KAJ

Propose deleting Category:Members of KAJ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: All redirects to the group's page. Consensus is to not have "musicians by band" categories unless at least two members have their own articles. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! I suppose all three members will soon have their own articles (as they do in sv fi he). So it should be deleted until they actually do become their own articles? Cogitato (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the articles for the individual members should exist before the category. If you're permitting, this can be speedy deleted per {{db-g7}}. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Superisliga players

Propose deleting Category:Superisliga players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of Category:Metal Ligaen players which is the article name of the league and older category. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Collection of the Nationalmuseum Stockholm

Propose renaming Category:Collection of the Nationalmuseum Stockholm to Category:Collection of Nationalmuseum
Propose renaming Category:Paintings in the Nationalmuseum Stockholm to Category:Paintings in Nationalmuseum
Propose renaming Category:Collection of the Moderna Museet to Category:Collection of Moderna Museet
Propose renaming Category:Paintings in the Moderna Museet to Category:Paintings in Moderna Museet

Nominator's rationale: Previously a speedy discussion, see Category talk:Paintings in the Nationalmuseum Stockholm. For the first case, NM, the article is at Nationalmuseum, the lead does not use "the Nationalmuseum", and the article sometimes use it. It may need a disambiguator, as Nationalmuseum may be created in other Germanic languages (and Swedish-speaking countries), but I'm starting here. For the second case, MM, "the" is not used within the article. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't speak any Scandinavian languages, but the question of whether or not to use the definite article in category names for museums with Danish (rather than Swedish) names came up on my talk page on Commons last year: :c:User talk:Ham II/Archive 4 § "in the Statens Museum for Kunst". The outcome of that discussion was that "the" was removed from all Commons categories relating to Statens Museum for Kunst (which we've elected to call the National Gallery of Denmark on the English Wikipedia).
The absence of a definite article in the article title Nationalmuseum is irrelevant to whether one should be used in running text in a category name. Ham II (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nature reserves in Håbo Municipality

Propose merging Category:Nature reserves in Håbo Municipality to Category:Nature reserves in Uppsala County and Category:Håbo Municipality
Propose merging Category:Nature reserves in Höganäs Municipality to Category:Nature reserves in Skåne County and Category:Höganäs Municipality
Propose merging Category:Nature reserves in Kristianstad Municipality to Category:Nature reserves in Skåne County and Category:Kristianstad Municipality
Propose merging Category:Nature reserves in Lund Municipality to Category:Nature reserves in Skåne County and Category:Lund Municipality
Propose merging Category:Nature reserves in Lysekil Municipality to Category:Nature reserves in Västra Götaland County and Category:Lysekil Municipality
Propose merging Category:Nature reserves in Vellinge Municipality to Category:Nature reserves in Skåne County and Category:Vellinge Municipality

Nominator's rationale: One article in each category; does not help navigation. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities in Sweden by county

Propose deleting Category:Cities in Sweden by county (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose merging Category:Cities in Blekinge County to Category:Cities in Sweden
Propose merging Category:Cities in Dalarna County to Category:Cities in Sweden
Propose merging Category:Cities in Gävleborg County to Category:Cities in Sweden
Propose merging Category:Cities in Gotland County to Category:Cities in Sweden
Propose merging Category:Cities in Halland County to Category:Cities in Sweden
Propose merging Category:Cities in Jämtland County to Category:Cities in Sweden
Propose merging Category:Cities in Jönköping County to Category:Cities in Sweden
Propose merging Category:Cities in Kalmar County to Category:Cities in Sweden
Propose merging Category:Cities in Kronoberg County to Category:Cities in Sweden
Propose merging Category:Cities in Norrbotten County to Category:Cities in Sweden
Propose merging Category:Cities in Örebro County to Category:Cities in Sweden
Propose merging Category:Cities in Östergötland County to Category:Cities in Sweden
Propose merging Category:Cities in Skåne County to Category:Cities in Sweden
Propose merging Category:Cities in Södermanland County to Category:Cities in Sweden
Propose merging Category:Cities in Stockholm County to Category:Cities in Sweden
Propose merging Category:Cities in Uppsala County to Category:Cities in Sweden
Propose merging Category:Cities in Värmland County to Category:Cities in Sweden
Propose merging Category:Cities in Västerbotten County to Category:Cities in Sweden
Propose merging Category:Cities in Västernorrland County to Category:Cities in Sweden
Propose merging Category:Cities in Västmanland County to Category:Cities in Sweden
Propose merging Category:Cities in Västra Götaland County to Category:Cities in Sweden

Nominator's rationale: City was an administrative status Sweden that existed until 1971; there were around 130 cities in total at the end. It has occurred merges and name changes of the counties since the status was removed. The proposal is a reverse of creation of these categories in 2022 because it is not useful to categorise these "former" cities by current counties and the categories are small. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Professional ice hockey leagues in Belgium

Propose merging Category:Professional ice hockey leagues in Belgium to Category:Professional sports leagues in Belgium, Category:Professional ice hockey leagues in Europe and Category:Ice hockey leagues in Belgium
Propose merging Category:Professional ice hockey leagues in Estonia to Category:Professional sports leagues in Estonia, Category:Professional ice hockey leagues in Europe and Category:Ice hockey leagues in Estonia
Propose merging Category:Professional ice hockey leagues in Israel to Category:Professional sports leagues in Israel, Category:Professional ice hockey leagues in Europe and Category:Ice hockey in Israel
Propose merging Category:Professional ice hockey leagues in Latvia to Category:Professional sports leagues in Latvia, Category:Professional ice hockey leagues in Europe and Category:Ice hockey leagues in Latvia
Propose merging Category:Professional ice hockey leagues in Poland to Category:Professional sports leagues in Poland, Category:Professional ice hockey leagues in Europe and Category:Ice hockey leagues in Poland

Nominator's rationale: One article or article and eponymous category in each category; does not help navigation. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 1856

Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 1856 to Category:1856 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 1856, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 1850s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 1859 to Category:1859 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 1859, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 1850s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 1864 to Category:1864 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 1864, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 1860s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 1869 to Category:1869 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 1869, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 1860s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 1871 to Category:1871 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 1871, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 1870s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 1872 to Category:1872 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 1872, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 1870s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 1880 to Category:1880 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 1880, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 1880s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 1882 to Category:1882 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 1882, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 1880s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 1885 to Category:1885 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 1885, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 1880s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 1888 to Category:1888 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 1888, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 1880s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 1903 to Category:1903 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 1903, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 1900s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 1906 to Category:1906 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 1906, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 1900s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 1907 to Category:1907 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 1907, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 1900s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 1909 to Category:1909 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 1909, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 1900s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 1913 to Category:1913 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 1913, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 1910s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 1918 to Category:1918 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 1918, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 1910s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 1925 to Category:1925 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 1925, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 1920s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 1932 to Category:1932 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 1932, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 1930s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 1946 to Category:1946 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 1946, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 1940s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 1959 to Category:1959 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 1959, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 1950s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 1960 to Category:1960 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 1960, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 1960s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 1969 to Category:1969 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 1969, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 1960s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 1970 to Category:1970 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 1970, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 1970s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 1971 to Category:1971 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 1971, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 1970s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 1980 to Category:1980 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 1980, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 1980s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 1987 to Category:1987 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 1987, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 1980s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 1991 to Category:1991 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 1991, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 1990s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 1993 to Category:1993 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 1993, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 1990s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 1998 to Category:1998 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 1998, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 1990s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 2001 to Category:2001 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 2001, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 2000s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 2006 to Category:2006 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 2006, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 2000s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 2008 to Category:2008 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 2008, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 2000s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 2012 to Category:2012 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 2012, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 2010s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 2013 to Category:2013 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 2013, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 2010s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 2019 to Category:2019 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 2019, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 2010s
Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 2023 to Category:2023 establishments in Sweden, Category:Railway stations opened in 2023, and Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in the 2020s

Nominator's rationale: One article in each category; does not help navigation. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Alby, Botkyrka

Propose merging Category:People from Alby, Botkyrka to Category:People from Botkyrka Municipality
Propose merging Category:People from Fittja to Category:People from Botkyrka Municipality
Propose merging Category:People from Grödinge to Category:People from Botkyrka Municipality
Propose merging Category:People from Norsborg to Category:People from Botkyrka Municipality
Propose merging Category:People from Mörkö to Category:People from Södertälje Municipality

Nominator's rationale: 1–2 articles in each category; does not help navigation. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works set in Illinois by city

Propose merging Category:Works set in Illinois by city to Category:Works set in Illinois and Category:Works set in the United States by city

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Priors of Great Malvern

Propose merging Category:Priors of Great Malvern to Category:English priors and Category:People from Malvern, Worcestershire

Nominator's rationale: merge for now, currently only one article, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scottish expatriates in the Republic of Venice

Propose merging Category:Scottish expatriates in the Republic of Venice to Category:Expatriates in the Republic of Venice

Nominator's rationale: merge for now, currently only one article, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Events by country

Propose renaming Category:Events by country to Category:Organized events by country

Nominator's rationale: rename and re-parent, with very few exceptions this is all about organized events. After renaming the category can be moved under Category:Organized events by location. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Västanfors

Propose renaming Category:People from Västanfors to Category:People from Fagersta

Nominator's rationale: A neighbourhood in Fagersta. Only three out of five articles mention Västanfors. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works set in Lublin

Propose merging Category:Works set in Lublin to Category:Culture in Lublin

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Holy Roman Empire in fiction

Propose merging Category:Holy Roman Empire in fiction to Category:Holy Roman Empire
Propose merging Category:Mughal Empire in fiction to Category:Works about Mughal Empire

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory each. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both per nom. The subcats are clear in the title that they are "works" cats, so they can be in the main cat, not needing this intermediary. - jc37 08:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hebrew names of Jewish holy days

Propose deleting Category:Hebrew names of Jewish holy days (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Upmerge to category:Jewish holy days Pointless category. The articles are not about names, but about holidays. --Altenmann >talk 04:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cemeteries in Katsina State

Propose merging Category:Cemeteries in Katsina State to Category:Katsina State

Nominator's rationale: redundant category layer ^SMason_Garrison 03:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. By the way the subcategory is meant to contain subcategories with cemetaries, but there are only biographies directly in it. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hausa-language literature awards

Propose splitting Category:Hausa-language literature awards to Category:Hausa literature and Category:Literary awards

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Underpopulated category ^SMason_Garrison 02:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Single merge, because the article is already in Category:Nigerian literary awards. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Violence against women in the Pitcairn Islands

Propose merging Category:Violence against women in the Pitcairn Islands to Category:Women in the Pitcairn Islands

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Underpopulated category. ^SMason_Garrison 02:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. (The article is already in Category:Violence against women in Oceania so a dual merge is not needed.) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Active churches in Turkey

Propose merging Category:Active churches in Turkey to Category:Churches in Turkey

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category. There isn't an Category:Active churches ^SMason_Garrison 02:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete, all content is already in a subcategory by denomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ethiopian Civil War nurses

Propose splitting Category:Ethiopian Civil War nurses to Category:People of the Ethiopian Civil War and Category:Wartime nurses

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This category is underpopulated ^SMason_Garrison 02:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American radicals

Propose deleting Category:American radicals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The term "radical" has a specific relation to classical radicalism. In the United States, that ideology was represented by the Radical Republicans, which already has Category:Radical Republicans contained within this one. Instead, the three political figures whose articles are tagged with this category are only united as Progressive Era reformers despite huge differences in their views. For example, Eugene V. Debs is tagged with Category:American anti-capitalists, while Henry George has Category:American anti-communists. With poor defining characteristics, this category can be vaguely labeled onto anyone involved in far-left or far-right politics and should be deleted accordingly for using "radical" as a subjective descriptor. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 01:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lean oppose. Deleting the category would isolate the child category Category:Radical Republicans. Your concern seems to be equally applicable to the parent category Category:Radicals and sibling categories, like British radicals, German radicals etc. ^SMason_Garrison 02:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input as the category creator! To clarify, if deleted, I would want Category:Radical Republicans to be a direct child of Category:Radicals rather than orphaned. The header text of Category:Radicals clarifying that "radicalism does not refer here to the American English sense of the term as a left or right-wing 'radical', but to the contrary to the political tradition of Radicalism" highlights why a category for American radicals is uniquely confusing, especially when the country's distinctly radical politicians already have their own category. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 02:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looking at several threads on Talk:Classical radicalism, it seems there is currently no consensus as to what the name of the page should be. So until that is squared away, it's difficult to decide what the name of the related categories should be. It would appear that Category:Radicals is an ambiguous name as-is, and probably needs some sort of modifying word or parenthetical. And until that is resolved, I'm not sure we can address this subcat as to whether it is appropriate categorisation or not. - jc37 06:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean support (with re-parenting of the subcategory), it looks as if it is not a defining characteristic of the three articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional characters by work

Merge Category:Fictional characters by franchise and medium to Fictional characters by work
Merge Category:Fictional characters by medium to Fictional characters by work
Merge Category:Fictional characters by franchise to Fictional characters by work

Ok, so we have three trees all doing effectively the same thing:

Category:Fictional elements by work
Category:Fictional elements by medium
And there is no Category:Fictional elements by franchise, they are just directly under Category:Mass media franchises.

And in looking at these: "by medium", is really "by medium of work", which we tend to categorise as "by work". And "by franchise", is really just "by related works".

These just create unnecessary intermediary layers between parent and child cats; and also broad segmentation of topics, which is a bane to navigation for our readers.

This is severe WP:OVERLAPCAT.

These trees all need cleanup. Elements of fiction (and related cats) are scattered everywhere. And the first step, I think, is that we need to unify under a single naming standard. Once we do that, we should be able to more easily clean up a lot of the mess.

So this is a test nom to see what we can decide about the "by work", "by medium", "by franchise", and "by franchise and medium", trees. I think they all need to be merged to a single tree of a unified name. What do you all think? - jc37 18:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all as nom. - jc37 18:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're not supposed to "vote" on something where you're the nominator.★Trekker (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not a vote. And I've been nominating things this way for decades. I have faith that the closer understands how to weigh consensus amongst commenters. - jc37 21:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Franchise and work are not identical concepts, nor is medium to either of them.★Trekker (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How would you define the difference between a work and a franchise? - jc37 21:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A franchise is a collection of works in a multitude of mediums. They can be distinguished the same way Wikipedia editors distinguish/decide when to use (franchise) or (film series) as disambiguators for articles.★Trekker (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the names of the three categories aren't clear enough, but the type of content in the three categories is very different. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So that we're both on the same page, please show some examples of what you mean? - jc37 01:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first category contains e.g. Category:Film characters by franchise, the second contains e.g. Category:Film characters, i.e. its parent, and the third category contains e.g. Category:The Godfather characters, which is not a subcategory of Category:Film characters by franchise because there is also a novel. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Therein lies part of the problem.

Ok, so we start at Category:Fictional characters

Then we go to Category:Fictional characters by medium

Then Category:Film characters

Then Category:Film characters by franchise

But then, as you note, Category:The Godfather characters is not in this chain at all.

So now we need to go look at: Category:fictional characters, and then its subcat Category:Fictional characters by franchise. Where we now find Category:The Godfather characters.

But if we merge the chains, then we would instead see these options:

Go to Category:Fictional characters

That category would have: Category:Fictional characters by work

And that category would have (among others) two subcats:Category:Film characters and Category:Literary characters

And from there, the reader could follow either tree to get to the subcat they are looking for: Category:The Godfather characters.

And so the reader wouldn't have to search all over to figure out what tree to follow, it's a straight line to find exactly what is wanted.

We don't need these intermediary levels which create duplicative trees. - jc37 23:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the franchise ones to Category:Fictional characters by work, etc. to remove any ambiguity as to what belongs there. As it stands, the by-medium categories contain few articles directly, but in addition to the by-work categories they have other intersectional subcats like Category:Black characters in films. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same problem:
Category:Fictional characters

Category:Fictional people by ethnicity

Category:Fictional black people

Category:Fictional black people by medium - Which also has Category:Fictional characters by medium as its parent cat.

And then we get to: Category:Black characters in films

There's no reason that Category:Fictional black people by medium can't be renamed to Category:Fictional black people by work (and categorized under Category:Fictional characters by work), and with the "by medium" tree gone, we're done. - jc37 23:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of different options are on the table; rename? Keep? Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 07:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I took a closer look to the argument by jc37, but I cannot see why multi-medium franchsies like The Godfather shouldn't be cross-listed. Some characters appear in both the novel and the films. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LaundryPizza03 - I'm not saying they shouldn't be in both the film and literary trees. I'm saying that categories with the words "by medium" in the title are an unnecessary intermediary step in those trees. That's what I was showing above. You can still get from point A to point B, without "by medium". - jc37 17:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so now I'd support merging all of the categories to Category:Fictional elements by work, etc. In contrast to "by continent" container categories, Category:Film characters by franchise (which would become Category:Film characters by work), both of the category trees would meet at a first-level subcategory, while Category:Amusement parks in China is two levels below Category:Amusement parks by continent — most countries are in a single continent. Category:Film characters by work would be necessary to separate from other traits such as Category:Black characters in films and Category:Film characters by year of introduction. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, we should sort by medium before work, and no top-level "by work" container category, which will lose no navigation capability because all works have a medium. Then Category:The Godfather characters would be crosslisted between Category:Film characters by franchise and Category:Literary characters by work (the inconsistency between these two is another reason to use "by work" exclusively), and Category:Comics supervillains would contain Category:Supervillains by publisher (probably renamed to Category:Comics supervillains by work). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, let me draw a diagram... –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Franchise/medium

Fictional characters

Fictional characters by medium

Fictional characters by franchise

Film characters

Fictional characters by franchise and medium

The Godfather characters

Science fiction characters by franchise

Film villains

Film characters by franchise

Star Wars characters

Austin Powers characters

Star Wars film characters

Continent/country

Amusement parks

Amusement parks by continent

Amusement parks by country

Amusement parks in Asia

Amusement parks in China

Amusement parks in Beijing

I think the best course of action is then to delete Category:Fictional characters by franchise and medium and use Category:Fictional characters by franchise to hold Category:Film characters by franchise. I am not sure about anything else. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for drawing the chart : )

It illustrates how the "by franchise" and "by medium" layer are duplicative, and could both be replaced with "by works" (as you note above).

So, in this chart, both FC by medium and FC by franchise would be merged to FC by work. And FC by franchise and medium deleted/upmerged to FC by work

Sci Fi chars by franchise (also part of the genre tree) renamed to SFC by work.

Film chars by franchise renamed/merged to Film chars by work

And the trees become a bit more straight-forward, and easier for the reader's to navigate. And it also (re-)unites various articles that should be part of the trees, which aren't, as Marcocapelle noted above.

Once this is done, cleanup will be MUCH easier : ) - jc37 23:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would this also mean eliminating the "by continent" category levels, since there are only seven of them? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proposing anything about "by continent" as far as I know. I'm merely looking at the fiction elements trees and see a spiderweb over varying choices of "how" to categorise them over the years, and was looking to unify them a bit, to the single term (works) that we seem to have settled on for films, literature, video games, etc. Due to how they are currently separated, "like" isn't being categorised with "like". They are being strewn across various similar trees. The godfather one is just an obvious example. And having a parent to hold cats that have "franchise" in the name", just segments things even more.

But if you mean it as an analogy, I think this is different than "continent". A continent is a geographical region. Countries are created boundaries upon this geographical region. (Though I suppose it could be argued that Eurasia is arbitrarily divided). So I don't know if they are a similar situation. Especially, since we don't seem to have genres of continents : )

Kidding aside, I'm not sure how you're intending the comparison. There are just a lot of ways in which these character cats are being subdivided, I think removing these two layers, aids navigation. We will still have subcats of FC in film, but they just will be categorised a tier (or 2) up. This will be helpful as we look at how these cats intesect with other trees as well. Which should also make it less confusing for editors who are trying to add things into the tree(s). - jc37 07:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to merging the trees — I think that point sums up nicely why we have continent categories. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37, StarTrekker, and LaundryPizza03: would you mind if we relist this discussion once more? I think, at the very least, that we need to confirm or clarify or summarize our positions before anyone else will be able to close this discussion. I suppose being WP:INVOLVED does not necessarily prevent us from relisting. Personally I got lost after 14 February but I am certainly willing to have a look at it again when things are more clearly presented. Or alternatively we close this discussion as no consensus and start an entirely fresh discussion that is hopefully more easy to follow. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Uninvolved, but I am taking Marcocapelle's suggestion. I am going to ping all participants and ask them for their current views on the categories. If you support a merge, which categories should be merged to which other categories?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc37, StarTrekker, LaundryPizza03, and Marcocapelle: what are your current thoughts on what, if anything, should be merged, and to which targets? Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the 3 nominated categories into Fictional characters by work, per nom (per WP:OVERLAPCAT), for the reasons laid out in the discussion. Basically these are unnecessary intermediary layers, and worse, they act as blocks to trees, and make it a.) more difficult to categorise pages appropriately, and b.) make it more difficult for the reader to find what they are looking for and c.) make the trees rather into an incompletely patchwork where some articles are not getting categorised appropriately due to "a". This streamlines the trees and will make cleanup of the various trees far easier. - jc37 05:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my oppose. I do not see how this categorization scheme is any more difficult or hindering for navigation than any other. If there are cases where franchise or medium doesn't make sense there is nothing stopping anyone from creating Fictional characters by work as another category.★Trekker (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slavery of Native Americans

Propose merging Category:Slavery of Native Americans to Category:Slavery and Native Americans

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories ^SMason_Garrison 03:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a valid subcategory. Maybe rename to Category:Slavery by Native Americans to clarify the distinction with Native Americans in slavery. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shouldn't a distinction exist for Category:Slavery in Native American culture (ie. pre-colonial/pre-reservization) and slaves owned by Native Americans in a colonial context? -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is too little known about pre-colonial slavery by Native Americans, there isn't even one article dedicated to that topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Split to Category:Slavery by Native Americans and Category:Slavery of Native Americans per Marcocapelle. These are exactly opposite of each other. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison: thoughts? it's lio! | talk | work 07:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I think that splitting them will be more trouble than it's worth. ^SMason_Garrison 11:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prune and Split Category:Slavery and Native Americans (and all its subcats which follow the format Category:X and slavery), to Category:Slavery of Native Americans and Category:Native American slave owners (alternate due to existing target name) per Marcocapelle. This is simply WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH. - jc37 19:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on jc37's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jc37's alternative is fine too. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag those categories; apologies for neglecting to do so earlier.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison: Thoughts? House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine ^SMason_Garrison 02:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Airstrikes by perpetrator

Propose renaming Category:Airstrikes by perpetrator to Category:Airstrikes by combatant

Nominator's rationale: NPOV issues with the term perpetrator -- perpetrator is an inherently value-laden term that assumes criminal activity, whereas combatant is a neutral term used in international law to describe participants in military conflicts. Althistwikibox (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not that this is strictly necessary, but here's the link to the Wiktionary entry for "perpetrator."

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/perpetrator

It's inextricably linked to the concept of criminal activity, and not all of the airstrikes are inherently criminal. Althistwikibox (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate rename to Category:Airstrikes by country involved. Remove from Category:Categories by perpetrator, which is probably unnecessary due to WP:NARROWCAT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be in favor of removing the category from Category:Categories by perpetrator, but I believe that Category:Airstrikes by country involved would be too restrictive, as airstrikes conducted under the auspices of NATO are also included in the category, and since NATO isn't a country, those would not be included in the alternate renamed category. Althistwikibox (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- With airstrikes by country we can move the NATO airstrikes to Category:Airstrikes, it is a possibility too (not that I am advocating anything). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename target? Not seeing any support for the current name.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 21:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question -- I'm new to Wikipedia, so I don't know all of the lingo around here. What do you mean by "rename target?" From context, I'm guessing that you're just looking for more consensus on changing the name, but I'm not quite sure. Althistwikibox (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Althistwikibox: Sorry, I just saw this now. By "rename target", I mean that if the category is renamed, what should it be renamed to? "Rename target" is shorthand for the new, post-renaming category name. If you have questions about anything I've said, you are always welcome on my talk page :) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 22:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Airstrikes by belligerent party following parent class Category:Military operations by belligerent party.
I note the existence of Category:Military operations by country involved as suggested by Zxcvbnm, but I worry that "country involved" is unclear for this category if we want to include the belligerent, assailant, or attacker but not the country getting bombed. While I'm not sure about the scope for Category:Military operations by country involved, usually military operations involve more reciprocal involvement, whereas airstrikes are often more one-sided. I'd probably prefer Category:Airstrikes by belligerent country for a country-specific category.
See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 7#Category:Categories by perpetrator for my thoughts on that parent category. Daask (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does Category:Airstrikes by belligerent party work?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Holidays

Propose splitting Category:Holidays to Category:Observances and Category:Vacation

Nominator's rationale: split, a holiday may mean an observance day, but holidays may also mean vacation. This category contains a mix of both. Split according to the two meanings and convert Holidays to a disambiguation page. This nomination is inspired by an earlier comment by User:Jc37. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Split and make Category:Holidays a disambiguation category per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Category:Holidays and observances, and split to Category:Vacation as appropriate. - As I noted in the other discussion: "I think Category:Holidays and observances is still a good idea due to differences in usage, etc. (And by having both words in the name, they also disambiguate each other, adding clarity over ambiguity.) That said, there's no reason that Category:Holidays can't become a dab page after this is implemented." - Another reason to include both in the name is to sidestep us needing to parse the theological difference between a religious observance and a religious holiday. Let's just avoid all of that. - jc37 10:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and split per Jc37. The outcome of this CfD will also be necessary for Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_April_5#Category:Lists_of_days. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle and Aidan721: Thoughts? House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37: if I am not mistaken (correct me if I am wrong) the word "holidays" is more closely associated to "vacation" in some varieties of English. If that is the case then "Holidays and observances" remains ambiguous. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
wikt:holiday - It has several meanings, some are similar but not quite the same. Which is part of why pairing it with "observances" disambiguates its usage here. - jc37 06:31, 20 April 2025 (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) 00:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Skanör

Propose renaming Category:Skanör to Category:Skanör med Falsterbo

Nominator's rationale: Proposed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_March_30#Category:People_from_Skanör, due to the small size of this category. However, I doubt that there will be enough contents to expand the "People from" subcategory as well because the place has a population of only 7,000, and hence I closed that one as merge. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manually merge to Category:Vellinge Municipality. This target category isn't populated well, and Skanör med Falsterbo isn't even the largest place in the municipality, that is Höllviken. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to follow Statistics Sweden localities. I've also added more articles that would fit in a broader or merged category. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not seeing objection to a rename if kept, but should it be (manually) merged?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would now say both Category:Skanör (med Falsterbo; 1 C, 11 P) and Category:Vellinge Municipality (3 C, 9 P) are sufficiently populated. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Educators from Los Angeles

Propose deleting Category:Educators from Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated Subcategory. Lost in Quebec (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This has two subcategories in it (after the nominator removed all of the subcategories of Category:Academics from Los Angeles). This category has been in existence for less than a week. I don't see why the nominator didn't add a few people or nudge me to do it. ^SMason_Garrison 22:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This editor has been told multiple times by multiple editors that working, going to school, or dying in Foo, doesn't make the person automatically from there. See my talk page[27]. Lost in Quebec (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the above editor is adding incorrect articles to this category. Two academics, here and here. Plus an article on a teachers strike and a trade union. In fact the two people articles they added only mention the people working in Los Angeles not living there. They may not belong in academics either.Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you try to populate the category? I moving them from the broader "People from Los Angeles" category. ^SMason_Garrison 19:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The category has been significantly expanded since nomination, but there is dispute to the inclusion of some of them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a broader discussion. Generally I would argue that the tree of people by location and occupation should be limited to the location(s) in which the occupation is exercised, whether the subject lives there or not. Currently the tree is also used for location of birth which is unrelated to occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with having that broader conversation because I agree with Marco's interpretation. But... I don't think it particularly helpful in this narrow category nomination. My goal was to try to diffuse the People from Los Angeles category. ^SMason_Garrison 02:13, 21 April 2025 (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) 00:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FBG Duck categories

Propose deleting Category:FBG Duck songs
Propose deleting Category:Songs written by FBG Duck

Nominator's rationale: Categories related to artist article recreated after it was deleted by nomination. DBrown SPS (talk) 09:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slide (FBG Duck song) closes as delete, then both categories will be empty. Also related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FBG Duck (3rd nomination). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The linked AFD was closed as keep. Should this category still be deleted?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:FBG Duck songs should be kept considering the header in Category:Songs by artist. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Economists from Washington, D.C.

Propose merging Category:Economists from Washington, D.C. to Category:Social scientists from Washington, D.C.

Nominator's rationale: After the CfD that merged Category:Economists from New York City, I'm inclined to support the same for this one. It is also a rather small category, at nine pages within a parent that has only three others. I also picked three articles at random, and at least two of them did not work in DC so deletion is also an option. No attempt was made to determine if all pages are within other subcategories of Category:American economists. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Eight of the nine people in the category, are from DC. So deletion wouldn't be an option. As for working there, we don't classify by place of work because otherwise all Washington DC sports team athlete categories would then be in Category:Sportspeople from Washington, D.C.Lost in Quebec (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how a place would be defining for economists for anything but place of work. How about you? We don't classify by place of birth, either, which is the only connection to DC for at least two of the entries. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nominator and supporters of merging are forgetting the 400 lb gorilla in the room. Category:Economists from Washington, D.C. is analogous to entries in Category:American economists by state It isn't a state but not a normal populated place either. :@Marcocapelle and :@LaundryPizza03 would you care to rethink this CFD?Lost in Quebec (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Lost in Quebec's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I think that even though Washington DC is a unique hybrid of state and populated place, it doesn't protect it from being merged for being underpopulated. ^SMason_Garrison 02:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

John Sumpter (MP)

John Sumpter (MP) → Colchester (UK Parliament constituency) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I don't think such a redirect makes any sense. Leyo 17:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RETURNTORED. He is listed as an MP for this constituency from the 1400s, but, as an MP, Sumpter would satisfy WP:NPOL. A redlink is preferable here. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've just seen that Jordan Newell is a similar case. --Leyo 22:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What do you mean it doesn't make any sense? It's a {{R to list entry}}, to a list, in which there's an appropriate entry. Importantly, the redirect enables the subject to be distinguished from other people named John Sumpter in the hatnote at John Sumpter. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See reasoning by Presidentman. --Leyo 17:08, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Judicial control

Judicial control → Judicial review (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I am not a lawyer but the interlanguage link I made from Arrest_of_Ekrem_İmamoğlu#Detention_and_arrest seems to be being incorrectly redirected Chidgk1 (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plant🌱man (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody else comments can it simply be deleted? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, per WP:SOFTDELETE; however, it can be restored if someone asks. Plant🌱man (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1: could you clarify what "judicial control" means in the context of the link you made? When I search for "judicial control," I get hits discussing the review of bureaucratic decisions. This sort of power is what is discussed at judicial review, so I'd be hesitant to delete because it does seem that "judicial control" is another term used to describe this power. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can put https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adli_kontrol?wprov=sfti1 into Google Translate. Perhaps the term has different meanings in different countries - I don’t know Chidgk1 (talk) 07:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The enwiki article on probation links to “Denetimli serbestlik” on trwiki. As I say I am not a lawyer so I don’t understand the difference Chidgk1 (talk) 07:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://ozansoylu.av.tr/en/what-is-a-judicial-control-order-in-turkey/ Chidgk1 (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The bail article on enwiki does not have a trwiki version. I don’t know why the law firm webpage above did not mention “bail” Chidgk1 (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should I try and link “https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adli_kontrol” to the bail article? Don’t know if anyone would undo it but I could try if you think that is the correct translation Chidgk1 (talk) 07:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this redirect should be a disambiguation? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems based on the links you provide that bail is probably the closest English equivalent. (Although, I am also not a lawyer so it's just an educated guess). I think my preference would be to keep the redirect because "Judicial control" in English-language countries seems to refer mainly to Judicial review. We could add a hatnote though to clarify the difference between the Anglophone and the Turkish usages. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship of the Democratic Republic of Congo

Citizenship of the Democratic Republic of Congo → Democratic Republic of the Congo (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Citizenship in the Democratic Republic of the Congo → Democratic Republic of the Congo nationality law (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
DR Congo citizenship → Constitution of the Democratic Republic of the Congo#Nationality and citizenship (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Pointless redirect, no reliable sources indicating "citizenship". Absolutiva (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to encourage article creation. We have similar articles for other countries discussing citizenship specifically; e.g. British nationality law, Citizenship of the United States. A similar article could likely be created regarding the DRC. Plant🌱man (talk) 06:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added two similar redirects to this discussion, all with different targets. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget all. Either Democratic Republic of the Congo nationality law or Constitution of the Democratic Republic of the Congo#Nationality and citizenship would work as targets (and they ~~should, but currently don't,~~ now link to each other). I think my preference is for the former but that is weak. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[edit: I've added a link from the constitution article, there actually already was one the other way. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)][reply]
I didn’t even think to look there… good catch! Plant🌱man (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Thryduulf Plant🌱man (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are two targets to choose from. Notified of this discussion at both targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per Thryduulf. I support retargeting it to Democratic Republic of the Congo nationality law, as it is more relevant to the redirect than Constitution of the Democratic Republic of the Congo#Nationality and citizenship. Although a disambiguation could be added if needed. Easternsahara (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget all to Democratic Republic of the Congo nationality law. CMD (talk) 07:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Constitution of the Democratic Republic of the Congo#Nationality and citizenship, which actually covers citizenship. (Note the difference between the nationality and citizenship.) I oppose retarget to Democratic Republic of the Congo nationality law, because citizenship is explicitly not covered there: The legal means to acquire nationality, formal legal membership in a nation, differ from the domestic relationship of rights and obligations between a national and the nation, known as citizenship. Besides, should nationality be what someone actually wants, the nationality law article is linked in a hatnote at this proposed section. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Rai(Journalist)

Manish Rai(Journalist) → Manish Rai (journalist) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Declined R3. Redirect is clearly malformed due to the lack of spacing between the title and disambiguator. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems that Wawquee created the article at this title, and then Jlwoodwa moved it (without leaving a redirect) to the correctly-spaced title. Wawquee then seems to have recreated it at the incorrect title and continued working on it. CycloneYoris (the nom here) then converted it to a redirect to the correctly spaced title and immediately requested speedy deletion under R3 - Jlwoodwa correctly declined that. The last article version at the title without the space and the current version at the title with a space seem to have identical prose but the former has a couple more references. I wonder whether history merging to the correct title would be best here? If not then maybe moving the history to [[Manish Rai (<nationality> journalist)]] (the article doesn't specify his nationality at present) or some other extra disambiguation. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut Area of Growth

Connecticut Area of Growth → River Park Historic District (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Can't find a source indicating that this is in any way a related term. It was requested at WP:AFC/R by an IP with a history of requesting highly questionable redirects. I propose deletion. ⟲ Three Sixty! (talk, edits) 02:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I cannot find any use of this term, well, anywhere other than this redirect. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Check below Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 03:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per this source [https://www.middletownct.gov/1279/RETURN-TO-THE-RIVERBEND] Keep Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 03:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, that source does not use the term "Connecticut area of growth", indeed Google cannot find any instances of "Area of growth" as an exact phrase anywhere on the middletownct.gov domain ("Area of growth" site:middletownct.gov). Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Believe this is similar as it says
The Return to the Riverbend campaign will result in a long-term master plan that guides future growth and development of Middletown’s riverfront.
The master plan will include recommendations for future land use, flood protection, transportation improvements and community benefits in a study area stretching from Harbor Park to the Rushford Center, as illustrated on the map to the right.
Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not at all similar to "Connecticut area of growth", nor does it seem likely that this is the only area in Connecticut that has been marked for growth making the redirect ambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my research matches the Presidentman's - this redirect appears to be the only use of this phrase on the internet. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per what others said above. ToadetteEdit (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Library

Asian Library → University of British Columbia Library#Asian Library (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Created by a very recent merge. There are several possible targets in addition to the UBC Library, however. These include East Asian Library and the Gest Collection, C.V. Starr East Asian Library, and Harvard–Yenching Library, among others. A disambiguation page may be in order. Cnilep (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the merger, if consensus can be reached on suitable entries, no problem with disambiguation. it's lio! | talk | work 02:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to a disambiguation page. I agree that Asian Library is quite broad as a term. Cyali (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig in addition to the above, there is also Cheng Yu Tung East Asian Library and Washington University Libraries#Specialist libraries. If a dab is created, East Asian library should be created as a redirect to it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "L" is capitalized, showing that this is being used as a proper name; and while there are indeed other generic "Asian libraries", the UBC example appears to be the only one actually titled "the Asian Library". I'd have thought, therefore, that the redirect should be left as it is; but that dab pages should be created for "Asian library" and "East Asian Library". GrindtXX (talk) 11:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules

Template:Abrahamic religions

Template:Abrahamic religions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation, template parameters, or incoming links to explain why it exists. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Championship Titles

Template:Championship Titles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links to explain why it exists. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Databox

Template:Databox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation, template parameters, or incoming links to explain why it exists. The template invokes a module that does not exist. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unsigned2

Template:Unsigned2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unsigned (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Unsigned2 with Template:Unsigned.
We have no reason to keep 2 templates for the same purpose. The additional features/more information of Unsigned2 should simply be the default for Unsigned, with a parameter switch (e.g. |short=y) to get the fewer-links version. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The historical reason for the having both is that when I wrote the original 20 years ago, I got the parameters in the wrong order -- I'm terrifically lazy, and when I realized that if I reversed the parameters I could just cut-and-paste the information from the relevant page history, I created unsigned2. I don't use it myself anymore, so I don't really care what becomes of either of them. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why I'm on the notification list, but merge seems fine to me. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. —Alalch E. 17:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or change order of parameters in Unsigned. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Template:Latest preview software release/cmus

Template:Latest preview software release/cmus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused after Cmus was deleted. Gonnym (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/Second Life Server

Template:Latest stable software release/Second Life Server (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused after this edit. Gonnym (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that edit, as it removed a lot of information without replacing it, and have reverted it. Template should be re-marked as used now. — Félix Wolf (talk | contribs) 15:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/Express.js

Template:Latest stable software release/Express.js (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused release version template after these edits by an IP. No idea if correct or not, so if the template is restored, withdraw my nom. Gonnym (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Snazzy line

Template:Snazzy line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation, template parameters, or incoming links to explain why it exists. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ExtendedSwitcher

Template:ExtendedSwitcher (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links to explain why it exists. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:North East Essex Unitary Authority Local Authority Functions

Template:North East Essex Unitary Authority Local Authority Functions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation, template parameters, or incoming links to explain why it exists. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It existed as part of a page about a local authority that might, or might not, exist at some point in the future, which was deleted. It probably works as a graphic for unitary authorities compared to a two tier (county and borough) structure, but I suspect it was a copy of a pre-existing template with the word essex placed at the top. The creator has a short but consistent history of creating very localised articles of little verification, and sometimes pure imagination and invention. Can safely be deleted. Kevin McE (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2024-25 North American winter buttons

Template:2024-25 North American winter buttons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions of this navbox. It appears to be redundant to the more comprehensive {{United States winter storms}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WatchTools

Template:WatchTools (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions or incoming links to explain why it exists. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DesiresDragRace

Template:DesiresDragRace (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation, template parameters, or incoming links to explain why it exists. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany

Deletion review

[1] ttps://www.billboard.com/artist/fbg-duck/chart-history/nbs/

[2] ttps://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&ar=Fbg+Duck&ti=Slide

[1]

[2]

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 Creating articles 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 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