Wikipedia:XfD today

Deletion discussions
Deletion today Undeletion Deletion review Deletion log Request a copy of a deleted article
Articles
today all (sorted) closing log
Templates and modules
today all closing holding
Files
today all closing
Categories
today all category closing speedy working manual
Redirects
today all closing log
Miscellany
today all closing
Speedy deletion
candidates
Proposed deletion
all (sorted) BLPs
Policy Process Guide (Images) Administrator guidelines
v t e

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

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      January 31 (Fri)      January 30 (Thu)      January 29 (Wed)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

Lake George (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not to be confused with the 2024 film with the same name, this does not meet notability (WP:GNG or WP:NFILM). Due to the timing/editing here and at the related Hamid Castro and its AfD, seems like this could be promotional or undeclared COI. Whisperjanes (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, United States of America, and New York. Whisperjanes (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify until release. And then see. -Mushy Yank. 19:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify until notability can be established. There's just nothing out there that can establish how this film passes NFF or even really give off the impression that more coverage will come about after it releases later this week. It's entirely possible that it might, but it's also entirely possible that it won't. Indie films are particularly prone to getting overlooked by media outlets when it comes to coverage from independent, secondary reliable sources. I'll try and come back later this week and see if there are any reviews, but just based on current coverage I don't see where this passes NFILM. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks like the other film passes NFILM and doesn't currently have an article, so I'm going to create one for it. I'm going to give it a bit of a disambiguation (probably Lake George (2024 film)) but after this is closed I recommend moving that one to this title. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Now, I do want to suggest something: if by some chance this movie does pass NFILM upon release I would like to suggest redirecting this to the director's page. In my opinion the current sourcing fails NBIO. There are only two usable sources, one of which could be seen as a primary source (Thrillist article) and another that is at best only borderline usable as it's the NYP and listed in the health section (only articles in the entertainment section are seen as usable, however this one is a bio and not really health claims).

  My expectation is this: if the film does gain coverage, it's likely going to be a handful of reviews (unless it becomes a surprising media darling). We could easily cover this in a couple of sentences on the director's page. Retaining the director's page would give us a way to include some of the info from the weaker sources and also a landing page for if/when he puts out other work. Through personal experiences I'll say that bio pages are more likely to be recreated than film pages, so keeping the bio page might also help prevent recreation attempts.

  But that's all assuming that this will gain the necessary coverage once it releases. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So far nothing, but I did see the trailer pop up. FWIW, movie looks like fun. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify until release, then notability can be decided. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify per above. Article creator and another editor that made a small addition have been blocked for sockpuppetry, though the article is ineligible for speedy deletion G5. Wikishovel (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. Not enough significant coverage to pass WP:NFILM yet. Better to wait till it's released and add multiple critical reviews to pass notability. RangersRus (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I originally closed this as draftify. But then I realised that there's a draft of the same name at Draft:Lake George (film), so I will be pinging the participants who agreed for the current mainspace version to be draftified. Do you think the draft should be deleted and this mainspace version be moved to draft, or do you think this mainspace version be draftified and the current draft (Draft:Lake George (film)) be kept? @ReaderofthePack, Donaldd23, Mushy Yank, Wikishovel, and RangersRus:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think a merge of both drafts is the best solution. The draft should not be deleted; that would be unfair. -Mushy Yank. 17:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support a merge of the 2 drafts. The one still in draft is very promotional and full of stuff that should not be in the article (Official TikTok account as an example). But, if that can't be done, the article in mainspace should be moved to draft deleting the version currently there. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

European Ultramarathon Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't seem like a very notable event especially since it hasn't been held since 2019. Poorly sourced. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sport of athletics, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I think that the fact that a competition hasn't been held recently isn't evidence for or against notability, we need to look at the sourcing available. Looking up the German name "Europacup der Ultramarathons" I found these from the Schwäbische Post : [1] [2] [3] This is also a good recap from Aachener Zeitung : [4] Given that the series started in 1992 before the digital era, I think there are more newspaper sources to be found here. --Habst (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 16:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Inserra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and does not meet guidelines of WP:NGYMNAST, which appears to be the purported claim to fame. Citations are brief mentions at best with a search uncovering no significant coverage of subject. GauchoDude (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment, de-PRODed by Ingratis without addressing any of the issues raised. Adding for awareness. GauchoDude (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muyiwa Awoniyi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable business executive who fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Notability is not inherited. Sources are either iffy, are promo, or are lacking substantial coverage of the subject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I agree with the nominator that some of the sources lack substantial coverage on the subject, although the Rolling Stone and Music Week references do mention him in slightly more detail. The page was also created on February 1, 2025, one day before it was nominated for deletion, so I would prefer if this article was given some additional time to develop before we proceed any further with deletion. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KDK Softwares (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

See previous deletions. Unable to meet WP:ORGCRITE. This is a promotional article as well. B-Factor (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, India, and Rajasthan. B-Factor (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi B-Factor,

  I’ve made several updates to the KDK Softwares article to address the concerns you raised regarding notability and promotional content.

  1. Notability: I’ve added independent sources, which provide coverage of the company’s history, partnerships, and industry role, which I believe satisfies the notability criteria for organizations (WP:ORGCRITE).
  2. Neutrality: I’ve reworded sections that previously may have sounded promotional.
  3. Citations: I’ve ensured that every single sentence in the article is now backed by a citation, and the references are from independent, reliable sources.

  I believe these changes address the concerns and ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards. Please review the updated version and let me know if there are any further issues that need to be addressed. ShaliniTaknet (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: correct title for article appears to be KDK Software, which was speedy deleted as spam in 2011. I can't find SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources to show how this meets WP:CORP, just passing mentions like this, interviews and paid placement like this, and social media. Sources cited are press releases and run-of-the-mill coverage verifying that the company exists, but now how it's notable. Wikishovel (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, thanks for the input. I'm not sure why the page was created in 2011, since the notability of the company only increased only after 2017, hence the speedy deletion at the time is quite justified. For the latter points, I beg to differ since the sources cited are not just press releases or routine mentions. For example, The Hindu and Press Trust of India independently covered Intuit’s acquisition of KDK Softwares, which is a significant event in the industry. Empanelment by ICAI is another major highlight in the Indian taxation industry, especially after the launch of the new tax regime which posed significant complications and resistance among professionals. Coverage in BusinessLine and ThePrint also to some degree highlights not just the company's presence but its nationwide impact on tax professionals. S.Taknet (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I believe it should not be deleted. It is a notable company in the Indian market, especially in tax field. The article has citations from independent and well-known sources. Its acquisition by Intuit and affiliation with association like ICAI and AIFTP, also, supports its notability.Thecoolfactfinder (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC) — Thecoolfactfinder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For policy based input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article satisfies inclusion criteria under WP:ORGCRITE, as it demonstrates significant coverage (SIGCOV) in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. While some sources may provide routine coverage, there are multiple instances of non-trivial, independent reporting that establishes the subject's notability:
  • WP:SIGEVENT: The acquisition by Intuit was covered by The Hindu (among others), which is a reliable, independent source. This is a significant event in the Indian software and taxation domain.
  • WP:RECOG: Empanelment by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) and affiliations with All India Federation of Tax Practitioners (AIFTP) shows recognition by notable entities within the industry and impact on the Indian tax ecosystem.
  • Independent Coverage: Publications such as ThePrint and BusinessLine provide contextual analysis of the company’s role in addressing post-GST compliance challenges, which is non-routine and shows KDK’s nationwide impact on tax professionals.

Substantial efforts have been made to ensure the article adheres to WP:NPOV and WP:V. Content that could be sounding promotional has been removed, and every statement is now supported by citations from independent, reliable sources.

Given these points, the article meets the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) as well as the subject-specific notability criteria for organizations (WP:ORGCRITE). S.Taknet (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. AI-generated !votes would likely be discounted as they usually are not policy-based.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Elgie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Poorly sourced article that was created by a blocked user. From what I could find, there is very little information available on this person despite their admittedly impressive career working with various musicians. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and England. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1997 International Sports Racing Series Brno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unable to uncover any WP:SIGCOV of this event. There are numerous results lists such as [5] [6] [7]. but nothing at all detailed. Could possibly redirect the term to 1997 International Sports Racing Series, although that article looks equally weak. C679 16:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Czech Republic. C679 16:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Elements of Java Style (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP: GNG. This book has some passing mentions in university course syllabi and a handful of books and papers, but I struggled to find anything that would establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Computing. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Most of the references included in this article only mention The Elements of Java Style in passing. One of the references listed did not even mention The Elements of Java Style, so I removed this information. Another url was no longer functioning, so I archived it, although this alone is not enough to save the article. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ramam Raghavam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not able to find two full length reviews in reliable sources and there are not enough independent sources for GNG apart from routine coverage. Fails NFF/GNG. Draftify/ATDR - Dhanraj (actor). Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Andhra Pradesh. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see enough coverage that GNG is met, especially since this is before release of the film. I'm willing to revisit in two to three months if the coverage completely dries up after release. —C.Fred (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What you are seeing in the article is WP:CHURNALISM. Routine coverage of announcements, articles without bylines and interviews given as part of the film's promotion. If you actually thought that GNG was met here, then there would be no point in revisiting this article in two months. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As per the nomination. Taabii (talk) 06:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify– Draftify this until the film is released and WP:NFILM criteria are met.EmilyR34 (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: notable cast, director and crew. Coverage about production. Release in 3 weeks...if really waiting until then is unbearable, redirect or draftifty but opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 01:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. Maybe will meet WP:NFILM after the release with hopefully multiple reviews from reliable sources. Best to keep in draft and recommend the creator to refer to WP:ICTFSOURCES to add multiple reviews from reliable sources, if any are found, after the release, and then resubmit for AFC review. RangersRus (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify until release. Then, depending on coverage afterwards, move back to mainspace after. Procyon117 (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaf Trading Cards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Relies too much on Primary sources Villkomoses (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Companies, American football, Baseball, Basketball, Football, Ice hockey, Tennis, Wrestling, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment That's not a valid deletion rationale. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not seem to pass WP:NCORP, no independent sources discussing the company. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Piotr. Cbl62 (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This has been one of the major sports card companies for awhile now. Here are some sources: [8][9][10][11][12] While these sources aren't strictly about Leaf, they do go into some detail about the company. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of the sources presented by WikiOriginal-9 would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reiner Kümmel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A case of evidence versus opinion. Theoretical physicist who moved into econophysics, h-factor WOS 25, GS 26, no major awards. Physics work is solid but does not pass WP:NPROF#C1 -- nobody has argued it does. Originators argues that economics work is notable, despite lack of cites. As noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics, econophysics is not mainstream economics so is not well cited. Notability tag (not by nom) and PROD (by nom). Editors responded with arguments in talk pages of why he is notable in their opinion, and added WP:Opinion to text. Both notability tag & PROD were removed with the argument "passes WP:NPROF#C1 on cites". I believe we always require evidence. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Economics. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping of @Xxanthippe, Gunnar.Kaestle, Sniffadog, Moriwen, Ulubatli Hasan, and Closed Limelike Curves: Ldm1954 (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - here are my arguments why his work is notable:

• The Solow Growth Model is notable.
• Also the Solow residual is notable, indicating that the model is not complete. (Figure 6.4).
• Finding a solution by identifying a third production factor energy as the missing link is notable as well.

Gunnar (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"After a detailed discussion of the scientific elements of energy and entropy, Kümmel comes to his main concern, the improvement of economic theory, and introduces energy as a new variable in economics on the basis of scientific results. The result is a model in which the economic production function depends on the factors capital, labor, energy and creativity. Kümmel tests the model using economic data from Germany, the USA and Japan. He concludes his book with the hope for a society that builds its future on reason and general ethical values. “The Second Law of Economics” is very convincing and it is to be hoped that it will help to bridge the deep rifts between the natural and social sciences." Book Review for The Second Law of Economics [13] Gunnar (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone who works on a notable model is notable themselves. Writing one book, even one notable book, is not enough to meet our notability standards for authors. XOR'easter (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ayres, Robert U.; Warr, Benjamin (2009). "Chapter 6 The production function approach". The Economic Growth Engine – How Energy and Work Drive Material Prosperity. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. p. 190. ISBN 978-1-84844-182-8. Retrieved 2025-01-16. Another approach (first demonstrated by Kümmel) is to choose the next-simplest non-trivial solution of the growth equation and integrability equations (Kümmel 1980; Kümmel et al. 1985). [..] Hence, such a model is not ideal for forecasting. What is interesting, however, is the resulting calculated time-dependent productivities, which show a significant increase in exergy productivity and a decline in labor productivity, over time.

At least he has priority in finding a pretty good solution to the known problem. If this was a patent, the early bird would be notable. Gunnar (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reiner Kümmel is one of the first scientists who introduced energy as factor of production analytically. Kümmel derived the LINEX production function that depends linearly on energy and exponentially on the ratios of capital, labor, and energy. The LINEX function is the first production function that explicitly models energy’s economic role of activating the capital stock. More specifically, it models the role of energy in increasing automation and in capacity utilization of industrial production. Kümmel derived the LINEX function in 1982, triggering a stream of research on energy as factor or production. Source of first publication: Kümmel, Reiner (1982). "The impact of energy on industrial growth". Energy. 7 (2). Elsevier: 189–203. doi:10.1016/0360-5442(82)90044-5. Retrieved 2025-01-20. Gunnar (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. At least 10 publications on GS with > 100 cites. Passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment. All these papers are in ecological economics which is a high citation field, please see this link Ldm1954 (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xxanthippe, to expand on my citation conmment, in standard solid-state physics 10 papers cited more than 100 times is about what is expected for a good assistant professor coming up for tenure at a strong R1 university. This is different from, for instance, mathematics where citations are far lower, or HEP where they are far higher. A few papers with > 1000 cites is notable. His area of ecological economics is highly cited, from what I can see higher than solid-state physics. If we said that all Profs with > 10 papers cited > 100 times were notable, then almost every associate professor or higher at an R1 university in chemistry, materials science, physics, economics and a few more would pass R1. As has been discussed previously quite a few times at WT:NPROF, the concensus is that citations have to be considered in context for the field, not as absolute numbers.Ldm1954 (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although he did publish in Ecological Economics in 1989 (Energy as a factor of production and entropy as a pollution indicator in macroeconomic modelling [14]) and 1991 (Heat equivalents of noxious substances: a pollution indicator for environmental accounting [15]), I do not see this broad subject of sustainable economics as his home turf. It is more specialised: the macroeconomics effects in energy economics. Here, there are physicists and engineers that have updated their know-how in economics, and market people who took extra coaching in basic physics. While in the second half of the 18th century it took only a decade or so that the new subject of thermodynamics became generally accepted in the physical domain, I am still puzzled about that energy as a production factor is ignored by mainstream economics although we have seen dire effects on the economy during the oil price shocks in the 70s, the price explosion in 2008 which ended the Great Moderation and the energy shock after the COVID restart in 2021 and the effects of the Ukraine war in 2022. If the cost share theorem was true, the energy price shocks should have shown no significance. Reiner Kümmel provided arguments, that the assumptions of neoclassical economics are wrong in this case: How energy conversion drives economic growth far from the equilibrium of neoclassical economics (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/16/12/125008/pdf 2014). I assume this is a kind of agnotology, not in a sense that there is a malevolent lobby behind like in the case of Big Tobacco, but a kind of firm paradigma which is not easy to put aside. I only noticed once in an IMF-Report on Oil and the World Economy that the authors seemed worried. "For the contribution of oil to GDP, the main problem is that conventional production functions imply an equality of cost shares and output contributions of oil. This has led economists to conclude that, given its historically low cost share of around 3.5% for the U.S. economy, oil can never account for a massive output contraction, even with low elasticities of substitution between oil and other factors of production." (S. 14) And then they cite Kümmel, Ayres and some others to present counterarguments. --Gunnar (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Note that this is a guideline and not a rule; exceptions may exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work."

"Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied."

"Thus, the absence of references in Google Scholar should not be used as proof of non-notability."

These caveats may be there to prevent identifying only cargo-cult science as notable. Thus, my suggestion is to have a closer look on the improved theory of economic growth with energy as third production factor. It is a tiny, focused subject but without doubt notable. "Growth theory, like much else in macroeconomics, was a product of the depression of the 1930s and of the war that finally ended it." Similarly, Kümmel's work started with the observations during the oil crises in the 70s. Gunnar (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hall, Charles; Lindenberger, Dietmar; Kümmel, Reiner; Kroeger, Timm; Eichhorn, Wolfgang (2001-08-01). "The Need to Reintegrate the Natural Sciences with Economics" (PDF). BioScience. 51 (8). Oxford University Press: 663–673. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0663:TNTRTN]2.0.CO;2. Retrieved 2025-01-21. I like this paper very much, not because of the mathematical explanation in the 2nd half, but because of the simple English and the Figures in the first half. Especially fig. 1a shows a basic model in economics: Goods and services flow in one direction (and are paid by households), while Land, Labor and Capital flow in the other direction (and are paid by firms). "This view represents, essentially, a perpetual motion machine" as all the goods and services (including capital borrowing and land lending) are circulated after processed or consumed and paid in a constantly spinning wheel. Therefore, figure 2 shows a more accurate model of how economies work. Everything is driven by an energy flow, while its quality is degraded (entropy is increasing). This is not my personal opinion only, but at least his 4 co-authors obviously agree to this interpretation: It is irresponsible to rely in our decision making on economic models, that contradict our reality. Reiner Kümmel has created a sound mathematical foundation by properly integrating energy into the macroeconomic theory. Gunnar (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to link to the article's talk page Talk:Reiner Kümmel#Notability of Academics as well as to the matching discussion at the Economics project Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics#Notability of Reiner Kümmel. Gunnar (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no wikipedia editor experience and I'm sure I'm breaking some rules here, but I found this article quite helpful in my research on how energy input and total factor productivity are related, particularly in regards to the energy crisis in 1973. I recommend that the article is kept. 165.91.13.227 (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete – if for no other reason than that the "keep" comments are utterly unconvincing, despite clear attempts to make them so. Most comments above revolve around the notability of the subject matter that he worked on (which no-one has suggested is not notable), not this person, and aside from that the traceable citation count, which in the absence of any other evidence is pretty meaningless. Even the not-too-many citations of his papers suggest notability of the topic, not of the author. The content of the article gives little that would make him notable outside of one narrow topic. There are also knowledgable editors here expressing opposition to "keep" without putting it in a separate bullet. —Quondum 23:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As you said, nobody questions the notability of the subject matter, then why is he as the first person who pointed out that there is a problem with the growth model's math and developed a solution which shows a good fitting with measured data not notable as well? Gunnar (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That is about on par with asking "Why is the sky pink?". Relate any arguments to WP:N. In particular, GNG requires significant coverage of the topic of the article (i.e. the person, not of a field to which they contributed). Einstein's notability is established by what is written about him, not by our opinion of his contributions. —Quondum 12:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand what you want to say by "Why is the sky pink?". Regarding you example of Einstein, that's a bad one, as you don't want to keep only the most noble noble prize laureats and kick out those which have been forgotten. I argue about fact that notability cannot only shown by a citation count but by other means as well. For me it is obvious that improving a theory from economics which disregards some basic laws of physics (reduce the energy input in your country's economy by 90 % and the economy will not shrink by only 5 %, as any kind of transportation, production of goods and food, operation of computers, etc does need energy) is notable. I believe Jeremy Rifkin thinks so as well: "In other words, 'energy' is the missing factor." [16] Gunnar (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Kannauj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is a pseudo-historical POV fancruft forked from Varman dynasty (Kannauj) and synthesized with content from other articles. There was no kingdom of Kanauj, it was merely the capital that exchanged hands with multiple powers during the tripartite struggle. This article conflates the time when it was independent as the Varman dynasty and the period where it didn't even exist as a kingdom (Tripartite struggle) to push a fringe ahistorical POV. – Garuda ^Talk! 14:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, Bihar, Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. – Garuda ^Talk! 14:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Sea 1618 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This was nominated for deletion ten years ago and kept on the grounds that the AFD nomination was too soon, and by a new user. Promises to find sources were not delivered on. The article cites a scan of a newspaper from 1910 but doesn't say what the newspaper was, and "History of Companies in the Ottoman Era" by Muhammad Al-Sharari, a book I can't find a single Google result for. In Arabic the only result is this Wikipedia article.

The sources on the talk page don't seem to check out either, even of the ones I could track down, they're general information about Dead Sea products but don't actually mention this specific company. Searching for any information about this company today all I find is that it seems to no longer be active and it was probably created in 2015, the same year as the Wikipedia article, and was never as big as the Wikipedia article claims. There's very few mentions of this company at all outside of Wikipedia mirrors, and none in reliable sources that I can find. While this article exists on the Arabic Wikipedia, it is an auto-translation of this English article done in October 2024, with no prior mention of the company there, which doesn't instill confidence that it's a real historic company.

I know that sources are going to be hard to find here but it's been ten years and there's nothing, with signs pointing to this article actually being a part of the launch of a 2015 company that didn't make it. In Wikipedia policy terms the lack of sourcing shown to exist mean it doesn't meet WP:CORP. Here2rewrite (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and Jordan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:V. Indistinguishable from a hoax. Jfire (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2235 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Only two entries, a year and a number, neither of which have specific entries at the relevant articles (3rd millennium and 2000 (number)). There was previously a redlink to an article deleted by PROD in 2011. Nothing else of note. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Mathematics, and Disambiguations. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Medhat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Probable failure of WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Soccerway lists him as playing two dozen games in Qatar's first league, though with a different date of birth. This is a bit too weak to assert notability in itself. When trying to find coverage, there is a flurry of coverage about the physical trainer of Zamalek SC, who died in 2024 and may or may not be the same person. I believe that this Qatari footballer would need some strong pieces of coverage to pass our notability bar. The creator of the page is of no help as he was a notorious sockpuppeteer and is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 12:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Not much substance here to warrant an article. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bhutala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Literally for all the reasons of the last delete.

Theres so much speculation (from the year it happened, to if there was even a battle...) on this page/little information that brings WP:GNG into account because there's very little coverage/accurate information on it. Noorullah (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The last AfD had limited participation and was based on an underdeveloped, poorly written article. However, that is not the case now. The nominator's rationale is unclear on how it fails SIGCOV and GNG when the sources have dedicated at least two pages to the event [17][18] (excluding background and aftermath). Garuda ^Talk! 12:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Garudam My view is from the significant coverage guideline;

  ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." -- While the topic is covered (by the few books cited on the page), the speculation on whether a battle even happened, the years difference is alarming. I think there's just not enough information on the topic. Noorullah (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How are the two pages of coverage considered trivial mentions? Moreover, the speculation is not even about whether the battle occurred or not. All I see are speculations about the dates, which have already been addressed in a separate subsection. This should not be a reason for deletion. Garuda ^Talk! 17:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Makes sense, I think a withdrawal of nomination is in order then. @Garudam Noorullah (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Definitely a better approach. Garuda ^Talk! 18:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I took a look at the sources for this battle. There are no significant sources for it and it does not seem notable enough to have been covered properly outside of Wikipedia. Of the sources given, only one really covers the "battle", but does not give it a name. The article goes beyond those sources and strays into original or at least uncited research. Given the lack of evidence the battle has received significant attention from independent sources, my view is it is not notable enough for Wikipedia and it should be deleted. FrightenedPenguin (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)— FrightenedPenguin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Take a quick look at this comment. Garuda ^Talk! 13:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manji (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This "article" is not about any specific film, but about 5 Japanese films that share same name. This isn't how we write articles here. I've tried to convert it to a dab page, but that was reverted. As it stands, this is just a random collection of words. Gonnym (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Sexuality and gender, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see any reason this shouldn't be merged to Quicksand (Tanizaki novel)#Adaptations, at least until the independent notability of individual adaptations can be shown. It's not a random collection, since all of the films discussed here are based on the same work. Dekimasuよ! 09:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Quicksand (Tanizaki novel)#Adaptations. The dab page created was a dab page with only circular links back to itself. But merging this information to the novel page, and then turning this into a redirect would be the best option.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The issue can be resolved through editing and does not need an AFd. The corresponding Jp article is a disamb (this can be one or even a WP:SETINDEX). The corresponding French/Italian/Korean articles are about the 1964 film, a notable film. No reason to delete. And no, the page is not a "random collection of words". -Mushy Yank. 13:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As a Yasuzō Masumura film, there is no reason for not having an article for the 1964 adaptation of the novel. Because it's a Japanese film released over 60 years ago (and a niche film), it isn't simple and easy to find sources about it, but there are some: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. 8, 9, 10. Streamlined content about the versions that followed can be included under an "Other adaptations" section. Pyxis Solitary (yak). Ol' homo. ⚢ 13:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Duke City Shootout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unnotable movie-making contest. None of the sources cited in this article prove notability. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and New Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It got a huge amount of coverage in New Mexico, obviously. I tried to keep those sources to a minimum and looked for out of state sources. Offhand I'm finding a bit of a trickle of sourcing. The Hollywood Reporter source makes me think that there is possibly more out there, but not so much so that I'd argue for a keep based on that. I'm going to continue searching and see what I can find. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think 2010 was the last year it was held - they weren't able to hold it in 2009 due to financial difficulties, and I can't really see any mention of the contest being held past 2010. That trickle of sourcing is still coming in, but I'm still on the fence as to whether or not there's really any notability. There's a ton of local coverage, but I know there are some who won't consider that to be usable, which is a fair concern. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JTA International Investment Holding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. References cited are generally no more than press releases about investments. The article itself is just a WP:SOAPBOX. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 14:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Qatar. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reinforcing Notability with Specific Achievements

The article on JTA International Investment Holding highlights accomplishments that clearly satisfy WP:CORP. Examples include:

Awards and Recognitions: Dr. Amir Ali Salemi was named Entrepreneur of the Year for Asia in 2021 by Global Banking and Finance Review.

Philanthropy and Sustainability: JTA’s commitment to renewable energy and sustainability projects has been recognized by global organizations and media.

Official Reports: The company's investments in Pakistan’s energy and sports sectors have been cited in verifiable news sources, supporting its significance in these industries.

Additionally, the page has been updated to reflect independent news coverage, avoiding overreliance on press releases and internal announcements. 89.211.212.134 (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JTA International Investment Holding has received recognition from multiple independent and reliable sources, which substantiate its notability under WP:GNG. Examples include:

• Global Presence: The company operates across approximately 50 countries, focusing on equity investments, renewable energy, and infrastructure projects, as outlined on its official Wikipedia page.

• Independent Acknowledgment: Membership in the Al Attiyah Foundation, a leading body for energy and sustainable development, was reported in verified news channels.

• Media Coverage: The company's CEO, Dr. Amir Ali Salemi, has been featured in reputable outlets like Global Banking and Finance Review and received prestigious business awards, confirming third-party acknowledgment of JTA’s impact.

These examples demonstrate that the article is not merely a promotional piece but a record of verifiable achievements. Javaduiu— Note to closing admin: Javaduiu (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia page for JTA International Investment Holding is structured to provide factual and neutral information about the company, focusing on its:

Founding and Growth: Established in 2010, JTA has expanded to include seven subsidiary companies and a diverse portfolio of global projects.

Notable Partnerships: Collaborations with American Premier University and InvestQatar reflect its role in fostering international business relations.

Verified References: The page includes links to official announcements, third-party publications, and industry reports, ensuring alignment with WP:V and WP:RS. Munni075— Note to closing admin: Munni075 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage I can find is just the usual coverage for companies like these. Fails WP:NCORP. Procyon117 (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Mallorca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. The article only cites one news source. Apart from that, the only sources I can find are from the DEA's own website. Aŭstriano (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Police. Aŭstriano (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• You are not looking everywhere that you can. The World Wide Web is not the whole world. There's a paragraph on this that is more detailed than this article, that can be used to expand it, at USDEA 2008, p. 180 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFUSDEA2008 (help); and also coverage in the entry at Kleiman & Hawdon 2011, p. 764 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKleimanHawdon2011 (help). At worst this is a merger to some larger article about USDEA anti-money-laundering operations, as at least one other source lumps it in with the likes of Money Trail Initiative, Operation Cali Exchange, and Operation Plata Sucia, showing that being part of a larger subject is how the world knows it. Uncle G (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kleiman, Mark A. R.; Hawdon, James E., eds. (2011). "Tandy, Karen". Encyclopedia of Drug Policy. Vol. 1. SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781412976961.n336. ISBN 9781412976954.
  • United States Drug Enforcement Administration (2008). Drug Enforcement Administration: A Tradition of Excellence, 1973-2008. United States Drug Enforcement Administration.
• Delete: Fails WP:NEVENT since it lacks WP:SUSTAINED coverage. It made the rounds as part of the regular news cycle in June [19], and there's a tiny paragraph a few months earlier [20]. but not much else. If the only significant coverage afterwards is a paragraph in the USDEA's own publication, that's not enough for NEVENT. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Colombia and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:Uncle G are you arguing to Keep this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Huttle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not pass WP:NCRIMINAL, his killing does not pass WP:NEVENT. Minor figure in a very large event and the killing does not make him more notable than the other ones. Not a lot here besides routine criminal proceedings. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Crime. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of ribus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

(no vote) list based on deleted nonnotabe term, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ribu --Altenmann >talk 08:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but move to List of ribus in Indonesia, to reflect its content. I didn't see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ribu but am not convinced that Ribu as a term is not notable - see 2009 coverage of the Indonesian list and Austrian coverage of the list as examples. PamD 10:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PamD: Actually, both titles are misleading, because the page lists "ribus" and "specials"; see better move suggestion below. --Altenmann >talk 17:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  New, sourced, section on ribus now created. PamD 12:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • This does not change the fact that "ribu" remains personal endeavor of Quinn that belongs only to his webpage and should not be advertised in Wikipedia. We already established lack of notability of the term. Imagine my dad fisherman starts classifying fish by their color and publishes the catalog "Chromatography of fish". Heck, we already have real articles about real fringe scientists, and theirs opinions are not propagated in other wikipedia aricles. --Altenmann >talk 15:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Why ribus in Indonesia not mountains in Indonesia? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If the term wasn't notable at AfD then this isn't either.Golikom (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to "List of mountains in Indonesia" as that appears to be the notable topic here... I can certainly find enough coverage of Indonesian mountains for this to be a stand-alone list but I can't find enough coverage of Indonesian "ribus" to get anywhere close. This would also match the other entries at Category:Lists of mountains of Asia, as it stands now this is a weird outlier. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to "List of mountains in Indonesia" per Horse Eye's Back. Also because the title is misleading, because the page lists "ribus" and "specials" --Altenmann >talk 17:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bassam Kawas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Declined prod. Information was added that he competed in 1991 Summer Universiade but I don't believe that is enough to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maher Abbas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Declined prod. Information was added that he is a surgeon but I don't believe it is enough to meet WP:BIO. Also fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Medicine, Olympics, and Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dvorak (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unable to find sources that demonstrate notability. The best I could find are an assignment for a university course and a self-published zine, although it is possible that there are some offline sources I'm missing. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Games, and United Kingdom. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CompoSecure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is zero independent coverage of this company in reliable sources. A WP:BEFORE search returns numerous press releases about funding, stock market valuations, stock forecast, investment announcements, etc. The two articles from The Wall Street Journal are paid placements by Olmstead Williams Communications, which fails the WP:SIRS check. We are left with no independent sources with significant coverage of the company itself. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Business, Companies, and United States of America. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I also don't find anything this company has done that can be considered WP:NOTEWORTHY, so there's next to nothing to write about if the article was kept. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 15:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. I only found walls upon walls of press releases. 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) ^talk/edits 16:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. BarntToust 16:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per norm. Three independent articles by reliable sources. Mistletoe-alert (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Chauhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Taabii (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, India, and Delhi. Taabii (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: For now; recreate if they eventually win their election as a lawmaker. Councillors of local government areas are not inherently notable per WP:NPOL#1. The sources therein are not substantial to meet WP:NPOL#2. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Demolition Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Clearly fails WP:NCORP. Previously PROD'd which was valid. Should not have been restored. Graywalls (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, Europe, United Kingdom, and England. Graywalls (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adedayo Olawuyi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The sources fail Wikipedia notability guidelines and a WP:BEFORE did not show that the subject is notable. Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Nigeria, and Uganda. Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• A CCO or COO of a company can be notable, but they are not automatically considered notable without significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is significant media coverage of Adedayo Olawuyi - the article should be expanded more rather than deleted. If you look at the other managers of the same company (including some junior to him and arguably less notable) there is a good precedent and template set to build the articles to properly capture the notability. SM105 (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have now expanded the article somewhat and added a number of additional independant secondary sources. I think the article now more than adequately satisfies notability requirements. SM105 (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow consideration of improvements made in the last week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: AirSpace Africa appears to be the only item directly about this person in a RS. Sources 7 and 8 are non-RS per Source Highlighter. I can't find anything extra we can use that talk about the person, mostly they are about the airline. Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Three of the five new sources are unreliable: bellanaija.com, businessfocus.co.ug, and traveltrendstoday.in (Indian media used to be good, but not anymore). I'm going assume good faith that the other two are reliable, leaving the article still borderline. Bearian (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep while we look for more references. He has done a lot for this airline. SiniyaEdita (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC) Incidentally who decides if a source is unreliable? Is it a personal opinion? SiniyaEdita (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is an established consensus about such sources: WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. Gheus (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom or redirect to Uganda Airlines as WP:ATD. After removing WP:NEWSORGINDIA and WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA type of sources, there is not much left. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, it is better to cover such information on Uganda Airlines' article because keeping it standalone would violate WP:BLP with such low-quality references. Gheus (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 06:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jakub Rojek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NMG, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Appears to be mostly a resume and self-promotional (WP:PROMO). No significant coverage in third party, independently published sources. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 06:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glane23,

Nothing in there seems to be self-promotional and all are verifiable facts (awards, compositions, album releases etc.)

I do not understand why you are suggesting the article to be considered for deletion, when it does exactly what any other artist page does on Wikipedia (lists accomplishments on their resume).

best,

Itzek Itzek1952 (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 600 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Is every UN resolution inherently notable? This article has only one source, and perhaps it and other articles on UNSC resolutions that could easily be summarized should be redirected to a parent article. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George Floyd protests in Wyoming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

May not be notable, only cited in a few local news articles over a few days in 2020, no coverage since. Maybe a merge to "List of George Floyd protests in the United States" would be a better home for this content. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Wyoming. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There appears to be a list of George Floyd protests for every state in the USA: Category:George Floyd protests in the United States by state or territory. I agree a lot of these protests aren't notable enough for mention (WP:NOTNEWS), but the most notable ones from all states could be bundled into one, as per the nominator? Ajf773 (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep per GNG. Article needs to be expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per Another Believer. All fifty states' George Floyd protests articles are worthy of expansion; if you don't agree, just look at this map. Songwaters (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per above. Well cited, and could easily be expanded based on the abundant published, secondary sources. Yuchitown (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - all "...in state" articles, into the List of George Floyd protests in the United States article. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Strong oppose. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Barber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A well-written and WP:GF entry, however, I believe it may fail WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON.

• BLP1E: Subject is known only for his appearance on NewsNation in which he claimed he was in psychic contact with space aliens or something.
• GNG: Most sources are either NewsNation or rely exclusively on NewsNation reporting. NewsNation has been determined by the community as consensus unreliable as a source for UFO/UAP coverage per WP:UFONATION.

Chetsford (talk) 05:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Dude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doubtful claim to notability: mentioned in a handful of local news articles in 2016, has seen no coverage in last 8 years. Not a single other article links here (this itself doesn't make it not notable, but suggests it has no enduring significance). PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Oregon. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Advertising, Travel and tourism, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, essentially. It's true this isn't about an event so of course it doesn't directly apply, but this only received a flurry of hyper-local news coverage and is routine. SportingFlyer T·C 06:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Short-lived mascot used in one place, no indication of lasting impact. If there is anything more to this since then, perhaps a sentence or two at Tourism in Portland, Oregon may be appropriate since that mentions Travel Portland. Reywas92^Talk 06:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as author: I've merged the content to Travel Portland. No need for AfD. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article as well as the Travel Portland article that was just created bye the author to move this content into. Agree with Reywas92 that this is perhaps a sentence or two at the most at Tourism in Portland, Oregon. No indication of lasting impact, significance, or sustained coverage. Asparagusstar (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am already expanding Travel Portland and there are more campaigns to add. I don't understand the rush to delete here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Gemayel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I did find being a Sheikh and an Olympian a bit unusual, which was why I thought it might be good to have a discussion on it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As this article has been PROD'd, Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George de Meo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for notability and sourcing since 2017. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• del no evidence of notability. --Altenmann >talk 04:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep quite a bit of coverage here [21] [22] [23] [24], for his weapons dealing was "the single most important source of weapons" of The Troubles, quite the claim to notability as evidenced by sigcov. That is without looking into newsy/other book sources (if you are unsatisfied by the sources I have provided or want me to incorporate them into the article, please ping me I will attempt to find more). PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also several pages of coverage in A Secret History of the IRA (though that might be moreso on Harrison). PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PARAKANYAA Thank you for finding these. Anything you are willing to do to improve the article is much appreciated.4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Changing vote since, while notable, everything he is notable for is summed up at Provisional Irish Republican Army arms importation. ATM I do not see the content for a split, and since his notability is tied up in so many other people I think this is best for now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of building consensus, I am ok with a redirect to Provisional Irish Republican Army arms importation per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist - Can we reach consensus on redirecting to Provisional Irish Republican Army arms importation?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 03:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't think this needed another relist. As the nominator, I supported the redirect. That's two of three commenters supporting the redirect, and one editor remaining supporting deletion. This could have easily closed as a redirect under WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Farhad Azizii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails notability, it was once deleted here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farhad Azizi (athlete). now recreated again under a slightly different name to trick wikipedia. I'm going to repeat what I wrote before. most refs are fake and searching his name in English gives you almost nothing. Sports2021 (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Moeed Pirzada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP1E. He was one of the journalists who were targeted by the Pakistani government in 2023 under some controversial charges. Most of the sources that discuss those arrests don't talk about Pirzada in any significant depth, which is why most of his career is sourced to primary sources in this article. Since this article has been repeatedly created by sock/meatpuppets, I would recommend salting it as well. Badbluebus (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Television, and Pakistan. Badbluebus (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Pirzada appears to be a notable TV host, and his legal troubles go beyond WP:BLP1E. He was arrested in 2015; news coverage of that arrest described him as a "renowned TV anchorperson". A former Indian Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju called him an "eminent Pakistani journalist" while responding to a speech of Pirzada's. His departure from Pakistan seems to have been widely covered. [25] [26] [27]. There are a number of other news stories on Google News about him. And these are just the English language results -- no doubt there is more coverage in Urdu. Jfire (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  exactly 101.53.234.144 (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not just the Pakistani government, but also the Pakistani military establishment has targeted him. He remains a prominent journalist in Pakistan, with millions of people relying on his political analytical abilities to foresee what is likely to happen in the near future in Pakistan as well as around the globe. This is evident from his YouTube channel, which garners significant viewership from various countries, not just Pakistan. His page may require some, or even a lot of, improvements, but these improvements can only happen if the page is allowed to exist and remain open for public contributions. Deleting his page would be unfair. Aqsa Qambrani (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)— Aqsa Qambrani (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep. Not just the Pakistani government, but also the Pakistani military establishment has targeted him. He remains a prominent journalist in Pakistan, with millions of people relying on his political analytical abilities to foresee what is likely to happen in the near future in Pakistan as well as around the globe. This is evident from his YouTube channel, which garners significant viewership from various countries, not just Pakistan. His page may require some, or even a lot of, improvements, but these improvements can only happen if the page is allowed to exist and remain open for public contributions. Deleting his page would be unfair Aqsa Qambrani (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)— Duplicate !vote: Aqsa Qambrani (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]

thank you so much Isaqibrana (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Moeed Pirzada is a prominent politics investigative journalist from Pakistan and has been in the media industry as senior anchor & columnist for over 16 years. He already had wikipedia page for years on wikipedia but recently the page was deleted after years being on wikipedia, deleted specially after he became a victim of Pakistan Regime 2022 with several other Pakistani journalists. The previous wikipedia page deletion shows how current administration does not want him to be a public figure, I believe even the previous deletion of his page was against freedom of information. He is being targeted by current administration in Pakistan. After being banned from entering Pakistan and banned on mainstream media, he choose to spread his voice using social media and currently have over 3 million people follow him with over 30 million active views. He also conducted interview with former British Prime Minister. QuantumThread (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)— QuantumThread (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete and salt. There are shenanigans going on with this page (see the creator of Draft:Moeed Pirzada removing the G4 deletion template and copy-paste-moving the draft page's content into this page simultaneously). But even without the shenanigans, this subject does not clear WP:GNG or WP:NBIO for a standalone page. Almost all of these sources are to Pirzada's own writings or to other non-independent sources. The couple of sources that are both independent and reliable are not WP:SIGCOV of Pirzada. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  millions of people are relying on his political analytical abilities to foresee what is likely to happen in the near future in Pakistan as well as around the globe Isaqibrana (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Mr. Pirzada qualifies to be on Wikipedia and definitely meets the criteria for WP:GNG or WP:NBIO.He is a credible and well-informed journalist in Pakistan. While I acknowledge that there is room for improvement, this can be achieved by allowing open contributions and ensuring that citations come from independent sources rather than his own blog. for your reference please have a look https://www.economy.pk/top-10-news-anchor-in-pakistan/. Pirzada is one of the top journalists of Pakistan. Aqsa Qambrani (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Pirzada qualifies to be on Wikipedia and definitely meets the criteria for WP:GNG or WP:NBIO.He is a credible and well-informed journalist in Pakistan. While I acknowledge that there is room for improvement, this can be achieved by allowing open contributions and ensuring that citations come from independent sources rather than his own blog. for your reference please have a look https://www.economy.pk/top-10-news-anchor-in-pakistan/. Pirzada is one of the top journalists of Pakistan 101.53.234.144 (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC) — 101.53.234.144 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Mr Moeed Pirzada is very well known and respected world renowned Political Analyst, Journalist,TV anchor / Host, and an author. His name should not be deleted from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neunad (talk • contribs) 05:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC) — Neunad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep: as per Jfire (talk). He's done much better explanation above. Behappyyar (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per Dclemens1971. Nothing has changed since previous AfD. They have also published a lot of spam via globalvillagespace.com on Wikipedia. Too much waste of volunteers time. Gheus (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have very divided opinion here right now and much of it is just opinion. Can we get a source review?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of gulfs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Is this article defining a gulf (as distinguished from a sea) by actual features or by its standard geographical name in the English-speaking world?? Georgia guy (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While I have made no attempt to determine if this meets WP:NLIST, deletion is not cleanup. It could be properly sourced and possibly merged into Gulf, which is a stub. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Gulf is absurdly short, the list should be there rather than a separate page. Whether only those titled gulf are listed or there's some flexibility of inclusion of bays or whatnot, I see no basis for deletion. Reywas92^Talk 06:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The edit history and deletion log reveal that this used to be our gulf (geography) article, although there was some history swapping going on in 2010 that confuses matters. Uncle G (talk) 06:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Scouts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Highly confusing. It's not a disambiguation page (there's already Boy Scout (disambiguation), with a 10-year old discussion about merging the two, Talk:Boy_Scouts#Merge_of_Boy_Scouts_(disambiguation)). It seems a set-index article, as it's just a list. Boy scouts redirects here but Boy scout doesn't. fgnievinski (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scouting-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at least for now. This information could be moved elsewhere, but I am unclear where, but until that is done it should be kept. Bduke (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I don't see the need for both of these dab/set pages. Reywas92^Talk 06:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Mars (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:GNG seems very weak. Reception is limited to few listicles and short commentary on the performance of the actor portraying her (that could be merged to Kristen Bell). WP:ATD-R suggests we can redirect this to the TV show instead of hard deletion if we agree she is not notable. My BEFORE does not show anything useful to save this with. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fictional elements, and Television. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The GNG has been adequately met for over a decade, the nominator's opinion notwithstanding. Yes, coverage of the actress playing her, in the context of playing her, counts. Bell liked the character sufficiently well she came back twice after the three season run had ended, and was a key part of the movie promotion. Sure, there's a bit of extra plot summary here, but merger to the show is not the correct target as List of Veronica Mars characters exists, something the nom should normally have picked up on in preparation for this nomination. Jclemens (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forrest Gump (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a pure plot summary, mostly unreferenced, with an OR section on "differences from the novel" (presumably referring to the film version...). Only relation to the real world is the brief information about the actor who portrayed him (and won Oscar for that). My BEFORE doesn't show much - there may be some SIGCOV in Indonesian undergraduate (see id:Skripsi) student papers that GScholar throws at me, but per WP:THESIS and common practice (in my experience), we generally are ok with PhD level thesis, consider master-level stuff borderline, and don't see undergraduate papers are either particularly notable or sufficient to establish notability. Then there's a conference paper that does not want to open for me [28] and possibly some Japanese(?) paper [29] that's not online? In the end, my conclusion is that this might be notable, but the current execution is WP:ALLPLOT and needs WP:TNT (or at least, split summary should be greatly reduced, and scholarly analysis and reception which do not exist would need to be written, and I do not see sources to do it myself or tell others they could use them, unfortunately, per my analysis of GScholar results above. GBooks gave me nothing, and Google gives stuff that does not appear to be reliable and seem to be more like movie summaries for lazy students...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Film. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Toys 3D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Rationale: Non-notable per WP:GNG for a shareware re-release of a game that lacks an article. I think it seems to be shareware that does pop up in odd sources and cover discs, but lacks substantial coverage and review content to justify an article about it.

Source analysis: Relies mostly on primary sources [30], user-generated blogs [31] or game databases [32][33][34]. A PC Gamer article ([35]) seems promising, but the content reveals the writer has not played the game, relying on the site's description to describe it, and is expressing bemusement at the archaic method of distribution of its rerelease. Best coverage seems to be in a Czech magazine website of unknown reliability [36].

Other searches: Trivial mention on Games Industry as part of a publisher background [37]. Internet Archive search found one catalogue listing describing the game ([38]) and one Russian review ([39]) although the latter doesn't really describe or express much of an opinion of the game other than calling it a funny parody of Wolfenstein. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a merge/redirect into Wolfenstein_3D#Legacy. Btw, Tibo Software's website is still online. IgelRM (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrocles (half-brother of Socrates) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable. He has precisely one mention in the complete works of Plato. All the information is extrapolated from what we know of Socrates. Remsense ‥ 论 00:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (if possible?) to Phaenarete, which already mentions him. No need to merge, as there is no useful information here, and one of the sources is not reliable (geni_family_tree), and the other only has a sentence saying that Socrates had a half-brother Patrocles. The disambig page Patrocles could say "Patrocles, son of Phaenarete and half-brother of the philosopher Socrates". (If any other editors are aware of more information and sources about this Patrocles that could be added to improve this article, I'd be happy to reconsider.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many decent 21st century sources (e.g. Miller's and Platter's Plato's Apology of Socrates: A Commentary (UOP, 2012, ISBN 9780806186054)), as opposed to the family tree WWW site that is used in the article, point to Nails 2002, pp. 218–219, Patrocles of Alopece, son of Chaeredemus harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNails2002 (help) as a good recent authority. It has the original Greek name, the citations to classical sources (including Euthydemus), and a lengthy discussion of Patrocles's possible career on the Board of Ten archons (that followed the fall of the Thirty Tyrants) after age 30. Uncle G (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nails, Debra (2002). "Patrocles of Alopece, son of Chaeredemus". The People of Plato: A Prosopography of Plato and Other Socratics. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing. pp. 218–219. ISBN 9781603840279.

Uncle G, I'd be happy to reconsider, but I have no access to Nails' book myself (Google Books preview does not show those pages, nor the Works cited and consulted (which might provide other sources too)). Other sources I have found have at most a sentence or two about Patrocles, though admittedly more than is in this article. Xenophon: Ethical Principles and Historical Enquiry p286-287 says "Socrates' half-brother Patrocles was King Archon of the board of ten oligarchs who replaced the Thirty after their downfall"; Socrates in Love p 170 says Patrocles "may have had political ambitions; he is named as holding an official position in the Athenian treasury in the late fifth century". The Bloomsbury Companion to Socrates names Patrocles as one of seven who fled into exile as a result of the scandals and failed oligarchic coup of 415. That does sound like he was notable. I do not feel competent to add that info to the article, though! RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as above, unless additional detail sufficient to prove notability is forthcoming: the best way to prove that would be to add some substantial, reliably cited mentions. If you do this, feel free to ping me to reconsider my !vote. Brief and passing mentions (even in good sources, as those discussed above seem to be) are not in themselves sufficient to do this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nine+ Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The record label fails WP:GNG and is not notable. All of the sources cited in the article are press release info about the the label's launch. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a promotional website.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Nigeria.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Davido. This just got started and doesn't meet WP:MUSIC's sense of an important label, but including information at the founder's page and redirecting there makes sense. Chubbles (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tom Brown's School Days 1st edition cover.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EamonnPKeane (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph, rather than scan. There is no indication that the photograph of the book was released under a free license; a mechanical scan would not attract its own copyright, but this might.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Weak Keep and/or Move to Commons as PD I'm on the fence on this one. This is a relatively rare book, but that's about as close to a faithful scan of a 2D, PD image (cover and spine) as possible. Near as I can tell, this is effectively a mechanical scan. I'd say that this qualifies, but I'm willing to be swayed by caselaw/precedent. Buffs (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsure. On the one hand, we have c:COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet, which has some 3D effects and isn't OK. There is also c:Template:Non-free frame, where people are requested to remove a non-free part of the photo. On the other hand, we have c:COM:ART#Photograph of an old stained glass window or tapestry found on the Internet or in a book, where minimal 3D parts may be accepted. As the 3D part is a bit visible and light is somewhat reflected, it's maybe OK, maybe not OK. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any solid opinions on the copyright status?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Museums in Ardèche (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Ardèche and Category:Museums in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes
• Propose merging Category:Museums in Ardennes (department) (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Ardennes (department) and Category:Museums in Grand Est
• Propose merging Category:Museums in Ariège (department) (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Ariège (department) and Category:Museums in Occitania (administrative region)
• Propose merging Category:Museums in Cantal (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Cantal and Category:Museums in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes
• Propose merging Category:Museums in Corrèze (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Corrèze and Category:Museums in Nouvelle-Aquitaine
• Propose merging Category:Museums in Côtes-d'Armor (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Côtes-d'Armor and Category:Museums in Brittany
• Propose merging Category:Museums in Drôme (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Drôme and Category:Museums in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes
• Propose merging Category:Museums in Gers (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Gers and Category:Museums in Occitania (administrative region)
• Propose merging Category:Museums in Hautes-Pyrénées (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Hautes-Pyrénées and Category:Museums in Occitania (administrative region)
• Propose merging Category:Museums in Jura (department) (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Jura (department) and Category:Museums in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté
• Propose merging Category:Museums in Landes (department) (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Landes (department) and Category:Museums in Nouvelle-Aquitaine
• Propose merging Category:Museums in Lot-et-Garonne (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Lot-et-Garonne and Category:Museums in Nouvelle-Aquitaine
• Propose merging Category:Museums in Nièvre (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Nièvre and Category:Museums in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté
• Propose merging Category:Museums in Rhône (department) (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Rhône (department) and Category:Museums in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes
• Propose merging Category:Museums in Haute-Saône (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Haute-Saône and Category:Museums in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté
• Propose merging Category:Museums in Sarthe (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Sarthe and Category:Museums in Pays de la Loire
• Propose merging Category:Museums in the Territoire de Belfort (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in the Territoire de Belfort and Category:Museums in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté

Nominator's rationale: All contain 1-2 articles. Not useful for navigation. Merge per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Châteaux in Alpes-de-Haute-Provence (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Alpes-de-Haute-Provence and Category:Châteaux in Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur
• Propose merging Category:Châteaux in Corse-du-Sud (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Corse-du-Sud and Category:Châteaux in Corsica
• Propose merging Category:Châteaux in Haute-Saône (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Haute-Saône and Category:Châteaux in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté
• Propose merging Category:Châteaux in Savoie (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Savoie and Category:Châteaux in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes
• Propose merging Category:Châteaux in Vosges (department) (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Vosges (department) and Category:Châteaux in Grand Est
• Propose merging Category:Châteaux in Seine-Saint-Denis (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Seine-Saint-Denis and Category:Châteaux in Île-de-France
• Propose merging Category:Châteaux in Drôme (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Drôme and Category:Châteaux in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes
• Propose merging Category:Châteaux in Haute-Savoie (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Haute-Savoie and Category:Châteaux in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes
• Propose merging Category:Châteaux in Ille-et-Vilaine (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Ille-et-Vilaine and Category:Châteaux in Brittany
• Propose merging Category:Châteaux in Loire (department) (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Loire (department) and Category:Châteaux in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes
• Propose merging Category:Châteaux in Var (department) (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Var (department) and Category:Châteaux in Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur

Nominator's rationale: All contain 1-2 articles. Not useful for navigation. Merge per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Churches in Ardèche (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Ardèche and Category:Churches in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Charente (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Charente and Category:Churches in Nouvelle-Aquitaine
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Cher (department) (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Cher (department) and Category:Churches in Centre-Val de Loire
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Corrèze (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Corrèze and Category:Churches in Nouvelle-Aquitaine
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Creuse (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Creuse and Category:Churches in Nouvelle-Aquitaine
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Dordogne (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Dordogne and Category:Churches in Nouvelle-Aquitaine
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Eure-et-Loir (2) to Category:Religious buildings and structures in Eure-et-Loir and Category:Churches in Centre-Val de Loire
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Hautes-Alpes (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Hautes-Alpes and Category:Churches in Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Indre (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Indre and Category:Churches in Centre-Val de Loire
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Jura (department) (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Jura (department) and Category:Churches in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Loire (department) (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Loire (department) and Category:Churches in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Lot (department) (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Lot (department) and Category:Churches in Occitania (administrative region)
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Lot-et-Garonne (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Lot-et-Garonne and Category:Churches in Nouvelle-Aquitaine
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Lozère (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Lozère and Category:Churches in Occitania (administrative region)
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Haute-Marne (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Haute-Marne and Category:Churches in Grand Est
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Meuse (department) (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Meuse (department) and Category:Churches in Grand Est
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Nièvre (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Nièvre and Category:Churches in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté
• Propose merging Category:Churches in the Territoire de Belfort (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in the Territoire de Belfort and Category:Churches in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Essonne (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Essonne and Category:Churches in Île-de-France
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Hauts-de-Seine (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Hauts-de-Seine and Category:Churches in Île-de-France
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Val-d'Oise (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Val-d'Oise and Category:Churches in Île-de-France

Nominator's rationale: All contain 1-2 articles. Not useful for navigation. Merge per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Sports venues in Flemish Brabant (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Flemish Brabant and Category:Sport in Flemish Brabant
• Propose merging Category:Sports venues in Luxembourg (Belgium) (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Luxembourg (Belgium) and Category:Sport in Luxembourg (Belgium)

Nominator's rationale: Each contain 1-2 articles. Not useful for navigation. Merge per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Christian monasteries in Luxembourg (Belgium) (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Luxembourg (Belgium) and Category:Christian monasteries in Wallonia
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Luxembourg (Belgium) (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Luxembourg (Belgium) and Category:Churches in Wallonia
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Walloon Brabant (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Walloon Brabant and Category:Churches in Wallonia

Nominator's rationale: Contains 1-2 articles. Not useful for navigation. Merge per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Canals in East Flanders (2) to Category:Landforms of East Flanders and Category:Canals in Flanders
• Propose merging Category:Canals in Flemish Brabant (2) to Category:Landforms of Flemish Brabant and Category:Canals in Flanders
• Propose merging Category:Canals in Hainaut (province) (2) to Category:Landforms of Hainaut (province) and Category:Canals in Wallonia
• Propose merging Category:Canals in Walloon Brabant (1) to Category:Landforms of Walloon Brabant and Category:Canals in Wallonia

Nominator's rationale: All contain 1-2 articles. Not useful for navigation. Merge per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Airports in Walloon Brabant (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Walloon Brabant and Category:Airports in Wallonia

Nominator's rationale: Contains 1 article. Not useful for navigation. Merge per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Tropojë (1) to Category:Tropojë and Category:Buildings and structures in Kukës County
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Gramsh, Elbasan (2) to Category:Gramsh, Elbasan and Category:Buildings and structures in Elbasan County
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Prrenjas (2) to Category:Prrenjas and Category:Buildings and structures in Elbasan County
• Propose merging Category:Mosques in Peqin (1) to Category:Mosques in Albania and Category:Buildings and structures in Peqin
• Propose merging Category:Schools in Durrës (1) to Category:Education in Durrës and Category:Buildings and structures in Durrës
• Propose merging Category:Schools in Gjirokastër (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Gjirokastër
• Propose merging Category:Schools in Shkodër (2) to Category:Education in Shkodër and Category:Buildings and structures in Shkodër
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Lushnjë (2) to Category:Lushnjë Category:Buildings and structures in Fier County
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Patos (municipality) (2) to Category:Patos (municipality), Category:Buildings and structures in Fier County

• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Shijak (2), Category:Shijak, and Category:Buildings and structures in Durrës County
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Skrapar (2) to Category:Skrapar and Category:Buildings and structures in Berat County
• Propose merging Category:Sports venues in Kavajë (2) to Category:Sport in Kavajë and Category:Buildings and structures in Kavajë
• Propose deleting Category:Education in Gjirokastër (1)

Nominator's rationale: All contain 1-2 articles. Not useful for navigation. Merge per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:NA-importance Category-Class Russia pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:NA-importance Disambig-Class Russia pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:NA-importance Draft-Class Russia pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:NA-importance File-Class Russia pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:NA-importance FM-Class Russia pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:NA-importance Portal-Class Russia pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:NA-importance Project-Class Russia pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:NA-importance Template-Class Russia pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:NA-importance Category-Class Russia articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added January 16)
• Propose deleting Category:NA-importance Disambig-Class Russia articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added January 16)
• Propose deleting Category:NA-importance Draft-Class Russia articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added January 16)
• Propose deleting Category:NA-importance File-Class Russia articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added January 16)
• Propose deleting Category:NA-importance FM-Class Russia articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added January 16)
• Propose deleting Category:NA-importance Portal-Class Russia articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added January 16)
• Propose deleting Category:NA-importance Project-Class Russia articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added January 16)
• Propose deleting Category:NA-importance Template-Class Russia articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added January 16)

Nominator's rationale: More redundant categories; all categories, templates, etc. are of NA-importance to WP:RUSSIA. Delete them as redundant to e.g. Category:Template-Class Russia pages. BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 22:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. This appears to be the only WikiProject that uses this unique categorization format. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, WP Russia is not the only project to use intersection categories by quality and importance, and at least WP:COMICS also has cats for NA-importance, which were nominated two days ago at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_13#Redundant_WP:COMICS_categories. Ah, you can see at a glance at Category:NA-importance pages which projects have subcatted these, e.g. 20th Century Studios, Africa, amphibian and reptile, Animation, Archaeology, Astronomy, Australia etc. – Fayenatic London 14:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I stand corrected. It appears that these eight Russia categories were renamed from "Foo articles" to "Foo pages" as part of a broader mass-renaming, but it was premature to include them. The other intersection categories you cite were not similarly renamed. Would it be a problem to move the category pages back to their old titles? (I don't want to upset any apple carts while this CfD is pending!) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    If kept, we should send them back to the original name until the templates are updated. However, I still maintain that they are redundant to the generic, importance-less class categories. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, the contents are still at the previous names using "articles", e.g. Category:NA-importance FM-Class Russia articles (0), pending further changes to templates. If you still want to delete, please list those category redirect pages as well so that participants can see the contents. – Fayenatic London 14:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fayenatic london: Added them to the nomination; is your oppose just that they were not included (a mistake on my part) or that you believe these categories are useful? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What code changes are needed to implement these? Note to closing admin Please do not list these on the automatic working page until the code changes are made. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Timrollpickering: None; Module:WikiProject banner already uses the Lua version of {{#ifexist}} on the category outputs. In fact, the closer should not list these at CFDW and instead delete them directly; the contents will be automatically emptied. Best, BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 01:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, the only person who has expressed a clear opinion on the nominator's substantial proposal (eliminating the NA-importance categories in favor of categories specifying only class) is the nominator himself.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. "NA-importance" is implied for these namespaces. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Alumni lists to Category:Lists of people by educational affiliation

Nominator's rationale: Use pre-existing category Gjs238 (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Murdered American gangsters by criminal organization to Category:Murdered American gangsters

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There's no need to isolate the specific organization, assuming we want to diffuse at the intersection of cause of death and occupation, and organization. ^SMason_Garrison 14:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose manually merging Category:Medieval events to Category:Middle Ages
• Propose manually merging Category:Events in the Byzantine Empire to Category:Byzantine Empire
• Propose manually merging Category:Events in the medieval Islamic world to Category:Medieval Islamic world

Nominator's rationale: manually merge, the word "events" is used here as "anything that happened" in this period, and is thus a rather meaningless distinction. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Manually merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Scholars of Precolonial East Africa to Category:Ethiopian scholars

Nominator's rationale: merge per actual content, the articles are all about Ethiopians. Note that the term "pre-colonial" is pretty meaningless in Ethiopia, apart from a brief occupation by Italy they were an independent country. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Works set in prison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Forms a category loop with Category:Fiction set in prison, and contains no articles. All the other subcategories are already in the other category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Fiction set in X" categories normally only contain "Works set in X" and Fictional elements in X (mostly characters). This case is no exception to that. I tend to think that the "Fiction set in" category layer is redundant, rather than the "Works set in" layer. The works and fictional elements can be linked to each other in the header of the category page, just like songs and albums. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Suggestions for renaming Category:Experts on refugees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I stumbled on this category when I stumbled on the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoe Gardner (migration expert), and I saw a tangent about this category. While it is true that many people on Wikipedia are widely considered as experts in their subject, there are only three categories named "Experts on...": those are for terrorism, North Korea and refugees. Other categories on specialism would be like Category:Psephologists (not "experts on elections") or Category:Seismologists (not "experts on earthquakes") I looked at the articles in this category, and there is a mixture of activists and academics. Both of these can be problematic when we have a category on expertise. If the category was named "pro-refugee activists", that seems better to me, because it is about their position, rather than expertise. If a pro-refugee activist is not academically qualified, I feel that opens the way to having anti-refugee activists also having to be in the category of "experts", as both will be known for activism on the subject, and both will have no academic credentials to prove it. When it comes to academics, obviously they do not pin their colours to the mast quite like activists, but there are also highly qualified people who are known for writings that criticise migration and asylum. Those would fall under the banner of "experts on refugees", and would probably lead to edit wars on exactly who qualifies as an expert. TLDR: Category mixes activists and academics. Should they be separated? Category is based on expertise, which is subjective. In the case of unqualified activists, the category could also be applied to anti-refugee activists, as the category only mentions unquantifiable "expertise", not position. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• There unlike Seismology, there is no Refugelogy, hence the name is fine. As for how to populate it, the only criteria is whether a person is called "expert on refugees", exactly in the same way as other experts are identified. BTW, this term is used in Wikipedia: Nora Sveaass (born 11 December 1949) is a Norwegian psychologist, and an expert on refugees, human rights violations, and psychological consequences of torture --Altenmann >talk 22:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Second issue: there is an official term "migration expert", the term used in Wikipedia, but it looks like it is a more general term. --Altenmann >talk 22:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• At the same time, from the bio "Nora Sveaass (born 11 December 1949) is a Norwegian psychologist, and an expert on refugees, human rights violations, and psychological consequences of torture" it would be tempting to introduce category:Experts on torture, etc. Hence my suggestion:
• create category:Experts on human rights and merge the discussed one there. We have plenty experts on human rights in Wikpedia as well, such as Cecilia Bailliet (born 24 April 1969) is a Norwegian/Argentine/US professor of law who became the United Nations Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity in 2023. --Altenmann >talk 22:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I don't see a problem. "Scholars" categories may also contain non-academics, depending on context. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will note that creating a category does not need discussion, but merging a category does.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or rename pro-refugee activists. Calling someone an expert is POV, and even worse almost no one in this category is even described that way. It's an arbitrary assortment of people Campaigning on something does not make you an expert, and I'm not sure if there is a relevant academic field. In any case, only one or two of the people here would fit in an academic category. Our two other "Experts on" categories are misnamed and have also been nominated. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree that human rights activists do not belong in this category. But most articles aren't about human rights activists. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle But what do they have in common? Nothing really, besides some sort of affiliation with any aspect of refugees, which is not really defining. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • They (the ones that should stay) are academics with a specialization in the topic of refugees. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    So are you advocating renaming this like "Scholars of refugees" or something? Experts is not workable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am not advocating it per se, but I would not oppose it either. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      I am for anything that does not have "experts" in the name. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the discussion between PARAKANYAA and Marcocapelle?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Setians to Category:Temple of Set

Nominator's rationale: The title and description is confusing, but every item listed is affiliated with or is the Temple of Set. Non-Temple of Set Set affiliations are not included. Category should thus be renamed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative: Stephen Flowers and Nikolas Schreck aren't clearly affiliated and the others can be put in a Category:High priests of the Temple of Set. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think Schreck is fairly affiliated (flowers probably is but it's not mentioned in the article now, so, fair). It also, IMO, makes little sense to have a category of high priests excluding the actual main Temple of Set article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The main Temple of Set article can still be mentioned in the category description. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I would oppose this for the reason that as this category expands I think most of the topics included would not be high priests. And it makes sense to deal with as an eponymous category. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • At least we need something else in order to keep the category in the tree of Category:Occultists by religion. It is a people category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      It's also in some non-people cats, like "New religious movements established in the 1970s" and "left-hand path". So we could just remove that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs third-party opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Linz (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Linz and Category:Theatres in Austria
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Liège (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Liège and Category:Theatres in Belgium
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Chongqing (2) to Category:Performing arts venues in Chongqing and Category:Theatres in China
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Macau (1) to Category:Performing arts venues in Macau and Category:Theatres in China
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Osijek (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Osijek and Category:Theatres in Croatia
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Rijeka (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Rijeka and Category:Theatres in Croatia
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Nicosia (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Nicosia and Category:Theatres in Cyprus
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Ostrava (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Ostrava and Category:Theatres in the Czech Republic
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Plzeň (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Plzeň and Category:Theatres in the Czech Republic
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Aarhus (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Aarhus and Category:Theatres in Denmark
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Corfu (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Corfu and Category:Theatres in Greece
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Patras (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Patras and Category:Theatres in Greece
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Thessaloniki (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Thessaloniki and Category:Theatres in Greece
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Debrecen (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Debrecen and Category:Theatres in Hungary
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Győr (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Győr and Category:Theatres in Hungary
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Kaposvár (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Kaposvár and Category:Theatres in Hungary
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Miskolc (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Miskolc and Category:Theatres in Hungary
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Pécs (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Pécs and Category:Theatres in Hungary
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Szeged (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Szeged and Category:Theatres in Hungary
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Zalaegerszeg (1) to Category:Zalaegerszeg and Category:Theatres in Hungary
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Indore (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Indore and Category:Theatres in India
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Waterford (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Waterford (city) and Category:Theatres in the Republic of Ireland
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Ashdod (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Ashdod and Category:Theatres in Israel
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Beersheba (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Beersheba and Category:Theatres in Israel
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Givatayim (1) to Category:Givatayim and Category:Theatres in Israel
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Haifa (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Haifa and Category:Theatres in Israel
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Mirandola (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Mirandola and Category:Theatres in Italy
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Padova (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Padua and Category:Theatres in Italy
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Parma (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Parma and Category:Theatres in Italy
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Sassari (1) to Category:Sassari and Category:Theatres in Italy
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Panevėžys (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Panevėžys and Category:Theatres in Lithuania
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Arendal (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Arendal and Category:Theatres in Norway
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Bergen (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Bergen and Category:Theatres in Norway
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Kristiansand (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Kristiansand and Category:Theatres in Norway
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Trondheim (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Trondheim and Category:Theatres in Norway
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Białystok (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Białystok and Category:Theatres in Poland
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Gdańsk (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Gdańsk and Category:Theatres in Poland
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Katowice (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Katowice and Category:Theatres in Poland
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Poznań (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Poznań and Category:Theatres in Poland
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Toruń (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Toruń and Category:Theatres in Poland
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Wrocław (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Wrocław and Category:Theatres in Poland
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Faro, Portugal (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Faro, Portugal and Category:Theatres in Portugal
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Guimarães (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Guimarães and Category:Theatres in Portugal
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Setúbal (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Setúbal and Category:Theatres in Portugal
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Sibiu (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Sibiu and Category:Theatres in Romania
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Kaluga (1) to Category:Kaluga and Category:Theatres in Russia
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Tula (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Tula, Russia and Category:Theatres in Russia
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Ufa (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Ufa and Category:Theatres in Russia
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Ulan-Ude (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Ulan-Ude and Category:Theatres in Russia
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Kragujevac (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Kragujevac and Category:Theatres in Serbia
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Niš (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Niš and Category:Theatres in Serbia
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Subotica (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Subotica and Category:Theatres in Serbia
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Košice (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Košice and Category:Theatres in Slovakia
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Prešov (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Prešov and Category:Theatres in Slovakia
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Maribor (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Maribor and Category:Theatres in Slovenia
• Propose merging Category:Theatres and concert halls in Melilla (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Melilla and Category:Theatres in Spain
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Valladolid (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Valladolid and Category:Theatres in Spain
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Bern (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Bern and Category:Theatres in Switzerland
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Geneva (2) to Category:Entertainment venues in Geneva and Category:Theatres in Switzerland
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Hereford (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Hereford and Category:Theatres in England
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Wolverhampton (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Wolverhampton, Category:Theatres in Staffordshire, and Category:Theatres in the West Midlands (county)
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Workington (2) to Category:Workington and Category:Theatres in Cumbria
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in York (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in York, Category:Theatre in York, and Category:Theatres in North Yorkshire
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Dundee (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Dundee and Category:Theatres in Scotland
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Kilmarnock (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Kilmarnock and Category:Theatres in Scotland
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Burnsville, North Carolina (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Yancey County, North Carolina and Category:Theatres in North Carolina
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Chapel Hill, North Carolina (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Chapel Hill, North Carolina and Category:Theatres in North Carolina
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Dayton, Ohio (2) to Category:Buildings and structures in Dayton, Ohio and Category:Theatres in Ohio
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Lubbock, Texas (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Lubbock, Texas and Category:Theatres in Texas
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Snow Camp, North Carolina (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Alamance County, North Carolina and Category:Theatres in North Carolina
• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Winston-Salem, North Carolina (1) to Category:Buildings and structures in Winston-Salem, North Carolina and Category:Theatres in North Carolina
• Propose deleting Category:Theatre in Macau (1)
• Propose deleting Category:Arts in Waterford (1)
• Propose deleting Category:Entertainment venues in Bern (1)
• Propose deleting Category:Theatres in Herefordshire (1)

Nominator's rationale: All contain 1-2 articles. Not useful for navigation. Merge per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Roundtheworld (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Polish engineers who worked in Azerbaijan to Category:Polish expatriates in Azerbaijan

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between nationality, occupation, and place of work. already added members of the category to Foo-th century Polish engineers ^SMason_Garrison 02:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:OCEGRS. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Scholars of Precolonial West Africa to Category:Scholars of Precolonial Africa

Nominator's rationale: isolated category. Category:Precolonial West Africa doesn't exist ^SMason_Garrison 02:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The commonly accepted definition of West Africa is based on the modern countries. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, anachronistic distinction as both north and west precolonial Africa were under Islamic influence. By far the most entries are Islamic scholars. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Scholars of Precolonial North Africa to Category:Scholars of Precolonial Africa

Nominator's rationale: underpopulated cateogry ^SMason_Garrison 02:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The commonly accepted definition of North Africa is based on the modern countries. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, anachronistic distinction as both north and west precolonial Africa were under Islamic influence. The only entry is about an Islamic scholar. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/or Gender Diverse → Gender nonconformity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Irregular. LIrala (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. {{R from move}}, and subpages of "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation" were where article drafts were created and hosted before the "Draft:" namespace was created. The content that was formally at this title is now hiding in the edit history of Sex and/or gender diverse. Steel1943 (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, keep per the spirit of WP:RDRAFT. Steel1943 (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ...And tag with {{R with old history}}, since that template applies. Steel1943 (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The only page history to preserve here is that the page was moved in 2011. Nothing links here, and there have only been 38 page views since 2018, 29 of which are due to this RFD. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete for being confusing; its existence sends the wrong message for the structure of AfC drafts. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Though I stated this above, stating this down here as well to clarify that I thought of this after the relist: This redirect qualifies for a {{R with old history}} tag since it's a valid title structure that was used by Wikipedia in the past and the title was used to host a live page prior to the titling scheme for such pages being changed (which, in this case, was the creation of the "Draft:" namespace). Content from this title was moved in 2011, and the "Draft:" namespace was not created/established until December 2013, meaning this title is valid since there was content at it prior to the creation of the "Draft:" namespace (which essentially should make it qualify for a {{G8-exempt}} tag now.) It may also be worth noting that all of the other editors who have participated in the discussion so far registered their accounts after December 2013 (with 2018 being the earliest ... for reference, I'm 2006), so they may not be been aware how much of a historical standard this titling scheme used to be. Lastly for reference, see Wikipedia:Village_pump (proposals)/Archive 107#Proposed new Draft namespace, and RFC initiated in November 2013 which proposed and established the "Draft:" namespace ... an RFC which I was a participant. Steel1943 (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Western civilization → Western culture (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Western civilisation → Western culture (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Western Civilization → Western culture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Western Civilisation → Western culture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Following RfD in 2022, this was retargeted to Western culture (disambiguation), but challenged within weeks by User:Archer1234 (who I belive did not noticed the RfD at all, but made a good point that there was incosistency with the target of Western civilisation). I'd also add that there is a ton of links to those terms, so piping them to a disambig is problematic (pinging non-blocked participants of 2022 RfD: User:Furius, User:Carchasm, User:El cid, el campeador). There is no perfect solution, but I think the best solution would be to retarget this to Western world which is a broader concept. Arguably, we might also want to rename "Western world" to "Western civilization" (discussion started). The Western culture is only about culture, world and civilization are IMHO larger in scope and similar to one another, and if there is confusion, it is the 'world' concept that is more ambiguous, isn't it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't see what the inconsistency is. People talking about "Western civilization" might mean the western world or western culture or the other options on the dismbig page, so the disambig page is a good place to send people. It also encourages people linking to "western civilization" to choose the appropriate concept rather than assuming that linking to western civilization will magically go to the version of the concept that they have in mind. Furius (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added the "s" spelling and the Title Case redirects given nom mentioned the inconsistency with the target of related redirects. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change to consistent target of Western culture (disambiguation). An ambiguous term should point to disambiguation page. Oppose the proposal to change the target to Western world, as the latter is much better defined term. Викидим (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Outline of the history of Western civilization which provides links to, seemingly, all of the reasonably relevant targets. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Following Alalch's purge of the disambig page, it has turned into a WP:ONEOTHER and I have PROD'd it. Jay 💬 15:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A target page was deleted through PROD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As the lowercased entries became targetless, I have retargeted them to Western culture. Jay 💬 19:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig Western civilization between Western culture and Western world. Revisit when nom's RM discussion concludes. Jay 💬 14:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• True Blue: The Best of Sonic the Hedgehog → Sonic the Hedgehog#Music  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Sonic the Hedgehog: True Blue → Sonic the Hedgehog#Music  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, and not mentioned on the most related alternative article option Music of Sonic the Hedgehog. However, True Blue: The Best of Sonic the Hedgehog is a {{R with history}} after being subject to a WP:BLAR almost a decade ago after being an article for 7 years. Steel1943 (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has separate articles in Italian and Japanese which might be of use if it is decided to return this to full article status. (note: this is not an opinion in favor for or against deletion of the redirect) - Andre Engels (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restore and tag for translation per WP:TRANSLATETOHERE. Jay 💬 20:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Linda Persson → Moldova in the Eurovision Song Contest 2013#Final  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No apparent reason why the redirect leads here. In the entire article, Linda Persson is mentioned one time, and that's in the list of songwriters. The redirect leads to a section of the article where she's not mentioned at all. Furthermore, the article puts zero focus on her, making the redirect very confusing. She has also written songs after this, so why this specific article? — IмSтevan ^talk 14:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Per the AfD it was redirected to the #Semifinal 2 section, and when that section changed, a bot thought #Final is the next best match. Given that there is a Swedish pole-vaulter with the same name who was national champion in 2003, 2004 and 2006, the current target is not appropriate. Given that the AfD was more than a decade back, and per the nomination statement that the songwriter has written songs after this, restore / return to AfD for re-eval. Jay 💬 19:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2090s (fictional) → 3rd millennium#2090s  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target article is strictly about real life. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fiction_set_in_the_21st_century. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2900 → 3rd millennium#29th century  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I found the articles ICL 2900 Series and AMD Am2900 as possible disambiguation targets, as well as the disambiguation page Class 2900. Anything else numbered 2900?

In general, it seems that the coverage of the article 3rd millennium drops sharply after the 24th century, which puts into question all of the year redirects from 2401–3000. Some inspection will reveal if any should be disambiguated. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• March 2051 → 3rd millennium#2050s  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is the only extant month redirect after 2029. It is far too soon to be creating such redirects. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• National News → The National (TV program)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are more news programs (even in Canada) called “national news”, this probably needs to be converted into a disambiguation page of some kind at the very least. It certainly shouldn’t be redirected to CBC. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 14:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a comment: again even in Canada, “national news” could be referring to CBC The National, or to CTV National News, not to mention programs outside of Canada. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 14:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Canadian Oak → American chestnut  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. I can't find any evidence that "Canadian oak" refers to American chestnut (thefreedictionary.com scrapes Wikipedia). From what I can find, "Canadian oak" is oak wood sourced from Canada, often used for making barrels in alcoholic beverage production. Canadian oak wood may be from Quercus alba (this is generally considered one of the best species for barrel making), but there are some websites that mention Quercus rubra as being a source of Canadian oak. Plantdrew (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After a short search I cannot find a source either. The species is planted very locally in South Africa as a street tree, and then appears to be known by the name "Canadian oak". It was introduced to me by that name, but the person who did so died during covid, so I cannot check with him either. It may be a commercial name, or a name that is suppressed to avoid confusion. You may delete. JMK (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I think the closest would be a oak timber industry entry at Forestry in Canada but it doesn't exist now. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate – this phrase is used [40] [41] [42] and may lead readers to the not-unreasonable assumption that there is a tree species known as the "Canadian oak". There are several oak species found in Canada [43] and these can be listed on the DAB page as they could all be referred to as "Canadian oak". Cremastra (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A: AOU → Avengers: Age of Ultron  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A very vague and unhelpful redirect to the article -- ZooBlazer 08:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason most search results for this exact string without the space relate to Lego Marvel's Avengers, in reference to the versions of characters from this film. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• AAOU → Avengers: Age of Ultron  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A very vague and unhelpful redirect to the article -- ZooBlazer 08:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most search results are about the Asian Association of Open Universities, which doesn't have its own article but is mentioned at several articles about Asian universities. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Bank of the Cook Islands → Avarua  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect from a non-notable entity to a town. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 14:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 122333221 → Palindromic prime  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

And any similar redirects by the same creator. This is not useful whatsoever—and I'm not sure why User:JonRichfield marked it as reviewed? Remsense ‥ 论 09:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand about having marked it as reviewed; I am not aware of having done so. I accidentally created it with an error, then corrected it as a #redirect.

That was all.

As for why I created the redirect at all, I had the choice of giving it an article of its own, or redirecting it to the current target article. Since I can offhand think of nothing else special to say about the number, I did not elect to give it an article of its own. If anyone can think of extra points of interest, it would be easy to change the entry, in which case it would merit the same treatment as any other number of interest, of which there are many articles in WP.

Meanwhile, the cost of retaining it as a redir is trivial, and no one is likely to find himself discomfited by looking it up by accident.

I had considered a similar redir or article for 1223334444555554444333221, which does have the extra point of interest that it is the largest such number, the other two being 11 and 122333221. But I have not decided yet. JonRichfield (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If there are, in fact, only a handful of palindromic primes then it does make sense to redirect that handful to the article on the topic, and list those of mathematical interest in the article. BD2412 T 20:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But, there are, in fact, not just a handful of them. In fact, there are 401698 of them with 14 digits or less (see the OEIS entry), and it's conjectured (but not proven) that there are infinitely many. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unremarkable example that just happens to be listed as one example at the target page, and possibly shouldn't even be. No further information about the number is given, and it's not particularly special or would be particularly likely to be searched for. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with 35.139.154.158 that this is an arbitrary example and not something that people are likely to be specifically looking for. Adumbrativus (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per 35.xx. I have no idea why this was relisted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: It was relisted because there isn't any clear consensus. Only two participants and the nom are supporting deletion, while everyone else is clearly opposing this. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely arbitrary. Sushidude21! (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is an example of a palindromic prime. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 14:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:BRRRRRD → Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 10#WP:BRRRD, the proposal to retarget did not see much discussion. I think it is more funny to retarget to WP:Edit warring. This redirect also has more reverts than WP:BRRRD, which targets EW rather than BRD. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I was the closer of the previous RfD, but didn't have an opinion. There was a suggestion at the time to refine to the #Edit warring section if REALLY necessary, and I didn't do that. Don't the letters of the shortcut align (and make sense) better with the current target than with WP:Edit warring? I understand the inconsistency with WP:BRRRD though. Jay 💬 07:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to WP:Edit warring per nom, definitely funnier and more accurate. Current target makes it look like 5-reverts is a standard BRD technique, which it's not. BugGhost 🦗👻 13:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, 5 reversions are not mentioned at the target, unlikely search term. Alternatively just boldly deal with this redirect for consistency. Likely wouldn't have been reverted, which circumvents the need for a discussion. :} Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it should be deleted. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Reasons for not deleting says that "Links that have existed for a significant length of time...should be left alone", and I think that a redirect created in 2009 definitely counts as "existing for a significant length of time". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a 3RR violation exists in the suggested course of the BRD redirect; while BRRRD might redirect there and wP:BRRD does. WP:BRRRRD should target 3RR were it to exist; thus 5 is exceptional. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to WP:Edit warring, as IIRC this is what this series of initialisms (each with a differingly large number of R's) generally is referring to. Reminder to others to WP:Don't be the Fun Police for fun things that are not in mainspace and will have zero chance of being confusing to regular users, because they aren't in mainspace. WP:CHEAP applies to non-mainspace jokes, there's no reason to be tidy. And really? "Not mentioned in article?" That's taking things to a bit of an excessive extreme. Fieari (talk) 06:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Dutch peoples → Dutch people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I would advise deleting as potentially misleading; "peoples" implies a group of closely related ethnic groups, while the Dutch are generally understood to comprise a single ethnic group. — Anonymous 04:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment though they are also historically divided, with Hollanders, Frieslanders, etc. The Frisians of Friesland are not Dutch, but are in the Netherlands. People of the Netherlands leads to "Dutch people" making it the default article for the people of the country, not just the ethnic group. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would actually recommend retargeting the other redirect in that case. Cameroonians (a nationality, not an ethnic group) redirects to Demographics of Cameroon, so it would make sense for People of the Netherlands to redirect to Demographics of the Netherlands. — Anonymous 14:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as an r from plural. I'm not seeing the implication of different groups, generally we redirect plurals to the base form of the topic. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But people is already a plural. A plural of a plural implies, as the nom points out, several different groups – so delete. Cremastra (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The plural of people is "peoples"; a "people" can be singular as well. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But as Cremastra and myself have already explained, the Dutch are a people in the sense of how the word is normally used, not multiple peoples. Therefore, while it could be correct in some cases, it's inaccurate for this one. — Anonymous 19:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This redirect aligns with others. For instance, American peoples redirects to Americans British peoples redirects to British people, and Australian peoples redirects to Australians. Interestingly, Canadian peoples doesn't exist. As such, if we want to change this one, we should make sure all countries' "peoples" redirect to the same place. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: We should probably go through the list of countries regardless. So far, Korean peoples redirects to Koreans, Japanese peoples doesn't exist, and Thai peoples redirects to Ethnic groups in Thailand. Regardless, out of my first seven attempts, four match the current target style, two don't exist, and one has a different target entirely. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Significa liberdade, the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia (and Canada, if someone wanted to add it) are all multi-ethnic societies, and the articles about their nationals acknowledge this. Therefore, it makes sense to use "peoples" to acknowledge that there are multiple ethnic groups who may call themselves "American" or "British". However, the article makes it clear that Dutch refers to a single ethnic group, not a nationality. A German living in the Netherlands is a Netherlander, but not Dutch. A Dutch person living in Australia who still remains their cultural customs is Dutch, regardless of citizenship. Therefore, when Dutch is understood as an ethnic descriptor, it would follow that "Dutch peoples" describes a group of related ethnic groups, like the Turkic peoples, Italic peoples, Iranian peoples, or Malagasy peoples. However, there are no "Dutch peoples" in this sense, so a reader who searches this will be left puzzled. Thus concludes perhaps my strongest and most coherent wikiargument ever, over a redirect that will probably get fifteen page views on the next twenty years. — Anonymous 01:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Timetable of major worlwide vulcanic eruptions → Timeline of volcanism on Earth  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete - redirect has no incoming links, two different typos, and the existing page history seems to be a duplicate of the target and therefore isn't needed for attribution. Kdroo (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No incoming links is never a reason to delete a redirect. That leaves the typos. "Vulcanic" is just an alternate spelling, apparently, which leaves "worlwide", a plausible near-phonetic misspelling. So keep per WP:CHEAP. Cremastra (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two separate misspellings in a single redirect brings it past the point of plausibility, see WP:RTYPO: However, if a single redirect contains multiple typos, it may be considered an unlikely search term and deleted. I'd argue that unusual alternate spellings, while technically valid, falls under this as well. Kdroo (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just explained that there's actually only one typo. Cremastra (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – this redirect is 15 years old. For a redirect that old, we should avoid deleting unless it is actively harmful, to avoid the risk of breaking incoming links from outside Wikipedia (WP:RKEEP#4). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; two typos is implausible and its existence sets a bad precedent. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Old redirect, unambiguous target, harmless, WP:CHEAP applies. If it was a new redirect I might consider otherwise, but this is old enough to have some teeth. Precedent is pretty irrelevant for non-user facing spaces unless someone is talking about making a bot (and no one is), so WP:Please, put Pandora back in the box. (Smokey the Bear says "Only YOU can prevent link rot.") Fieari (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep per @Fieari. This is WP:CHEAP and in my opinion, based on the typos, someone (like me) could reasonably type this in accidentally. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 14:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Noinclude → Help:Template#Inclusion control: noinclude, includeonly, and onlyinclude  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirected to inclusion before being unilaterally retargeted as a cross-namespace redirect. While I agree that its meaning is quite unambiguous on enwiki, the creation of cross-namespace redirects is generally deprecated. I personally don't think that this rather obscure wikijargon warrants one. — Anonymous 05:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 14:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure this goes against the policy on cross-namespace redirects, maybe someone more experienced can elaborate on that. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 14:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now I do understand that this is a redirect that is 17 years old; but it looks like it was retargeted about two years ago to its current target. Still though, the policy does generally frown upon cross-namespace redirects. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 14:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• James logan elementry school → List of schools of the School District of Philadelphia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely misspelling with near zero usage[44]. If kept, redirect to James Logan Elementary School instead. मल्ल (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is just pollution. BD2412 T 20:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I doubt this will ever see much use even if retargeted. UndeadAnarchy (talk) 09:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "elementry" seems a fairly common misspelling of "elementary" [45]. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as a fully-lowercased redirect with a common misspelling for one of the words in the term. retarget to the school article -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete given the lack of caps and misspelling. If kept, retarget to James Logan Elementary School. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Elementry is a common enough misspelling, and I can't believe Elementry school didn't already exist. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 04:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is not a useful redirect. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Roughly evenly split between deleting, retargeting, and keeping.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 03:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Roughly even split". I'm just passing by, but I see what looks like four delete votes, one keep, and one retarget. I'm not sure why this was relisted. — Anonymous 05:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep due to capitalization. Reasonably could be useful. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 14:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Tauhei → Whitikahu  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Tauhei is a locality, which is not mentioned at the target (nor should it). Could be made into an article as it meets NGEO but I don't have any sources for it. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 03:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Eponymous (1983 album) → Eponym  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While the target mentions eponymous albums, and also Eponymous (album) (a non-eponymous album released in 1988), it neither mentions a 1983 album titled Eponymous, nor an eponymous album from 1983.

This redirect exists as a result of a series of page moves, first by moving the article about the non-eponymous 1988 album to its current title, then by someone overwriting the redirect (in June 2009) with an article about a 1983 EP, then by moving the article to this redirect's title (in July 2009), then again to Eponymous (EP) (in September 2009), now titled The Alarm (EP) (since November 2009). Finally, in February 2011, User:E-Kartoffel retargeted both this redirect and Eponymous (EP) to the current target.

Even though The Alarm (EP) was the target for about a year and a half, I do not consider it to be a suitable one. First, there are two mistakes ("Eponymous" rather than the actual title, and "album" rather than "EP"), which make it a less plausible search term. Second, there actually were many eponymous albums from 1983. Searching for eponymous album 1983 gives at least three relevant results. A Wikidata query for a rough estimate gives 57 (excludes 60 items that do not have sitelinks to this wiki).

List of eponymous albums doesn't currently exist, and I don't see such a list on Lists of albums either. 1983 in music#Albums released and Category:1983 debut albums are also bad targets, because most of the albums listed are not eponymous, and none of them are titled Eponymous. (Also, eponymous albums are not necessarily debut albums. The Beatles (album) is a well-known counterexample from a different year.)

So, in my opinion, delete this redirect. We would only be breaking links that already have been broken for just about 14 years. PleaseStand (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:NHL on Versus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:NHL on NBC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:NHL on Versus into Template:NHL on NBC.
The NHL on Versus page was merged into the NHL on NBC page a while back. 100.7.34.111 (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, the reason I'm proposing a merger is the same as back then - the two templates are about what might as well be the same program, given the common ownership and similarities in coverage the two programs had. 100.7.34.111 (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]