Jump to content

Wikipedia:XfD today

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Deletion today)
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
Shortcuts

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


Speedy deletion candidates[edit]

Candidates for speedy deletion
Articles needing the year an event occurred from December 2015
Akinola Pedro
Michael Buckwald
Claude-3.5
User talk:DatBot/Filter reporter/Run
DYXX-TV
Draft:Ebony Goddess Mystique
Draft:Eterno (singer)
Marco Frigatti
Draft:J.Williams
Jeriq
Draft:Jhajhuhfubnsbiabfubwhfbafbhuibf
Khirbet el-Ein
Draft:Klym Kozynskyi
Koqetedashit
M3GAN (film series)
RejectFinanceBill2024 Protests
Draft:Safe Superintelligence Inc.
Science Centre, Patan
Tribal Research Institute and Museum
Template:Vital articles navigation/level 5/STEM
Draft:Zukuma

Articles[edit]

< June 20 June 22 >

Purge server cache

Sean Taylor (singer-songwriter)[edit]

Sean Taylor (singer-songwriter) (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 meet WP:SINGER. Most references from same minor blog, some other interview on Google but all promotional. Orange sticker (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

INFINITT Healthcare[edit]

INFINITT Healthcare (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)

Stub created by a paid account, seemingly no notability whatsoever. ahmetlii ✉ (Please ping me on a reply!) 08:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Karamaryan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Battle of Karamaryan (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)

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Article previously soft-deleted, however no evidence of improvement. I share the concerns of the previous AfD as well, which stated "Article fails both WP:RELIABILITY and WP:VERIFY."Mdann52 (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mdann52 (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Someone with good Russian might want to have a look into this document (I am assuming the language is Russian). Just to make sure we are not deleting an article about a battle that already happened just because the page creator did not bother to include references. Also have a look to the references at Military History Fandom. Bizarrely the page indicate that the "articles incorporating text from Wikipedia"! anyway the licence is good for Wikipedia but attribution is missing. FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FuzzyMagma: Fandom copied the article from us prior to deletion, and it was copied back across from there when the article was recreated. Took me a while to work that one out! Mdann52 (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spartans Futsal Club[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Spartans Futsal Club (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 evidence of notability. Unable to locate independent reliable sources which discuss the subject in detail. C679 07:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Square[edit]

Thai Square (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)

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. WP:FAILN - organizations local to a city, town or country maybe added to respective article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London#Leisure_and_entertainment Wikilover3509 (talk) 7:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Village communities[edit]

Village communities (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 was created [1] as a copy of a 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article and the Who Wrote That? tool shows that 89.1% of the current text is the same as 1911. What initially struck me as odd was the article's complete and total focus on Europe. The 1911 encyclopedia's explanation for why it was "sufficient to confine the present inquiry ... to nations of Aryan race" was "principally because the Aryan race in its history has gone through all sorts of experiences" (it also said that it "might also be reasonably urged" that the Aryan race was most important, yikes). The section explaining the Aryan focus was removed from the article in 2008, [2] and since then the total focus on Europe has been unexplained. So there are the content issues, and now here is why I think the best path forward is deletion. I thought about merging Village communities into Village but I do not consider any of the info in Village communities to be worthy of inclusion. I'm disconcerted by phrases like "we hear that" and "a good clue to the subject is provided by a Serb proverb" that suggest a tenuous relationship to verifiable fact. The 1911 Britannica might be a reliable source in articles like University court or Castle-guard, which deal with old European history, but I don't think it's a reliable source here. Plus even if I were to improve it, the content would overlap with the village article. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draft: ? I guess... This exists [3], [4] or [5]. Simply copying the text from an 100 yr old encyclopedia is a no-no. Two of these sources are older than the Britannica, one more recent. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks like the Theory of Village Communities was part of the study of the history of economics in the second half of the nineteenth century - this article by Denman Waldo Ross is an 1880 review describing various sources (not all in English, and many looking at non-European cultures, albeit from a colonial perspective). Maybe we should have an article about the theory, but it'd need to be more critical and better-sourced than the current article. Adam Sampson (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, Social science, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While an article on the study of village communities may be suitable, this article on the study of village communities is not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:DEL-CONTENT importantly notes that when editing can address the reasons for deletion, we should edit the article to make it better instead of deleting it. This discussion has turned up adequate sourcing to write some article about village communities (or the economic theory thereof), and the article should of course be improved. But deletion here seems unwise. So too does draftification, as the article was uploaded here in 2006, and sending this to the draft heap as a backdoor to deletion seems ill-advised in light of relevant policies and guidelines. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 07:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 Oregon Battle of the Books controversy[edit]

2018–19 Oregon Battle of the Books controversy (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:EVENT. Local incident that had no lasting or widespread impact. The competition involved in this controversy (Oregon Battle of the Books) also appears to be non-notable. However, the incident is worthy of a short mention at Melissa (novel), so relevant information should be merged there. Astaire (talk) 04:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Melissa (novel) per above. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Thomas Fishback[edit]

James Thomas Fishback (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)

'Soft' deleted back in May, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Fishback.

No new developments as far as I can tell, still likely to fail WP:NBIO KH-1 (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of This TV affiliates[edit]

List of This TV affiliates (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 list; suggested by User:NLeeuw. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Education Channel[edit]

Marion Education Channel (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 does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MSPoweruser[edit]

MSPoweruser (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:NWEB; written like an advertisement Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable, per searches. This newly create page claims it is a publication of Reflector media, which is not itself a notable company, but does exist and has a website. Even Reflector media's website does not list this title - see the "our brands" section here [6] which lists a couple of titles but not this one. If even the publisher doesn't see this as worth a mention, it is clearly not notable for a page of its own. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Party of Canada (2018)[edit]

United Party of Canada (2018) (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 fails WP:NORG all sources primary, or simply statistical in nature there is no indication this was ever notable and they sure aren't now since being deregistered. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Party of Canada (2009)[edit]

United Party of Canada (2009) (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 fails WP:NORG all sources primary, statistical in nature, or records of legal proceedings against the party which would not lead to this party being notable. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brower Youth Awards[edit]

Brower Youth Awards (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 WP:SIGCOV about the awards themselves to establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expert on this process but it seems that even a quick online search yields entire news articles about the awards and winners. Just a few I found in 5 minutes:

What's the process where it's like this article just needs more citations demonstrating WP:SIGCOV?

208.58.205.67 (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prestige Communications[edit]

Prestige Communications (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 does not meet the WP:NCORP as there is a lack of independent significant coverage. Let'srun (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foot in Mouth (EP)[edit]

Foot in Mouth (EP) (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:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Appears to have not charted or been covered by reliable sources - May be some Japanese coverage, but difficult to locate. Mdann52 (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green Day discography#Extended plays: None of the coverage in the article is from reliable sources, and I found no reliable coverage. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Japanese title is Bakuhatsu Live! +5 and charted at number 45 on the Oricon Albums Chart. I wasn't able to find much in the way of reviews, but I admittedly only made a surface-level check (爆発ライブ!+5, if anyone wants to search further for sources). IanTEB (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this info it helps me out. i will add this to the page Stnh1206 (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has found a oricon article on this EP where it shows to have charted. number 8 on the reference page Stnh1206 (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Except it's not an EP, it's the same length and a longer track listing than the bands debut album. If it's redirected it should be to live albums, but if it's charted it shouldn't be redirected, just retitled.Hoponpop69 (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is tune in Tokyo is 33 minutes and it says it is a live ep Stnh1206 (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Commentary in relation to WP:NALBUM number two and the new information that this EP charted in Japan?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia Arrascaeta[edit]

Lucia Arrascaeta (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)

Draftify as I am unable to find enough coverage of this rhythmic gymnast to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify: I agree that this article should be draftified. More coverage needs to be sourced from independent, reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG requirements. AstridMitch (talk) 4:40, 19 June 2024
  • Delete  – All coverage to my eye is either not independent of the subject, or is a WP:TRIVIAL mention. Fails GNG on this basis. My search was unable to turn up sources to prove notability, however they may exist in non-English languages. I am not opposed to incubating should there exist interest in improving the article in that namespace and demonstrating notability either via GNG or WP:NATHLETE. Bgv. (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noble Cause Foundation, Bangalore[edit]

Noble Cause Foundation, Bangalore (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)

I found no significant coverage. Non-notable organization. SL93 (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Marchi[edit]

Cristian Marchi (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 article was marked in 2013 as requiring better citation, and has not progressed with citations nor with clear information about activity in the field. Nothing exists in native language wiki for the person and would appear to have been deleted on multiple occasions. One should seriously question the notability in a case like this. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medical professional misconduct scandals in Nova Scotia[edit]

Medical professional misconduct scandals in Nova Scotia (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)

Another referral from WP:BLPN. This article is a product of original research and synthesis. As titled, this concept or topic is not a phenomenon covered as such within multiple reliable sources. This is an agglomeration of scandals of merely topical relation (to a non-notable topic). As an additional consideration, the WP:BLP-applicable contents have been and stand to remain consistently problematic. A list article would stand a better chance, but most of the scandals covered here are not independently notable. JFHJr (㊟) 01:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and Canada. JFHJr (㊟) 01:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are scandals that involve serious breaches of public trust on multiple occasions (e.g. Dalhousie Dentistry scandal, multiple privacy breaches) and 6-7 figure lawsuit payouts not notable? One of the bullying scandals even led the victim to making a TEDx talk about workplace bullying:
https://www.ted.com/talks/gabrielle_horne_how_a_doctor_used_medical_research_tools_to_survive_workplace_bullying?language=en
If the title needs to be changed, that's one thing. Or making it a "list article", whatever that means. But I don't agree that the scandals are not independently notable. And they are related - several of them raise that there are systemic issues that recur, for example:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/dalhousie-medical-school-mistreatment-harassment-bullying-1.6712113
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/medical-resident-mistreatment-study-dalhousie-1.7058488
And others as referenced. Feel free to read the original news articles in detail, if I perhaps did not summarize them well, but I definitely see them pointing to systemic issues repeatedly - the articles themselves, not me as doing "original research and synthesis".
As a new editor on Wikipedia, getting excited about making an article about all the medical scandals in our province and the toxic workplace issues that we all hear about the medical system all the time, and being shut down quite harshly repeatedly instead of welcomed and kindly shown how to refine things, I am so demoralized that I'm frankly just done with editing. No point if this is what this community is like.
MrHaligonian (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gee-Haw Stables[edit]

Gee-Haw Stables (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)

I found no significant coverage, and the two references are trivial mentions. SL93 (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Cooper[edit]

Zack Cooper (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)

I'd originally PROD'ed this, that was removed. Bringing it to AfD as I still don't think the sources support notability. I was and am unable to find sourcing about this individual, only things they've written. Unsure if this would pass academic notability or notability for business people. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, California, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. This scholar of international affairs has a good GS record that passes WP:Prof#C1 and has published notable books. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep: I am satisfied with the publications which sums up WP:NPROF and WP:AUTHOR. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 21:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't find anything independent about him. In terms of publications, if you do a scholar search on "Zack Cooper" you get high hits but it is someone else - someone who writes about hospitals. If you add "Japan" to the search you get cites in the single to very low double digits. There's the same confusion in WorldCat books, but this Zack Cooper's books are found again in the single digits. (In VIAF he's "Cooper, Zack‏ ‎‡c (Researcher in security studies)‏". With the 2 keep !votes above I wonder if this name confusion wasn't noticed. Lamona (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Click on the scholar link above which differentiates between the two Zack Coopers. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks, I overlooked that. I still don't think he meets NPROF. His H-index is not high, in almost all of his publications he's one of 3 or 4 authors. I see no indication that meets: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I don't see awards. For AUTH we have " is known for originating a significant new concept," "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". Just being an author or co-author of articles is not enough. I don't see that he is someone known for furthering a body of knowledge. Lamona (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly a borderline case. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Chipping in a bit. I also found the article bearer is a "Research Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute". Of course tis a good way WP:ANYBIO. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 02:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a guideline like NPROF there has to be a sub-heading under which he is said to qualify. With respect to @Xxanthippe I don't see how this person passes under #1 -- the article makes no assertion he's recognized for significant impact by others in his discipline. No other heading seems to apply - he's not been a named chair professor or top academic institution leader, there's no assertion his publications have had significant impact, no evidence of impact outside of academia (meeting with a foreign official is a good start, but just a start), etc. Oblivy (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the scholar link, which I admit does not indicate outstanding citations. What do you think of it? I think that this BLP is borderline and might be argued to be a case of [WP:Too soon]]. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I don't see a google scholar link. Can you provide links, or just explain what you think demonstrates notability? Note that WP:TOOSOON is grounds for deletion, such as for a recent news story or someone who has received what could be temporary notability. Oblivy (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On my screen the scholar link is 6.3 inches above this text. It will work if you click it. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
So you just wanted want me to click on the google scholar link on the nomination template and do my own searches? I do that anyway before voting -- it seems he's written a number of papers with a low citation count which is pretty close to irrelevant for notability IMHO. Oblivy (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per WP:NPROF#1. clearly a borderline case in a field (international relations) that does have a decent number of citations. Per GS he has 3 papers with 100+ citations which is generally enough to pass the bar even in biomedicine so I feel we should apply equal criteria here. Per his books, they all seem to be as editor which does not generally count for much and only one has a single review [7] so WP:NAUTHOR doesnt apply here. --hroest 10:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ... I have been taking a look at the publication record of Cooper (via Google Scholar), as this is one of the main elements of contention. The first listed publication (2015 with Lim in Security Studies) could be labeled ‘significant’ or ‘influential’, I believe, and it should be attributed equally to Lim and Cooper. Publications with Green and Hicks most likely took place while Cooper was a fellow at CSIS and should not be used to attribute notability to Cooper’s publication record. The publication with Yarhi-Milo (2016 in International Security) should, in my opinion, be largely attributed to Yarhi-Milo as first author and a senior scientist. Below these in the list one gets into teens of citations rather than 100 or more, and none really standout as particularly impactful at casual glance. With respect to those where Cooper is first or only author:
  • with Poling, 2019 Foreign Policy, the citation pattern suggest this is a time-bound article with limited long term significance
  • with Shearer, 2017 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the citation pattern is indicative of continuing interest, but the number of citations is low.
  • 2018 Center for Strategic and International Studies, this is a CSIS report and likely only internally peer reviewed before publication.

...and so on. My thinking is that Cooper is too early in his career to have become ‘notable’ in the sense we use here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion as to whether this individual passes WP:NPROF's subject-specific criteria would be helpful in achieving a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sin Tae-song[edit]

Sin Tae-song (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)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Kwang-jun[edit]

Yu Kwang-jun (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)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Chang-ha[edit]

Ri Chang-ha (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)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • '''Delete''': per nomination, references are information about the player and includes little notability Wiiformii (talk) 02:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Tae-yong[edit]

Jon Tae-yong (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)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Student Union Building (IUPUI Campus)[edit]

Student Union Building (IUPUI Campus) (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 search of sources including historical newspapers has not uncovered anything that might assist this subject to meet WP:GNG. Assertions of historical significance that might contribute to WP:NBUILDING are sourced to a student newspaper, which per WP:RSSM cannot contribute to notability. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, though I'm not opposed to a redirect to Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files[edit]

File:Bamboozled OST.jpg[edit]

File:Bamboozled OST.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Already one piece of non-free media on this article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elton John - Elderberry Wine.jpg[edit]

File:Elton John - Elderberry Wine.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vsco mike (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image came from a booklet page of the album Don't Shoot Me I'm Only the Piano Player: discogs, 45worlds, ebay. None of single releases use the image that also contains lyrics, which are hard to see in very small size. George Ho (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Australian newspaper proprietors[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. Mason (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Three functions: Owner, publisher and editor. Often separated, for instance politicians may be newspaper owners but not publisher or editor. Influence without responsibility. Pastoralists may inherit a loss-making paper and subsidise its continued operation. Doug butler (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no other categories in this tree that make that distinction. Further, I'm pretty sure that there's a cfd that closed on similar newpaper owners, if I'm recalling. Mason (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, in many articles in both categories it is unclear whether they are about proprietors or about publishers without ownership. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of Hearts talk 05:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auto racing teams[edit]

Extended content
Nominator's rationale: Most of these categories were speedily renamed to their current names from the proposed names in May 2023. Discussions at the Formula One WikiProject and the Motorsport WikiProject resolved that these speedy renames should be reversed because, unlike many other sporting teams, auto racing teams may compete all over the world and their national identity is defined by their racing licence and is not necessarily related to the location of their base of operations. Consider the current Formula One World Champions: Red Bull Racing - they are universally recognised as an Austrian team (they use an Austrian racing licence and when they win a race, the Austrian national anthem is played) but their base of operations is in England. The category rename in May 2023 moved the article from the accurate Category:Austrian auto racing teams to the inaccurate Category:Auto racing teams in Austria. DH85868993 (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: because I don't want to close a 44-category CfD as "unopposed".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of Hearts talk 04:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vassal rulers of the Umayyad Caliphate[edit]

Nominator's rationale: 2 P. WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Just delete. Whether someone was a "vassal" or not can be quite arbitrary, and neither of the parent cats really applies: these princes of Armenia were not "people from the Umayyad Caliphate" or part of its government. At most, they were part of its foreign relations. As the catdesc indicates, these were not 'caliphal-appointed governors', and therefore not part of the internal governance. NLeeuw (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Vassal rulers are easily distinguished by the fact that they bore princely rather than gubernatorial titles and were usually hereditary and at least somewhat autonomous. They are also clearly designated as such by modern scholarship. Armenia was very much part of the Umayyad Caliphate, just as much as the Khanate of Khiva was of the Russian Empire or the various Indian princes were of the British Raj. Constantine ✍ 16:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, princes aren't necessarily vassals and it is not very clear from these articles that the subjects were in fact vassals. The articles are already in appropriate Armenian and monarchs categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Precisely, princes are not necessarily vassals; which means that they need to be distinguished when they are not, in fact, sovereign rulers, but rule at the mercy of an imperial power. Constantine ✍ 16:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of Hearts talk 04:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Cplakidas: rule of the Umayyad Caliphate in Armenia was not firmly established in this period and Ashot II Bagratuni is mostly notable for fighting against the Umayyad Caliphate. I really don't think you can call them vassals. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Worms (series) games[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The desired category for merging (at least now) only contains the article "Worms (series)"QuantumFoam66 (talk) 04:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian universalists by nationality[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Per this conversation, "Universalism" is not a denomination. I am bringing this to CfD per Smasongarrison's suggestion to confirm that others agree that this revision by Neddyseagoon is inappropriate and should be undone. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, my request was to get feedback on whether universalism should be parented by denomination or placed in the main category as a philosophy/theory. I never said that the revision from 2016 was inappropriate, I said that was a stable edit. I don't have a strong opinion, on the parent category, but I did want others to weigh in about how it should be categorized. Mason (talk) 04:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I misrepresented you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert the re-parenting per nom. Universalism is a theological concept with advocates and opponents but it is not a denomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sixteen Kingdoms Buddhist monks[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, the Sixteen Kingdoms contains partially parallel and mostly very short-living kingdoms, typically a few decades. No need to categorize Buddhist monks by each of them separately. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scottish women embroiderers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. This is a non-defining intersection between the type of textile artist and gender. Mason (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pretenders to the Mexican throne[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OR WP:NPOV WP:BLP (Maximilian von Götzen-Iturbide states: Götzen does not pursue any claim to the throne...Despite Götzen not actively pursuing any claim himself, social media users claiming to be Mexican monarchists have posted their support of his claim., therefore also WP:NONDEFINING). Follow-up to recent deletion of main article Pretenders to the Mexican throne, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretenders to the throne of Mexico. See also User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Pretenders#NLeeuw category list.
Some deceased people in this category also appear to be inappropriately labelled pretenders:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Associated TfD was closed as delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Whitewashing in film[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Populated by tangentially related films and not articles from the main topic. Gotitbro (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as I am not sure what you mean by “tangential” as all of the categorised films has an element of whitewashing that is discussed in Whitewashing in film article or mentioned in the film page itself using reliable sources. Take the film Khartoum (film), with blackface white actors which is discussed in the “Reception” section. It does not get more direct than that.
FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps should have worded that nomination better. What I meant was with categories such as these, the expectation is that there will be articles dedicated to the topic not articles mostly about films which only contain an element of the said cat.
I am coming at this from a recent discussion about a similar topic: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Subcategories of Category:Film controversies by country. Gotitbro (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but that is not the policy you have cited and the example you have cited is irrelevant as I said, these instances of whitewashing are discussed using reliable sources.
This is more like your personal preference and expectations which is not supported by policies. A Cat need to be a characteristic of the subject as described in reliable sources see WP:CATDEF. FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle, are you suggesting a category that would include only documentaries on the topic of whitewashing? Dimadick (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct Catholic schools in Louisville, Kentucky[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. There's only one page in here, and no other city (or state) level categories in Defunct Catholic schools in the United States Mason (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split as proposed. This seems eminently reasonable, and I have no idea why I saw the necessity for this category nearly 18 years ago. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 02:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh wait, there probably used to be more entries at some point that ended up being deleted. That's my guess. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 02:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's probably what happened. There's definitely been changes to how notability for schools should be handled, so its totally reasonable that it made sense at the time. Mason (talk) 04:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

Mexican Avocado Dispute[edit]

there isn't anything in the article about a dispute and the section to which this links no longer exists. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spirituality & Health Magazine[edit]

No relation to target, not mentioned in target article. Spirituality & Health is a magazine published by Unity Church. Softlavender (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Tate[edit]


Delete as misleading. This redirect was created a minute after the second deletion discussion closed, first pointing to the whole article and then to a subsection concerning the Romanian case(s), on what seems to me to be the very good reason that they are different people. During the GA drive this change was reverted. As it stands, the references to Tristan are sprinkled throughout the article, so it's hard to pick a single place to point the redirect at; but they are different people, and the current outcome suggests that to the unwary they aren't. Given the AfD outcome, I would suggest that deletion of the redirect and reliance on how search engines actually work is the best resolution of this so that those looking will get a succinct and accurate answer; failing that, the AfD could be reconsidered, or Andrew Tate's article could be so structured as to give a redirect some place to point to. The current arrangement, though, treats him like Zaphod Beeblebrox's second head. Mangoe (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment New RfD's go below the header, not above it. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re-target to Andrew Tate#In Romania: 2022–present per WP:BLP1E, where is he referenced under "Tate brothers" (that can be amended to "Tate and his brother Tristan" for first usage). 1E was the strong argument for deletion of the article second time around, despite not being mentioned in the closing summary, so redirecting to any other part of the article doesn't make sense based on his notability. Additionally, a redirect that is used 20 times a day does appear useful, but being pointed at Andrew Tate directly can be confusing for readers, even if he is mentioned from the lead onwards. I'm not sure why TheMainLogan changed the redirect back in March. I'm otherwise convinced that this redirect existed long before March and that the page history is missing after the 2nd AfD, but could be wrong. Maybe an admin could clarify. CNC (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Restore Tristan Tate Draft I believe the redirect should be deleted, and Tristan Tate is notable enough to have his own page, I suggest the original page be undeleted, and converted into a Draft where further editing can be done to the original page in order to move it into mainspace Mr Vili talk 08:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refine to the section per CommunityNotesContributor. This is without prejudice to the former article content being worked on in draft, but unless and until an article is accepted (and such an article would need to demonstrate notability unrelated to the single incident) readers are better served by the redirect pointing to the content in his brother's article. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules[edit]

Template:Pretenders to the Albanian throne[edit]

Same as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_12#Category:Pretenders_to_the_Albanian_throne, the linked AfD's, and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_12#Template:Pretenders_to_the_Mexican_throne: WP:OR list of pretenders to a defunct monarchy. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bir Bikrom[edit]

Barely-used navbox full of unlinked entries and mistargeted links - not worth it. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a navbox-worthy topic, as Bir Bikrom is a military award with 175 recipients to date. Category:Recipients of the Bir Bikrom has 26 articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany[edit]

Draft:Acharya Institutes[edit]

Draft:Acharya Institutes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Acharya Institute of Technology already exists. This draft was written by an editor now blocked for UPE and relies entirely on primary sources. Nthep (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nthep, I think it's G5-able. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acharya7317. Cabayi (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:XfD_today&oldid=1222059439"