Wikipedia

Wikipedia:XfD today

(Redirected from Wikipedia:DELT)
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
2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics – Boys' javelin throw
Template:2025 Rugby Europe Championship pool tables
Template talk:2025 Rugby Europe Championship pool tables
A Ligue Champions League
Draft:Ahsan Ali
Alba Iulia Fortress
User:AnushaEsupli/sandbox
Draft:Azurionte
Draft:Catwalk Entertainment
Draft:Cole Bettles
Wikipedia:Dante Antonio Muñoz Carriman
Deadpool (film series)
User:Devansh Sanjaybhai Patel/sandbox
Draft:Dopetrackz Radio
E4 Entertainment
Easy Energy of Massachusetts
Draft:Enigarex
Draft:Furgison Law Group, PC - Jon Furgison: Championing Investor Rights
Veroeshka Grain
Talk:H:ECON
Hazara Quami Mahaz Pakistan
User:Jelly1245/sandbox
Draft:Julien Gingras
Chanthavixay Khounthoumphone
Draft:Kihm Metal Technologies
User:Kumarpalla/sandbox
List of Thai regions by Human Development Index
Salva Marjan
Matrix Video Duplication Corporation
Draft:Miss Charm 2024
Draft:MY BONED (A piratesoftware discord meme)
Next Goa Legislative Assembly election
Next West Bengal Legislative Assembly election
Draft:NZTrio
Oborne (disambiguation)
Draft:Robocube A12EZ4
Draft:Sami Al Sabbagh
Sayyid Sulaiman Hussaini
Draft:Mutahir Showkat
Draft:TBO Tek
The Spruce Eats
The Spruce Pets
Draft:Uniq Poet
User:Vikrantsurya/sandbox
Template:WikiProject Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Articles

edit
< August 25 August 27 >

Purge server cache

CRAM diet

edit
CRAM diet (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)

An article about a medical diet treatment. Dismally sourced, and flagged as such since its creation in 2010. I can't find any reference that remotely meets WP:MEDRS (everything online seems to be a mirror or rewording of this article). I asked for expert help on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#CRAM diet to no effect. If this was in any way a notable treatment, surely there would be some worthwhile mention online for it. I don't think we should redir to the similar BRAT diet, which is much better sourced. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 06:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Inner Mongolia

edit
Flag of Inner Mongolia (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)

As the article's first sentence states, Inner Mongolia does not have a flag. The article has not been reliably sourced for almost six years and this is unlikely to change because no notable flag has been claimed as the "flag of Inner Mongolia". The scope of the article is more akin to "flags used in Inner Mongolia" or "flags used by Inner Mongolian organisations", as there is a gallery of organisational flags and a brief write-up on two organisations'. However, none of this is sourced, and the actual scope of the article is extremely limited anyways, being nothing more than a mirror of a Wikimedia Commons gallery. Yue🌙 06:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Germany, Chișinău

edit
Embassy of Germany, Chișinău (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:ORG. Article is merely a 1 line sentence which confirms it exists. LibStar (talk) 05:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Schuster

edit
Kim Schuster (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 cites one source of dubious reliability. Nothing else found via WP:BEFORE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Chol-ho

edit
Kim Chol-ho (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) 04:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Choe Chol-man

edit
Choe Chol-man (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) 04:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clear craze

edit
Clear craze (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)

Concerns about WP:GNG as raised earlier on the article's talk page by another user, which I'll repeat below:

A quick search of Google Scholar returns the sum total of one book that mentions the concept of a "clear craze" ever existing, or that it was a thing that was defined to the 1980s or 1990s. I am almost certain this article fails notability and significance. I am not sure how I ended up here to be honest but I see no significance or notability to this article or its contents. Moreover, I fail to see how the term "clear craze" is encyclopedic in any real sense. Further to the point tabloid trends do not construe a relevant or notable reason for this article to be here.

At current, this article loosely collates a list of products that were released around the 1990s that had a transparent design, which is anecdotally indeed something that some products did during that time that can be called a trend. However, the article's collation of them and framing them as a "clear craze" overstep the mark when the nomenclature and grouping is not subject to significant secondary coverage. We don't have an article for Global Village Coffeehouse even though the term means something and connotes an obvious trend without more secondary sources that substantiate the term. Some reflections include the following:

(1) Firstly, on the use of the phrase, the beverage 'clear craze' seems very loosely to be a thing that some sources like the Newsweek article in the context of the trend to create clear beverages or consumer products to reflect claims about the purity and healthiness of the product. I am not sure that this makes it notable, given that the only source really holding the article up at the moment is the Newsweek one, but it seems that this is where the term is coming from. There's very little secondary analysis, and pivotal sentences in the article like "the clear craze became official with its first wave of products" are unsourced. A brief look around for the term doesn't find much use of "clear craze" as a phrasing, although I found it in or the book The Nineties by Chuck Klosterman (around p. 191) [1]. So thinking critically here, without evidence of consumer demand for this style, "craze" at best falsely connotes a marketing strategy that does not, in fact, reflect a "craze" for the products. The most notable example on the page, Crystal Pepsi, was a failure.

(2) Following from that, on the categorisation of products included, the article spuriously conflates the concept of the 'clear craze' as it applied to beverages and consumables to other trends in transparent product design, particularly transparent casings of consumer electronics in the later 90s that seem to have occurred well after the fact of the sourced products. From what I can tell, the link isn't explicitly made by the sources. Ultimately, the article is a list of products with very little explanation of what unites them. There is not a lot of sourcing or analysis to justify why certain things are in the article other than that an editor or other has found a source about a clear-looking product from that era, attributed it to the "clear craze", and put it in. This is not really the most rigorous approach when trying to define a term for a historical design trend.

If this is deemed notable, suggest a rewrite of the article focusing on (a) the substance and use of the term, and (b) being more rigorous about what about products from that era make it attributable to the trend, backed by sources. Welcome any thoughts - thanks! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ansolet Rossouw

edit
Ansolet Rossouw (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 a notable model. No references that are non-trivial and non-promotional. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Point me to which references are "trivial" or "promotional" as last I checked, News24 is a South African news website, not PR Newswire. Marie Claire is a fashion magazine. V is a fashion magazine. CR Fashion Book is a fashion magazine and so on. None of them are providing trivia. They verified the work she's done and according to the sources… it's notable. Trillfendi (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Central Illinois' On-Line Broadcast Museum

edit
Central Illinois' On-Line Broadcast Museum (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; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cornerstone International School

edit
Cornerstone International School (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 draft moved by original author. Article is about a school with no independent significant coverage from reliable sources. This fails WP:NORG. I am not opposed to this going back to draft if evidence that this private school is potentially notable is given. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siebel Scholars

edit
Siebel Scholars (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)

Insufficient referencing to demonstrate notability. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jia Rizivi

edit
Jia Rizivi (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)

Semi-advertorialized article about a filmmaker, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for filmmakers.
The attempted notability claim here is an unreferenced list of minor awards from small-fry film festivals whose awards are not instant notability clinchers -- WP:NFILM is looking for Oscars, Canadian Screen Awards, BAFTAs or major film festivals on the order of Cannes, Berlin or TIFF whose awards get broadly reported by the media as news, not just any film festival that exists -- but apart from two hits of "local woman does stuff" in her own hometown media (and a New York Times hit that tangentially verifies the existence of a podcast that she was not involved in creating, and thus is not about her in any GNG-contributing sense), this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a stronger notability claim, and better sourcing for it, than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Article was at a misspelling of her name: I moved it to Jia Rizvi (as on her website and in other sources), then realised one isn't supposed to move an article during an AfD and moved it back again. So as I type it is at the wrong title. PamD
  • Note also: most sources refer to her as Jia Wertz, but her own web page uses Rizvi. PamD 09:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: there seem to be enough articles about her as film-maker. It was a badly-written article but I've cleaned up some of the problems - use of forename, curly quotes, lack of links, overlinks, etc. PamD 09:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And bizarre system of reference names too: "one" etc. Have fixed the most-re-used. PamD 10:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. She’s won some accolades in smaller film festivals, but not the bigger ones like Cannes (which actually isn’t that difficult to get into). Right now, the sourcing isn’t up to the level we usually expect from significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Ho

edit
Shirley Ho (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 meet WP:GNG nor WP:ACADEMIC Possible self-promotion page. Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:ACADEMIC.

  • Regarding WP:GNG: essentially all references point directly to the individual's personal website, personal pages at affiliated institutions (Simons, Princeton, Carnegie Mellon University, NYU), or publications
  • Regarding WP:PROF: the achievements are low compared to the field average (astrophysics), and many claims are not really supported by references even after searching the internet. More in detail, testing the criteria for academic notability:
  1. Impact: citation rates in astrophysics tend to be high, due to membership in large collaborations. Most of the citations come from such memberships
  2. Awards: Giuseppe and Vanna Cocconi Prize and NASA Group Achievement Award are group collaboration awards given to members of a large collaboration; Macronix Prize is also given for "leadership in large, international collaborations" as well; Carnegie Science Award and National Blavatnik Finalist have arguable prestige to justify the existence of a Wikipedia page
  3. Scholarly association: the International Astrostatistics Association Fellow is not highly selective or prestigious (its Wikipedia page itself lacks secondary sources)
  4. Impact on Higher education: no evidence
  5. Distinguished appointment: there is no evidence of the alleged Cooper-Siegel Development Chair Professorship, other than the subject's website and CVs. In any case, this is a junior professorship that lasts up to 3 years and can only be renewed once
  6. Administrative post: no evidence
  7. Impact outside academia: lack of broad media coverage
  8. Scientific editor: no evidence

In spite of the brilliant career, the subject's accomplishments and impact do not probably warrant a Wikipedia page? Georgebrown5566 (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Astronomy. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There do appear to be autobiography issues here, and that needs to stop, but I don't think that's an adequate reason for deletion by itself. This is a field where participants in huge collaborations get tiny parts in publications with huge citation numbers, and Ho is no exception. My usual strategy here is to look at first-author publications, realizing that this will also produce significantly smaller citation counts. For Ho I find on Google Scholar citation counts of 454 ("Correlation of CMB with large-scale structure I"), 176 ("Clustering of sloan digital sky survey III"), 53 ("Sloan Digital Sky Survey III photometric quasar clustering"), 47 ("The Posterior distribution of sin (i) values"), 42 ("Luminous red galaxy population") etc. If that were all, I wouldn't think it quite enough for WP:PROF#C1. But we also have individual recognition and to some extent in-depth coverage of her with the Macronix Prize [2], (state-level) Carnegie Science award [3], Blavatnik finalist [4], and fellowship of an obscure society. We also have some media coverage of her for her work on AI-based universe simulation [5]. I think it all adds up to enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true, it seems quite arguable. I am a bit skeptical about WP:PROF#C2 as an additional criterion to satisfy WP:PROF#C1 because it seems hard for me to judge the prestige of the awards. There has been media coverage, but it does not seem to be independent of her affiliations (e.g. CMU).
    • Winners of the Macronix Prize (now OYRA [6]) generally do not seem to have Wikipedia pages, and the prize itself does not seem to get much media coverage
    • The Carnegie Science award is at the state level and again seems to be mainly covered by her university, Carnegie Mellon (which is enough to document that she won the prize, but not to judge whether it is prestigious)
    • It is also not clear whether the Blavatnik Award for Young Scientists is important enough to warrant a Wikipedia page (the wikipedia page itself has not been for a few years)
    • Media coverage of her work on AI-based universe simulation [7] comes from the foundation where she is a group leader, the Simons Foundation, and is not a secondary source
    It seems that secondary and independent coverage would help to confirm the importance of these achievements. Georgebrown5566 (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep?. An unusual GS citation record like hers needs to be scrutinized as there are many reports around recently of citation gaming. This is a high citation field but I note that many of her papers have few authors which supports the strength of her contributions for a pass under WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Trying to understand whether this should be considered extraordinary impact, I just had a look at Web of Science (which usually only considers actual citations to peer-reviewed journals). It reads 9 publications as first author (2 of them with more than 50 citations) and 23 as last author (3 of them with more than 50 citations). In addition, there are ~20 publications with more than 50 citations on GS where Ho is neither first nor last author. Georgebrown5566 (talk) 07:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Impact: It should be noted that in Machine Learning (which currently Shirley Ho is publishing in recently this area substantially), the senior author who guides the work are usually at the *END* of the author list, and when there are two senior authors, then they are listed towards the end as well. Notable examples includes the following: Lagrangian Neural Network Discovering Symbolic Models from Deep Learning with Inductive Biases
It should also be noted that while there were multiple large collaboration papers that included her name that may have biased the citation count, the number of participants in these large astronomy collaborations tend to be hundreds to thousands, while most of her papers have small number (~6) of collaborators where she seems to be the senior person.
Awards: National Blavatnik Finalist award is given 28 scientists across the country (including fields ranging from biology, ecology, life sciences, to chemistry, computer science, engineering, physics to applied mathematics). LINK The website seems to point to quite a serious selection process as well.
Media coverage of her work: She is the PI / director of Polymathic AI (which is a collaboration building an AI scientist). The work of Polymathic seems to have received quite a bit of media coverage: a few examples: [7], [8] [9], [10] [11] Surelyyouarejoking (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the 11 edit (all on this subject) for these comments. Do you have any connection with the subject that should be reported under WP:COI? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
WP:COI: It is indeed an interesting coincidence that "Surely" in User:Surelyyouarejoking is pronounced similarly to "Shirley", and that the page was originally created by a similar single-purpose profile User:Shirleysurely and soon deleted for lack of notability. Georgebrown5566 (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Georgebrown5566, you are also a new user account, and nominating Shirley Ho for deletion is your third edit ever. Doesn't this suggest your account to also be a similar single-purpose profile? CaptainAngus (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was more of a triggering event. As a scientist too (in a different field) it hurts to see relatively young scientists using this site to boost their notoriety. Instead of complaining, I thought I could make the difference, and more is coming! You can see more contributions on my side (time permitting), I asked my mentor if I am following the right procedure, and yes, please feel free to give feedback or suggest other ways to help! I don't know the person or the specific awards, this is what I could find online, so please double check :) Georgebrown5566 (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Impact: (please see the comment above for the discussion about the questionable impact, considering both first and last authorship); papers should be peer-reviewed to be considered, and [8], which appears to be only a preprint, does not contribute to WP:PROF#1; according to Web of Science, Ho appears to be the senior person on about 14% of her publications
  • Awards: the question is whether the Blavatnik Prize is a major award comparable with the Nobel prize or Fields Medal, or whether it still conveys a high level of academic prestige; in the case of Blavatnik, Ho is a finalist but did not even win the full award [9].
  • Media coverage: should we consider the contributions to "Polymathic AI" as general notability WP:GNG? the organization does not have a Wikipedia page and does not seem to conduct peer-reviewed scientific research (I could only find one published paper of arguable impact). The mentioned articles show media coverage but do not show impact, since they mainly refer to the beginning of the collaboration but not to its achievements; it is written in an interview style and many of the articles come from institutions affiliated with the initiative [9, 11], probably not independent.
Maybe this could be considered for WP:TOOSOON? Georgebrown5566 (talk) 07:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TOOSOON is what you say, after justifying a delete opinion, when you think they are on track to become notable later. It is not a justification in itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per NPROF#5. A named chair at Carnegie Mellon is listed here ("She joined Carnegie Mellon as an Assistant Professor in 2011, becoming Cooper Siegel Career Development Chair Professor and tenured Associate Professor.")
    I consider @David Eppstein's comments on citations and prizes persuasive as well, in lieu of my own capacity to weigh in on their relevance. Oblivy (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That definitely does not pass #C5, though. C5 is for "a comparable level of achievement" to distinguished professor, a step above an ordinary full professorship. A "career development chair" given to newly tenured associate professors does not match that description. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That makes sense. In fact, I found the listing of dual-roles (chaired professor and associate professor) confusing. So much to learn... Oblivy (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Casino chip collecting

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn - I might've nominated this too soon. (non-admin closure)‎ MiasmaEternal☎ 05:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Casino chip collecting (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 to meet the WP:GNG at first glance - no cited sources are independent or reliable, and does not appear to have significant coverage. MiasmaEternal☎ 01:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. In a brief, preliminary search I can see that the topic of casino chip collecting has been the subject of significant coverage in a wide variety of sources including:
  1. Las Vegas Sun
  2. Poker News
  3. In the Guinness Book of World Records
  4. KSNV
  5. Here
  6. New York Times
  7. Norwich Bulletin
  8. Las Vegas Advisor

Overall I believe there is enough to justify inclusion. The article as it stands is not well sourced, but I believe there is enough sourcing out there. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three of these revolve around a Guinness Book of World Records entry - a search on WP:RSN indicates a mixed opinion on the notability of Guinness Book of World Records. As for the rest of the articles, the majority seem to be mainly about individual chip collectors or (in the case of the NY Times article) a chip collecting convention, not the subject of chip collection. MiasmaEternal☎ 02:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concede to you that the coverage primarily focuses on the conventions themselves rather than the hobby of chip collecting in isolation. However, the existence of dedicated conventions for casino chip collecting is a strong indicator of the topics's notability, particularly given their reporting in perrenial sources. These conventions highlight the significant community interest and engagement in chip collecting. To me, fact that enthusiasts gather to discuss, trade, and showcase collections, highlight's the notability of the topic. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified by @MaxnaCarta especially the LV Sun and 3newsLV articles., Delmarvanow and Norwich Bulletin are substantial but maybe too regional. Plus a price guide which I think counts as book-length treatment of the subject for notability purposes, or at least significant coverage to the extent of any prefatory material.
I would note that the nomination statement does not state a WP:BEFORE search was done. Rather it appears to be based on "at first glance" and "cited sources". Such searches, if done, might have avoided an AfD as there are plentiful sources not found in the article. Oblivy (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Alüto

edit
Alüto (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 only Japanese-language sources I found seem to be press releases when machine translated. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files

edit

Categories

edit

NEW NOMINATIONS

edit

Category:History of the Middle East

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, Middle East and West Asia are too similar to keep them in separate category trees. I will tag both categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Close Enough

edit
Nominator's rationale: Only contains a single article. (Oinkers42) (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Agriculture ministers of Bangladesh

edit
Nominator's rationale: Standardizing category titles for consistency and easier navigation. HueMan1 (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Antisemitism in China

edit
Nominator's rationale: this category contains only three articles: a main article, a media, and an Internet celebrity, Not to mention that anti-Semitism in China has only appeared on the Internet in recent years. Coddlebean (talk) 04:14, 5 August 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) 02:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am seeing consensus to purge, but no clear consensus on whether this should be kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should purge and if there's more than two pages left, the category can be kept. (I'm using two as a benchmark because two pages can be clearly wikilinked). Mason (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in Greek mythology by location

edit
More categories
Nominator's rationale: I have added these categories to Category:Mythological people by nationality (most as subcats of Category:Mythological Greek people‎), and I think the category tree would be better served using the same naming structure as Category:Legendary people by nationality and Category:Fictional people by nationality. It would open the scope to mythological people from any mythology not just Greek. Mclay1 (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — consistency is good, but we should never seek it at the expense of utility. The proposed change loses a lot of clarity — few readers will know what an “Aegenitan” is, but the “Greek mythology” in the current category helps them. On the inclusion of non-Greek mythology, the only relevant category would be Roman mythology, and there’s nothing stopping a page being in two categories if that is helpful. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe having "Greek" in the category name provides much clarity. Most of the categories will be subcategories of Category:Mythological Greek people anyway. We have the category Category:Ancient Aeginetans. If there is an issue with using accurate names for peoples in case readers aren't aware of those names, we could rename Category:Ancient Aeginetans to Category:People from ancient Aegina and the mythology category can be Category:Mythological people from Aegina, which is also a lot clearer than the current category name. I don't mind which name we use; it doesn't affect the point of the move. Mclay1 (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support most of them Sounds reasonable enough. I am not certain about "Iolcians", since I have never encountered this term. Dimadick (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that's the correct term, but for the avoidance of doubt, it could be called Category:Mythological people from Iolcus, which would follow the parent category Category:People from Iolcus (although that category is otherwise empty and maybe should be upmerged). Mclay1 (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, lack of awareness what the categories mean is not a good argument because categories are based on defining characteristics. For example Aeacus was a king of Aegina. If you do not know what Aegina is and you want to know then the information about it is just a mouse-click away. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as formulated; suggest Fooians in Greek mythology instead. Having the name of the people first is useful, as it is the most intuitive way to identify and search for them; having dozens of categories all beginning with "mythological" is much less so. Specifying that they appear in Greek mythology is also helpful for readers (and very few will occur in both Greek mythology and any other, except for some who may also occur in Roman mythology, but even that number will be small if direct borrowings are excluded). However, "characters" is not helpful; what is the purpose of distinguishing characters from (persons) by nationality? "Characters" also has the unwanted effect of implying that they are all fictional, whereas mythology does not involve the truth or reality of the persons concerned, and some of the persons may have been historical (and in antiquity, many, perhaps most persons in Greek mythology were regarded as historical). P Aculeius (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on P Aculeius's suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Histories of cities in North Korea

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:43, 3 August 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) 23:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should merge/create a Korean-wide Category:Histories of cities in Korea as an alternative target. I think that it's fine to have Histories of cities in South Korea in the new category. There are many examples were the SK category is sufficiently populated, but the NK category doesn't exist yet. Mason (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Mason's suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1990s religious comedy films

edit
Nominator's rationale: Newly created category for 1 article. Category:Religious comedy films not subcategorized by time. Gjs238 (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we create more, is that acceptable? But it's difficult via mobile and I don't have desktop access at the moment. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Three pages and one subcategory as of relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beyincé family

edit
Nominator's rationale: I don't know why this category for Beyoncé's family is named after the surname of her non-notable maternal grandfather and much less famous cousin Angela Beyincé. Her mother (Tina Knowles) was born with the surname "Beyonce". On the other hand, her father (Mathew Knowles) has an article and his surname is more well-known. It would be best to expand this category to include all members of Beyoncé's and Jay-Z's family, with the focus on them since they are objectively the most notable members. Mclay1 (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monarchs of South Africa

edit
Nominator's rationale: rename, few of these monarchs were monarch of the entirety of South Africa so "in" is a better preposition. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Heroes who ventured to Hades

edit
Nominator's rationale: Currently a very poetic name, and ambiguous because Hades can also refer to the god. It's a subcategory of Category:Katabasis (a journey to the underworld). Renaming would expand the scope to depictions of katabasis in classical mythology and not just heroes (the category currently contains Sisyphus, who was not a hero) and not just Greek mythology (the category currently contains Aeneas, whose story was part of Roman mythology). Mclay1 (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on rename target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same question: Comment on rename target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Governors of the Ottoman Empire by century

edit
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This is category only has one isolated category in it, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, this is easily solvable by creating new categories. I’ll do it when I get back to my computer. Aintabli (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will add the subcategories to the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on whether this is a good idea or not. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I meant that we should merge within century, not across century. Mason (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

edit

Murloc

edit

Not discussed at target with sufficient substance to warrant a redirect - the target section makes one passing mention with no context, leaving anyone who isn't a Warcraft fan more confused than they were before. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cone of answers

edit

Unfortunately not mentioned anywhere on the English Wikipedia (and technically seems to have a broader context than programming). 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duck technique

edit

Not mentioned at target. I suppose the first one could refer to Rubber duck debugging? 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Big Bang

edit

It seems that this should redirect to Willem B. Drees, where the book is mentioned. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules

edit

Template:Stratovolcanoes

edit

This navbox does not have clear inclusion criteria. According to a petscan search that goes just two levels deep from Category:Stratovolcanoes, more than 1,000 articles could justifiably be listed here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Acceleration teams

edit

No transclusions. Navbox with no links in the body after all of the linked articles in it were deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen symbol

edit

Image with no transclusions or documentation. Created in 2023. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox acceleration team

edit

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions. Created in 2014. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MLB Team Maps (1964)

edit

No transclusions, template documentation, or incoming links from discussions. Created in early 2024. There are about thirty of these unused maps. They should either be used or deleted. If this discussion is closed as delete, I'll be happy to nominate the others, but I'd rather not bother Spesh531 with thirty nominations yet. See this discussion on the creator's talk page for some background. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So when these were made, I initially added them to all the MLB season pages. Due to how the standings tables were formatted at the time, there were large empty gaps in the page due to the maps. Given the updated standings table format, adding maps does not involve adding large empty gaps... so I've re-added the maps via WP:BOLD. I get the feeling some (or all) the map templates will be removed, but in the meantime, all thirty or so unused maps are now being used (again). Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 04:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany

edit

Deletion review

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:XfD_today&oldid=1241890511"