Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:VFD/Today)
Shortcut
Purge

23 August 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

< August 22 August 24 >

Purge server cache

Leverett Ball

edit
Leverett Ball (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)

Twice declined at WP:AFC, but it was created anyway. Cursory search for sources doesn't reveal much, although as a non-sports-watching-person I may be missing something here. Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-deltoidal icositetrahedron

edit
Pseudo-deltoidal icositetrahedron (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)

Neither Google Books [1] nor Google Scholars [2] have sources about the allegedly dual polyhedron of a elongated square gyrobicupola, the psuedo-deltoidal icositetrahedron. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esertepe Aqua Center

edit
Esertepe Aqua Center (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 sources are cited, and I can see why: there's barely any coverage of this place on the internet, much less any coverage from reliable sources. I propose deleting this article for failing WP: NBUILD, which requires "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability," a burden this article fails to meet. SSR07 (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taunk

edit
Taunk (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 surname page, but none its items is Taunk. Book snippets cited simply mention it, no coverage. --Altenmann >talk 04:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Themes common in gay porn

edit
AfDs for this article:
Themes common in gay porn (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)

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_August_4#Themes common in gay porn. C F A 💬 03:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This seemed like an uncontroversial deletion but there are suggestions of a Keep and Rename and even an editor arguing for Delete suggests some content might be Merged. I'd like to see a firmer consensus to Delete or take any action.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BizTalkRadio

edit
BizTalkRadio (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 contain the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't not know why this is up for deletion but I vote keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmtvfan (talk • contribs) 03:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would those arguing to Keep please sign their comments and point out which sources provide SIGCOV as asked by the nominator?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illawarra Junction

edit
Illawarra Junction (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 has been unsourced since 2007. As far as I can tell, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources, so this article does not meet WP:GNG. Steelkamp (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Chang-ho

edit
Ri Chang-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) 03:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024 Tel Aviv suicide bombing

edit
August 2024 Tel Aviv suicide bombing (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:NOTNEWS. Advocating for a merge into Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (13 July 2024 – present). Aydoh8[contribs] 03:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Media Five Entertainment

edit
Media Five Entertainment (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)

Trash article WP:NCORP Polygnotus (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon books

edit
List of Pokémon books (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 list is very much an INDISCRIMINATE failure. None of the books listed in this article have an article, meaning they fail NLIST, and there are no sources discussing Pokémon books in a significant context outside of the fact they exist, meaning there is no valid spin-out rationale. There is additionally no inclusion criteria on these books, meaning anything can fly (Ranging from guidebooks to anime episode adaptations to original fiction to quite literally anything) and given the sheer scope of books published under this franchise, it is almost certainly impossible to actually improve this list given the indiscriminate scope, lack of notability in any context, and overall lack of use this list provides as a result. This is frankly a case where I feel a deletion is a better alternative here given the amount of failures on several fronts this list provides with no viable AtD alternative. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Antònia Mínguez

edit
Maria Antònia Mínguez (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)

Suggest redirect to List of FC Barcelona Femení players. None of the sources in the article focus on the subject specifically (fails WP:SIGCOV), just as one member of a team. The team was notable, and several individual members are independently notable – but Mínguez does not appear to be one of them. I feel like WP:SPORTBASIC applies without needing to consider the weight of a potential role in women's history, as the sources that do mention her as part of the team, don't suggest she had any greater role than simply being part of the team.

Furthermore, parts of the article that are about the team and their historic first match, appear to be copy-pasted from other articles about notable teammates (e.g. Lolita Ortiz), while the paragraph about the 50th anniversary of the match appears to be close paraphrasing – if not direct machine-translated copyvio – of the source (a primary source that is the main source used in the article, too). All in all, there is more focus on the match and the team and passing mentions that Mínguez was involved. Not sufficient for an article. Kingsif (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Spain. C F A 💬 03:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and keep improving. @Kingsif: It is behind a paywall, but this 2021 article in El Periódico is focused on Maria Antònia Minguez and Sandra Paños gets it over the line for me. There are also other articles cited in Catalan Wikipedia worth checking out. Looks like not enough WP:BEFORE. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I've read that source, Mínguez and Paños discuss how Mínguez joined the club (ad in newspaper) and then just about how the environment of women's football has changed. It's not about her or her career, it's just including her in a story of how Barça Femení grew from where it started to be in the Champions League. And probably only including her because the current player they got to take part was the goalkeeper. As for the Catalan WP article, it has fewer sources and they're just some of the same. Trust me, I've done BEFORE.

    Like, this isn't to say Mínguez was not important for the team, but that she does not meet Wikipedia notability standards as she is only ever mentioned in sources in relation to "DYK Barça Femení was founded in 1970 and she was the goalie". Especially when that is all we can say of her notability, we should likewise keep our coverage in relation to the 1970 Barça Femení team. Other players from that team were much more actively involved in e.g. management and promotion, and are more worthy BIO/BLP candidates, but that does not mean every player warrants their own (largely copy-and-paste of the generic team details) bio. Kingsif (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above, unless better sourcing can be found. GiantSnowman 14:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I probably would like to see more in-depth sourcing, but what's there is okay for me. I don't see anything wrong with the article. Govvy (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Expanded the article to include more about her early life and family and the influence of goalkeeper coach Antoni Ramallets. Added more coverage including a 2021 article featuring Mínguez on SER 100 following her SER Catalunya television interview, plus a 2022 article in El Diario featuring Mínguez and two other former players. Plus the 2021 article mentioned earlier in El Periodico. Surely this is enough to satisfy WP:BASIC, and arguably even WP:GNG. Pinging GiantSnowman. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Expanded the article to include more about her early life and family - please see WP:PSEUDO for this part. Padding out a BLP with personal details isn't demonstrating a subject's notability and we have to prioritise privacy if there is any doubt. Your expansion includes exactly one sentence about her football career, the rest is about her private life.
    The Cadena SER article is a good 40% not about Mínguez, but about Barça and how women's footballers were treated in 1970. The parts about Mínguez are largely quotes from Mínguez herself (see SPORTBASIC) that are saying the same things as before, about that first match. I.e. she's not being interviewed about her career because SER considers her a great player, she's being interviewed to talk about the 1970 match and women's football back then. (And most likely, she's being interviewed because she's suitable and available, not because of anything she did as a player to set her apart.) Kingsif (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further conversation. While a majority of participants are arguing for a Keep, the nominator still has concerns that warrant a few more days of discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of windmills in Friesland (T–V)

edit
List of windmills in Friesland (T–V) (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)

Unclear why we would need such a detailed list of a type of building, most of which are not individually notable and no longer existing. Replicating other, highly specialised databases here is not really the purpose of Wikipedia. There are or were more than 20,000 windmills in the Netherlands, and many more in other countries. Fram (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep All - per WP:NLIST - the individual windmills do not need to be notable. As the editor doing the majority of work on the various lists of windmills, I've been using my discretion to include all windmills which can be verified to have existed. That the Friesland list has had to be split into several sub-lists is determined by the amount of templates that can be included before the limit size is exceeded. There are over 100 lists of windmills, many of which include all mills. Are we to delete those too? Mjroots (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The individual entries don't need to be notable if the group is notable, and even then "editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." A list which needs to be split in 9 separate pages is a large list, and a discussion whether this isn't overkill (assuming the group is notable) is perfectly acceptable, independent of whether we have other lists of windmills or not (I note that many of these other lists seem to be limited to still existing windmills, not including the often shortlived ones from the past). Fram (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The majority of the UK windmills lists cover all known windmills. Mjroots (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And articles like List of windmills in North Brabant cover only the existing ones, no idea what your point is or how this is relevant for this AfD discussion. Fram (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The intention is for all Netherlands windmills lists to cover all mills. Also Belgium as their mills are also well documented. It is easier to verify mills standing than those not standing, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to cover those lost. We've both said our piece, now let's let other editors have their say. Mjroots (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense down to a single list of the entries that have their own articles, as a reasonable navigation aid (as much as I think that gets overused, it's actually pretty appropriate here). Otherwise, this is just a massive database dump. It may or may not even be reasonable to combine all the separate province lists into a single list for the whole country, but I'll remain ambivalent on that one. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as they are reliably documented, and the list is too long to be in one article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:VNOT. This isn't a valid keep argument and doesn't address the concern that this essentially just a massive database copy/dump. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as WP:COPYVIO I have to agree with Fram: making an inferior copy of someone else's database is really not within our purview. There's probably some WP:NOT guideline covering that aspect, but the fact that it is a copy of only some of the fields doesn't ameliorate that it is a comprehensive copy of every entry. And without that copying there's really nothing here, as it is the sole source for it would appear well over 90% of the entries. I have to think that it's not possible to source this otherwise without repeating the other author's original research. I wouldn't have a problem with the obviously much smaller list of surviving mills, for which the copied database could be used as a source for certain information. But in this case we are just stealing someone else's work, even if we aren't stealing all of it and that theft was not the intent. Mangoe (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I contest the claim of copyvio. As for the one source claim, the DHM database itself draws on many sources. Thus the lists draw on many sources too. For info, the Dutch Wikipedia lists cover all windmills, though they have split by existing and "vanished" mills. Mjroots (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to say it, but even though I agree with not retaining a copy of the database, facts aren't copyrightable, only the presentation of those facts. Still though, what's essentially a copy is still essentially a copy, and not something we should be hosting. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs further discussion and contribution from other editors to reach a clear consensus. Would encourage editors to consider neutral notices at neutral venues to seek further input, if they feel it is appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if it meets WP:NLIST it still goes against what Wikipedia is not supposed to be. A list of every single windmill in the Netherlands that is just a copy of a database is not within the scope of the project. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It seems to me this is a valid yet excessively detailed list that fails WP:NOTDB on its face but is also a valid list, so I'm not really sure what to suggest here. It definitely needs an edit, but it doesn't need to be deleted entirely. A quick translated search shows over 1,000 articles in Dutch related to both Friesland and windmills, so it's definitely not a random topic. SportingFlyer T·C 04:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus. And to the IP commenting, an AFD can't close a discussion with an order to edit the article in a certain way as editing is a volunteer activity. And it's not the closer's responsibility to carry out participants' wishes with editing choices. There are a limited number of possible outcomes from an AFD discussion, Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, Draftify or No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Government High School Dinpur

edit
Government High School Dinpur (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. Can't find any sources that even mention it. Previously rejected at AfC but was moved to mainspace. Seems to be a strange attempt to promote "Ahsan Ali Web Designer". C F A 💬 02:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amel Rachedi

edit
Amel Rachedi (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 finding sufficient WP:SIGCOV of this individual who "presents" a show on her own Instagram channel to meet WP:GNG. She doesn't appear to meet any SNG either. There's just this story in WalesOnline; the rest is tabloid coverage excluded as SIGCOV under WP:SBST, or it's in unreliable sources like Forbes contributors. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1940–41 Primera Fuerza season

edit
1940–41 Primera Fuerza season (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 very minimal content inside the article and has no inline citations. The one and only source ([4]) is by the RSSSF, which collects statistics of every football result. Due to it lacking coverage in sources, it fails WP:GNG. Azarctic (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

40 year structural inspections

edit
40 year structural inspections (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 an obscure inspection requirement only relevant to two counties in Florida. A deletion of this page and move of some content to the existing "Building inspection" page would be my preference to address this problem. Cheers. SSR07 (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Today&oldid=1238673950"