Wikipedia:XfD today

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

Candidates for speedy deletion

Draft:Aimon Labs

User:Ali sohail1331/sandbox

Sachin Bishnoi (programmer)

Draft:ClimateAi

Draft:Erik Fountain - Norway's most handsome man

User talk:Its.lanceee

Draft:Justin T. Clark

User:Overlord242/sandbox

Draft:Richard Yankowitz

Draft:Saira Shah Halim

Melitha Sidabutar

User:SourceTimes

Draft:The potential impact of LUAS on people's travel behavior

Draft:UME Plum Liqueur

Draft:Worker-driven Social Responsibility

Draft:Xiaoqi Zhou - Founder of Haoyun Musical Instruments Co., Ltd.

Articles

Guide to deletion

Robert McGee

Robert McGee (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'm usually sympathetic to pages on perpetual students but I couldn't find enough reliable sources for this person besides that he got a bunch of degrees and is a professor. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Sportspeople, Martial arts, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Interesting human interest story and I'm amazed he hasn't been featured in NPR or something... I don't see anything we'd use, no news coverage, nothing, for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Other than mentions of his degrees and being a professor, I cannot find anything to convince GNG.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Independent sigcov appears in the Fayetteville Observer (more, book review) and Miami Herald (cont., later). His Google Scholar may suggest an NPROF pass too but I don't know the field well enough. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep -- I think the multiple sources with SIGCOV provided by Hameltion are enough for a GNG pass. JTtheOG (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per GNG and per WP:NPROF#1 based on his GS profile, he seems to be highly cited for his field in ethics/philosophy. Also there is enough evidence for a GNG pass.--hroest 07:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. As well as the case for WP:PROF#C1 we also have a case for WP:AUTHOR through multiple published reviews of his books [1] [2] [3] [4]. Each case is borderline but I think together they're enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  Heavy self-citation makes WP:PROF#C1 unusable. The subject overwhelmingly cites himself, never seen this before. See my comment below. Lekkha Moun (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Passes GNG. Easily searchable on google and has a myriad of academic articles. BlackAmerican (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment that this article was previously AFD'd under another name. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert W. McGee BlackAmerican (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete I am considering this article strongly in favour of deletion. In 2022, the article was deleted (AFD#1 Robert W. McGee) and recreated under Robert McGee. The AFD#1 Robert W. McGee is a very interesting read where the subject joined in, seemingly WP:BLUDGEONING in order to justify his article. In terms of martial arts, he has accomplishments to be proud of but nothing to show WP notability, his martial arts championships are in senior age (limited participant divisions). Unverified claims such as "1020 medals" looks like Self promotion/vanity page. I also have a huge problem almost all the citations in the article. Citations such as "AT 72, ROBERT W. MCGEE IS JUST GETTING STARTED" published by Union Institute & University where the subject earned his PHD is absolutely non-independent and unreliable. As another user mentioned, (and I verified) if you look up the work of the subject called “The ethics of tax evasion: Perspectives in theory and practice” the majority of the citations in this work are self-citations from the subject other work. Another of his work “Why people evade taxes in Armenia: A look at an ethical issue based on a summary of interviews”, we noticed self-citation rate of around 80%. Most of the sources are from his own works/self-published. It’s quite concerning. Heavy self-citation technically makes citations WP:PROF#C1 unusable. Lekkha Moun (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe that reduces the case for #C1 notability, but your rant about how all of the other stuff he did is uninteresting does nothing to address the case for WP:AUTHOR notability, and the multiple published reviews by other people of his books. Let me spell that out: we have multiple in-depth sources about his work, independent of that work and reliably published. That also passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  I believe article would need an entire rewrite if we base the notability off this criteria (WP:AUTHOR), as barely one sentence mentions his authorship. As for the reviews you mentioned, as you said, I find them borderline and not very compelling. I may be wrong, but I'm not at all convinced of the subject's notability as an author based on WP:AUTHOR, but I would be happy to change my vote if more info is brought forward to strengthen the case for WP:AUTHOR. Edit: I noticed your "Delete" vote on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert W. McGee. I still see evident self promotion as you mentioned and I still don't see great coverage to meet GNG. I am wondering what made you change your mind? Lekkha Moun (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Clearly, I didn't find the books and their reviews during the previous AfD. So now I have new evidence for notability that I didn't have earlier. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors are still split between keeping and deleting...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Sirens (2014 TV series)

Sirens (2014 TV series) (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)

Pretty clear failure of WP:GNG. Agusmagni Agusmagni Agusmagni 00:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, and United States of America.
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

1918 Alabama Crimson Tide football team

1918 Alabama Crimson Tide football team (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)

Alabama did not field a team in 1918, I don't see why an article is necessary when there is no such article for the 1898 season in which Alabama also did not field a team. Gazingo (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Michael Breen (human rights activist)

Michael Breen (human rights activist) (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)

Contested PROD for individual who fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. WP:BEFORE search does not turn up significant coverage. Existing article is a WP:REFBOMB of sources that fail to demonstrate notability. Sources 1/23, 6, 7/9/11, 15 and 25 are non-independent press releases or official bios, 2, 3 and 19 are trivial mentions in long lists; 4, 10, 14, 21 and 28 32 are passing mentions in coverage of other topics, 5 and 8, 27, 33 and 34 are WP:INTERVIEWS and thus primary sources; 13, 16, 17, 20, 22, 26, 29, 30 and 31 are self-authored material by the subject. 24 does not mention the subject. Only 12 might qualify as SIGCOV, but we need multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Gary L. Coleman

Gary L. Coleman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. PROD was contested with sources from IMDB and of relatives being added, which do not establish notability. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, California, and Pennsylvania. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Inayat Khan (actor)

Inayat Khan (actor) (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 BLP on a non-notable actor created by BeauSuzanne (talk · contribs) who has a dubious editing history. The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one Inherently notable. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with various significant roles in notable productions. Also, the ad hominem comment in the nominator's rationale is quite inappropriate. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  Please avoid WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Could you provide evidence from WP:RS to demonstrate how the subject meets WP:N? My comment is relevant because there are concerns about problematic user behavior. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 21:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  You're directing me to WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Just read it, please. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: He mention how did he got into acting [5]. He said that dramas Dil Lagi and Muthi Bhar Mohabbat made him well known [6].(BeauSuzanne (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC))

  As a creator of this BLP, you're supposed to provide good sourcing which also meet WP:RS - Unfortunately, goodtimes.com.pk does not meet this criteria. Whereas the Express Tribune piece alone may not adequately demonstrate that subject's WP:N. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 18:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

XPANCEO

XPANCEO (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)

Spammy article on company that, as far as I can tell, struggles to meet WP:BASIC, let alone the more stringent WP:CORP. None of the sources in the article contribute to notability:

1. Ref 1: A Forbes Contributors article.
2. Ref 2: An advert on the website of what looks to me to be a dodgy award.
3. Ref 3: An obvious PR/paid-for piece.
4. Ref 4: A Forbes profile of the company founder that, if nothing else, is obviously not significant coverage of the company.
5. Ref 5: The source contains a few lines about the founder, again; nothing about the company.
6. Ref 6: More or less the same as Ref 5, and therefore the same issues.
7. Ref 7: Most of this TechRadar article reports what the company has to say about itself, or peripheral information about the field - not independent reporting on the company's work.
8. Ref 8: This looks like a version of a press release subject to churnalism by multiple other outlets as well. Searching on Google for the headline of this article unearths other articles such as this press release.
9. Ref 9: not significant coverage of the company.

Searching the company on Google doesn't yield anything better, as far as I could tell. I mostly found interviews, blog posts, passing mentions, PR pieces or churnalism. JavaHurricane 12:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Companies. JavaHurricane 12:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Genuinely, I do not think that it is appropriate to say the article is Spam while in the reality that it represents something true. Over google there could be plenty of PRs. But, here I used references from reliable sites and non PR ones I have also included some more references and will continue to add more if I am getting time. And for your information this article was created and was live on Wikipedia's main-space for a long time but, for unknown reason the main contributor of the article made it blank and that is why it was removed and I tried to make it happen again. Joidfybvc (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. UPE spam. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Frederick Rauscher

Frederick Rauscher (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:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. Longhornsg (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, and Michigan. Longhornsg (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Reasonable citations in GS for philosophy. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC).

Sarah Junior School

Sarah Junior 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)

PROD countered. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, articles about primary schools are only kept if they can be shown to meet WP:NORG. That is not the case here. Indeed, this is an article about a kindergarten. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Kenya, and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep It is also a story about a UK-based charity. I added a few references. Hopefully just enough to save this story.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Ruud Buitelaar.Tamsier (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - although happy to consider a suitable redirect. I'm sorry but there is just not enough information about this school, as is the case of the vast majority of junior schools. Yes, this one is a charitable venture. Lots of them are. There are now four sources on the page. I analyse these below (with the first SHOFCO source being the only one that was there prior to AfD). On my analysis we do not have anything that meets WP:SIRS. There is almost nothing we can actually say about this school in an article. Source analysis:

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?	Overall value toward ORGCRIT
SHOFCO [7]	SHOFCO is Shining Hope for Communities, US based, I think it is a charity, and with a focus on Kibera.	SHOFCO appears legitimate. I have not investigated too hard on that score because this source fails on SIGCOV	The link is dead, but it is dated April 2009, and archive.org has a copy of the article [8]. There is no mention of this school at all in the article.	As there is no mention of the school, this is moot.
Charity Commission [9]			An overview of the charity, Maisha Tust. Nothing about th school. The charity is small too.	This is a primary source.
Optima [10]		Fitzwilliam College Newsletter with news of an alumna, the school's founder.	There is a single paragraph telling us that Sarah Shucksmith, a former Geography student, founded this school in her gap year, and they are building a new school building. It's creditable, but it's not notable.	– It is reporting and this is primary per WP:PRIMARYNEWS. However, as I know people will want to claim otherwise, and SIGCOV is not met anyway, I'll leave that as undetermined. It does not change anything.
Rus Newton [11]	This is a WP:SPS - a blog is a self published source	– I have no reason to say the writer is unreliable, but this is still self published.	To be honest, this would be well short of CORPDEPTH, but I would give ground to this being a charitable work, not a corporation. There is a little information here from which a page could be written, but it really isn't much. A lot more is needed, but I'll give it a yes on this one.	y

• Delete per above, and based on my own long-standing factors. This is a very small charity/school that serves 65 young people. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Fixed tax

Fixed tax (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 do not know much about taxes, but I believe this topic may already be covered by Lump-sum tax. I am not certain if they are actually redundant. What do you think? If so, I recommend a redirect to Lump-sum tax. HenryMP02 (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Economics. HenryMP02 (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Subhan Aliyev

Subhan Aliyev (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 GNG. Created for advertising and PR purposes. The article is submitted for deletion as there are grounds for its deletion.--Correspondentman (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
• This user's (Correspondentman) right to edit on Azerbaijani Wikipedia has been indefinitely restricted by administrators. --Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, and Azerbaijan. Skynxnex (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Khalil Rahme

Khalil Rahme (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 am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG. Participation-based SNGs were deprecated in 2022 and BLPs require strong sourcing. JTtheOG (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC) I am changing my recommendation to a redirect to 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup squads#Lebanon. JTtheOG (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, Lebanon, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: World Cup quarter finalist, several references (though more needed), suggesting player has had/having a career in Australia's first and second tier. Article needs expansion. Mn1548 (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - Played at the RLWC, nine sources, every line sourced.Fleets (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Any WP:SIGCOV? JTtheOG (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• redirect to 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup squads#Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Ossanda Liber

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

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sources mostly cover her in the context of her unsuccessful candidacies (of which in one she received 84 votes out of 109,350 cast). AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Conservatism, and Portugal. AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - I translated this article into English from Portuguese as part of Women in Red. This page is much longer than Nova Direita, perhaps it could be merged. Moondragon21 (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Moondragon21 When you translate an article, please check it. The tables of election results had broken templates and looked a mess. I have commented out that code, so the tables now look tidier, even though they don't have a coloured bar for the party. PamD 07:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete an unsuccessful candidate not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 16:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep I think coverage of her activity as founder of the new party probably makes her notable. PamD 08:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete: A unsuccessful political candidate that is not notable enough. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 03:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: as PamD said being founder and president also makes me think she's notable

Prima.Vera.Paula (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how being the founder of a minor party which received 0.25% of the vote indicates notability. AusLondonder (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Msumarini

Msumarini (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 basically a procedural/WP:TNT nomination. This was plainly mass-created from GNS or one of its mirrors, and it has the same kinds of issues that GNIS has (see WP:GNIS for info on the latter}. We said we weren't going to do this any more, and yet here we are. For the "save all the dots" crew, the situation is complicated by the fact that the coordinates are not precise enough to compare this with maps, and searching reveals that there is a second Msumarini which apparently has been for whatever reason the subject of several international aid efforts— I say "apparently" because it's not absolutely clear which of the two places they are talking about. So potentially this would be a disambiguation, or about the other place, but at present I cannot verify whether not this is a real place or not. Kenyan info is probably better than some other places, but for example in Somalia with better location data we deleted a lot of places because there was no good evidence for their existence. And in the end it makes sense to delete the lot of these and have them created from better, reliable sources when someone comes across them. Mangoe (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kenya. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Thought I'd blitzed all of these but evidently not... MIDI (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Sigh. This is clearly a notable place, but it looks like there are up to three different villages called Msumarini and two in Kilifi county alone - one in Mtepeni ward and one in Adu ward, and then one in Hindi ward, Lamu. The vast majority are for the Mtepeni ward, though I have seen at least a couple for Adu ward (they say it is in a particular constituency.) These articles do not make a distinction between the two places and these places are both occasionally spelled Musumarini. So, yes, there should be an article here, but it should probably be a disambiguation - but there are plenty of reliable sources out there for at least the Mtepeni ward Msumarini, even though I can't confirm it necessarily passes WP:GEOLAND. Any further help would be appreciated. SportingFlyer T·C 00:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The Hillfields

The Hillfields (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 meeting any criterion under WP:NMUSIC or of meeting GNG. Available sources are mostly self-published or trivial mentions. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Inflatable bathtub

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

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

This is a procedural nomination for a contested WP:BLAR.

The listed sources in the article constitute passing mentions in promotional material, or are primary sources (a patent for a type of inflatable bathtub). A search does not suggest any WP:SIGCOV of the topic, or any notability independent of bathtub. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
• Courtesy ping Wracking who performed the redirect, and Pek who reverted followed by a malformed AfD nom. Triptothecottage (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Rumen Shankulov

Rumen Shankulov (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 doesn't meet the notability guidelines set down in WP:SPORTCRIT Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, submitted by accident this before I was finished writing the reasons. There are no sources outside of trivial stat listings, which are not considered a contribution to notability. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Going by the player's career, I could see some notability. They had a good season in the Bulgarian first tier with Cherno More Varna, two good seasons abroad with Israeli second-tier club Hapoel Rishon LeZion and three in Cyprus with second-tier side Omonia Aradippou. A web search, however, did find anything close to WP:SIGCOV. Perhaps we'd need to search using a different spelling of their name, for example in his native Cyrillic or in Hebrew (for his time in Israel)? Robby.is.on (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC) ; edited 21:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete if no significant coverage can be found. With no prejudice to recreation if someone is eventually able to find sources. (t · c) buidhe 03:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Comparison of BitTorrent clients

Comparison of BitTorrent clients (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 is entirely or nearly so primary sourced with no significant independent coverage comparing different BitTorrent clients. (This listicle—which barely does any direct comparison—is the best source I can find.) (t · c) buidhe 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Internet. (t · c) buidhe 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Neutral for now This article is also a magnet for spam. The Banner talk 17:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep A valid navigational and information list. Far more useful than a category, more information provided. If spam is a problem, then block IP addresses and new users from editing it. Dream Focus 05:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not concerned about spam, I'm concerned about notability. Perceived usefulness is not a valid notability rationale. (t · c) buidhe 05:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  Read: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, and the section at Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Advantages_of_a_list. Dream Focus 10:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per Dynluge's argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of XMPP server software. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

List of translations of The Lord of the Rings

List of translations of The Lord of the Rings (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 every bit of LOTR minutiae needs to be recorded here, fails WP:LISTN as a subject that hasn't received significant attention as a group, No idea why "Elrond's library", a French shop, is in the lead singled out as a source for this either. Fram (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Language, Literature, and Lists. Fram (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, this is certainly not "minutiae", but a remarkable indication of the novel's importance. The source you mention is really just a footnote or aside, it has no special importance. If editors really don't want a stand-alone list, then of course we can merge it back to Translating The Lord of the Rings, but that seems quite extreme to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure a list is more of an indication of importance than a summary thereof would be (e.g. "It has been translated into X languages as of year Y"). TompaDompa (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  It's certainly a far better substantiated indication; and of course it allows readers to check for themselves in whichever language they may happen to be interested. I may note that this list has existed in some form since 2008: it has been edited by many hands. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. But the fact that the article The Lord of the Rings lists links to 113 translations. The figure of 113 is already a "remarkable indication of the novel's importance". Anyone interested in these translations can find all that they want to know by following the appropriate links. So my recommendation would be delete. Athel cb (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  You assume that there is another complete list that readers can refer to. There is not. This is the only complete listing on the internet and it is incomparably useful for collectors. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. This is one of those articles that has no better home. Wikipedia provides for list articles, and this one satisfies the conditions. Indeed, this provision seems to explicitly rationalize lists like this one: The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion. I read Wikipedia’s acceptance of lists to be quite broad, since the guidelines discuss such acceptable topics as lists of plants in some obscure taxa, lists of words, and so forth, and explicitly states that the individual list elements need not be notable. The reason Wikipedia is the best home for this material is that a scholarly source would not be up-to-date, while copying from them could be copyright violation, since it would be significant content copied in its entirety. Meanwhile, fan sites regularly go belly-up, leaving a gap in cataloging important literature. The list notability guidelines provide for this kind of list: The remarkable diversity of translations has been noted in scholarly circles many times (these references are needed in the article, such as from List_of_translations_of_The_Lord_of_the_Rings). Given the precedence and guidelines on Wikipedia, I do not see this article as being a candidate for deletion — certainly not until lists of less general interest get cleaned out and the guidelines get tightened to exclude, rather than include, this kind of list. Strebe (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy Keep The fact that a novel was translated to over 57 languages should automatically make a list like this notable- that is amazing in itself. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:NLIST. While being translated into 57 different languages is certainly impressive, how impressive something is isn't a valid inclusion criteria for lists. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Industrial Insect: That may be so, but WP:NLIST is fulfilled based on other criteria (see above and below). Daranios (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Fulfills WP:NLIST as evidenced in the notability of Translating The Lord of the Rings and the sources listed there, as well as further secondary sources like Translating and Transmediating Children’s Literature. So I see no policy-based reason for deletion. The effort of writing the list has already been done, so we don't have to worry about if such efforts would be better spent elsewhere. So I also do not see any benefit for the user of Wikipedia in deleting this article. Daranios (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Seeing the arguments raised below, a merge back to Translating The Lord of the Rings based on WP:PAGEDECIDE is also fine with me. Daranios (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Fulfills WP:NLIST as noted in other responses. This article is extremely useful for collectors, especially since Elrond's Library is no longer an actively-maintained source. (For example, I learned of the new Belarusian translation here and was able to add it to my collection.) This list has been continuously expanded since that list ceased its run about a decade ago. Items such as the recent additions of the new Slovenian translation, the new Mongolian translation, the new Belarusian translation, the expansion of the Sinhala translation, etc. are examples of recent edits and the usefulness of this list beyond where Elrond's Library left off. This is the only list of its kind on the internet. It is cited in other internet compilations such as here. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  WP:ITSUSEFUL. The usefulness of an article is not a criteria for inclusion via WP:NLIST. Industrial Insect (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  If usefulness isn't a positive criterion for a Wikipedia list, then what is the purpose of Wikipedia in the first place? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete It doesn't seem like this passes WP:NLIST. We have only 1 good source for this, and there doesn't seem to be anything special about Lord of the Rings translations specifically. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

This is the only complete list that there is and other lists actually refer to this one. If you want collectors' sites with partial lists referenced (to get around your comment about "only 1 good source"), those can be added without any real fanfare. But this is an invaluable list for collectors (and there are many of us), that's why we keep it up to date. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude when I say this, but you clearly didn't read WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:What Wikipedia is not. Additionally, this list should NOT contain information found nowhere else per WP:OR. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say that this list didn't contain information found nowhere else, I said that this is the only complete list. Other lists are partial. This is the only list that contains all the information in one place. And I don't really care about what some WP philosopher wrote in "WP:ITSUSEFUL" because I reiterate my question, "If Wikipedia isn't useful, then why does it exist in the first place?" --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Constant wikilawyering over some article or other is one of the biggest criticisms of Wikipedia as a real tool and repository of information. This list is clearly useful to members of the LOTR community, but someone running a bot (who would never have read it in the first place) found it and is now indiscriminately wanting to take a weed whacker to it. It is cases like this where WP:AGF doesn't really apply. If it were a case of "Kiev" versus "Kyiv", that's a useful discussion (I spent a decade involved). But trying to get rid of a useful consolidation of information seems to be a waste of editors' time. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is, obviously, supposed to be useful. However, usefulness is not a reason for inclusion. We are an encyclopedia, not just a collection of things which are useful (besides, what is and isn't useful is an extremely subjective argument). Also, WP:ITSUSEFUL wasn't written by "some WP philosopher", it's one of our most popular essays which is still being modified by editors to this day. And what do you mean AGF doesn't apply here? You don't assume malice behind someone's intentions just because they disagree with you! Industrial Insect (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

But discussing about inclusion based on WP:ITSUSEFUL is kind of a theoretical discussion, when the main claim for exclusion, that the topic should fail WP:LISTN, has already been refuted by suggesting appropriate sourcing, isn't it? Daranios (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I've overlooked something. @Industrial Insect: You claim we have only one good for this. But did you consider the sources in Translating The Lord of the Rings#Bibliography, talking about the topic of translations as a group? And then of course there is an enormous number of sources talking about and analyzing specific translations. Daranios (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the sources are more about the process of translating LOTR (which is why I believe the article fails NLIST), rather than the actual translations themselves. Then again, I don't have access to the sources since they're offline, so I may be wrong Industrial Insect (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The sources are not just about the process, but also include lists of translations into particular languages and editorial comments about the translations and their place within the history of translation. In other words, they include partial lists. Also, some of the argumentation against the LOTR translation list is that it isn't "notable". How do you measure "notable"? Is it measured in terms of clicks? If so, then 90% of the lists and articles in Wikipedia should be deleted. The true nature of Wikipedia is that virtually unlimited bandwidth means that we can have articles on Waurika, Oklahoma, a speck of a burg in southwestern Oklahoma whose only claim to fame might be that its name means "worm eaters" in Comanche. How many clicks does THAT article generate and how notable on the world stage is it? This list is specialized to people who are interested in one particular book and its notability is that, unlike the vast majority of books ever written, it has been translated into dozens of languages. I daresay that this list generates more clicks than Waurika, Oklahoma in a year. I refer to it regularly and it serves as the source material for abbreviated lists in many LOTR fan sites outside Wikipedia. Notability should never be judged in an absolute sense, but in a relative sense. The question of notability should always be, "Is this list useful or notable to the Wikipedia users who find interest in the topic?" It should never be, "Is this list useful or notable to the average Wikipedia user?" As you can probably see from the discussion, there are more editors who find interest in the topic who want to keep this list than not. That's the true measure of "notability". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Your obvious problem with what Wikipedia defines as notable (as found in WP:N) is completely outside of this AfD's scope. Please stop arguing that our encyclopedia's definition of notability is wrong, it was created this way for a reason. Anyways, ignoring the irrelevant arguments after the first two sentences, the history of translation counts as "the process of translation". I'm just not seeing how the sources discuss the translations as a group. Further explanation would be helpful. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Industrial Insect: You mentioned that you see one good source. Aside from the others already mentioned which may not all be accessible online, From Imagination to Faërie, pp. 68-73, gives some points about specific translations but mainly discussed issues of importance to the translations as a group. Daranios (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate the source, but I still feel like it's just talking about the process of translation. Not much about the translations themselves are mentioned, and just about most of what I read was already in Translating The Lord of the Rings. Also, it's possible that WP:NOTDATABASE applies as pointed out by Sandstein. Industrial Insect (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Industrial Insect: I don't see this distinction between the process of translation and the translations it leads to. That seems to me like claiming the "Development" section we commonly have for works of fiction should be treated as a separate topic from the work it is about. Rather, I think the process of translation is a discussion of the translations it produces as a group.

@Industrial Insect and Sandstein: I also don't think that it is consensus that WP:NOTDATABASE excludes listings of bibliographical data in general, seeing that we e.g. have a specific guideline for how to create them in WP:MOS-BIBLIO. And if such listings are too large to conveniently fit into a parent topic, they are split out as a separate list. Notability is then no longer beside the point, as it can be used to decide which specific bibliographies to include, thus avoiding indiscriminately collecting data. All that said, I believe an additional commentary column could benefit the list, to provide more context. Analytical and review-like secondary sources exist for many translations and could be used there, beyond the broader concepts conveyed in the prose article. This list then also would become a place for what secondary sources have to say about individual translations, but which is not so much as to warrant a separate article for a specific translation. Daranios (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Citations have been added to the various partial lists mentioned above. In addition, the two books on translating Tolkien by Thomas Honegger have been described and cited in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:NOTDB; Wikipedia is not a repository for bibliographical data. The issue of notability is beside the point. The topic of LOTR translation is notable, of course, but that's why we have a prose article about that, Translating The Lord of the Rings. Sandstein 19:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
• Merge with Translating The Lord of the Rings: where such a list is relevant, and doesn't need to be independently notable. Owen× ☎ 23:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• The list was originally a part of the prose article Translating The Lord of the Rings and was separated out only recently. I would agree to merge or keep, but not "delete". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
• Merge back into main article and Delete this undiscussed split. There is no reason for a separate article.  // Timothy :: talk  07:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. I dont see anything wrong with it. It doesn't fail WP:LIST nor WP:SIGCOV. It certainly needs work, but it's not bomb-grade. I'm not opposed to a merge as a second choice, which f soften my first choice for lists/POV forks. FWIW, I've read it in English, but I'm not a fanboy. Bearian (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• Merge with Translating The Lord of the Rings. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• Not keep it is not notable, so keep is inappropriate. I am indifferent to deleting vs merging. (t · c) buidhe 01:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
• Lean keep, as a "short, complete list[] of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" of translations of The Lord of the Rings, meeting WP:CSC. Additionally, appropriate context and annotations can be added meeting WP:LISTPURP. Finally, while WP:MOS-BIBLIO doesn't outright say that bibliographies are notable, it implies that there is some consensus that bibliography pages are appropriate. I think a merge would just result in a WP:SPLIT discussion and there's no reason to delay the inevitable. Just realized I relisted this.  Self-trout voorts (talk/contributions) 02:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Matthew W. McKeon

Matthew W. McKeon (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 appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR, top cited work appears to only have 20 citations in scholar, and no reviews on any published books. Psychastes (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom and WP:NPROF. Appears that the article's original author created a number of articles for various philosophy professors at Michigan State University of questionable notability. Longhornsg (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Second inauguration of Nayib Bukele

Second inauguration of Nayib Bukele (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)

In a WP:BEFORE search I could find no coverage in English or Spanish of the event claimed to be taking place in a few weeks' time. It's been draftified and redirected, but this always gets immediately reverted. Article creator was globally locked for LTA, and reversions are being done by new account and anonymously, and always without comment. Rather than continue a draftifying war, I'm bringing it here to AFD for discussion. It seems to be WP:TOOSOON at best. Wikishovel (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and El Salvador. Wikishovel (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Speedy delete under G5. The sockmaster per es.wiki block log is User:Jocer Blandino, who's also been blocked here. The most significant edits to the article have pretty much just been tags. Assuming an administrator also agrees, speedy delete without salting in case someone not block evading can make a better version. jellyfish ✉ 00:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Joseph Miitamariki

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Redirect - I created the article. Im fine with a redirect to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Islands_national_football_team#Player_records. Simione001 (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Files

File:Jiminy Cricket (The Wonderful World of Disney character).png

File:Jiminy Cricket (The Wonderful World of Disney character).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by NeoBatfreak (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Currently used to depict the character of Jiminy Cricket, but is made irrelevant due to File:Jiminy Cricket (cropped).png, which comes from the film's trailer. Fails WP:NFCC#1. (Oinkers42) (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Categories

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Continental League contributors

• Propose merging Category:Continental League contributors to Category:Baseball executives

Nominator's rationale: No need for parent category, see below. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Continental League

• Propose deleting Category:Continental League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Too little content, all adequately interlinked. See also second proposal above. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Singles by decade by record label

• Propose merging Category:Singles by decade by record label, Category:2000s Atlantic Records singles, Category:2010s Atlantic Records singles, Category:2020s Atlantic Records singles, Category:2000s Island Records singles, Category:2010s Island Records singles, Category:2020s Island Records singles, Category:Atlantic Records singles by decade, and Category:Island Records singles by decade to Category:Atlantic Records singles, Category:Island Records singles, various singles-by-year categories as appropriate and delete the main container cat.

Nominator's rationale: No need to break them up by decade--that would be better handled with a discography anyway--and no need to have the scheme Category:Singles by decade (in the 21st century only) and record label. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Philosophers of theodicy

• Propose merging Category:Philosophers of theodicy to Category:Philosophers of religion

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. I don't think we need to diffuse this category by the specific question in the philosophy of religion, especially since this cateogory only has one person it it. Mason (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom, this doesn't seem to be a particularly useful subdivision of Category:Philosophers of religion. Psychastes (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Philosophers by ethnicity

• Propose deleting Category:Philosophers by ethnicity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Yoruba philosophers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Basque philosophers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: per WP:OCEGRS, there doesn't seem to be a reason why philosophers should be categorized by ethnicity Psychastes (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Redirects

Inosine triphosphatase

• Inosine triphosphatase → Inositol-polyphosphate 5-phosphatase  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect should be deleted, as it is incorrect - inosine and inositol are two different compounds, the enzymes in question are different and catalyze different reactions (inosine triphosphatase and inositol-polyphosphate 5-phosphatase). Enzymes are also [in this list], under numbers 3.6.1.73 and 3.1.3.56, clearly showing they're different. Reason apparently does not meet criteria for speedy deletion, so I am requesting here. KormiSK (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep this one is very confusing, but apparently 'inosine triphosphatase' is an accepted synonym for 'inositol-polyphosphate 5-phosphatase' at the link you provide and also at the BRENDA/KEGG/IUBMB (etc.) databases. The enzyme described by EC 3.6.1.73 is called inosine/xanthosine triphosphatase, and shortening the name to 'inosine triphosphatase' is not recorded as an accepted synonym. I think it's fine to leave it at that for now, but I may find myself interested in seeing if this is some odd historical nomenclature artefact or maybe even an error in the databases later. ― Synpath 06:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

W2000

• W2000 → Windows 2000  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The first result I get when google searching is Walther WA 2000. There is also Hercules W-2000. Okmrman (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to Hercules W-2000 as the most likely target, with a seealso link at top to Walther WA 2000. "W2000" to refer to the OS isn't really a thing to my knowledge. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 17:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Disambiguate No evidence that either the software, the gun, or the motorcycle is the primary topic. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 04:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic? Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - disambiguation pages are not for manually compiled keyword search results. We have a search engine for that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget? Disambiguate? Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ANI AUTISM IP

• Wikipedia:ANI AUTISM IP → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive779#Persistent dynamic IP at Talk:Autism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 6 § Wikipedia:ANI AUTISM IP – keep

Unuseful redirect that goes to a very specific ANI case. If you reply here, please ping me. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 00:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Templates and Modules

Miscellany

User talk:216.15.18.224

User talk:216.15.18.224 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Talk page for IP who has never edited. Only has a help me request from a logged in editor. If you reply here, please ping me. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 00:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep. No harm. I’ve followed the help request poster. Deleting their edit history is a negative. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you're confused, I said Talk page for IP who has never edited thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review