Wikipedia:XfD today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page transcludes (or when this is not feasible, links to) 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.

Contents


Speedy deletion candidates

The category is at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.

Articles

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

HotSoft BVBA

HotSoft BVBA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "HotSoft BVBA" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Article about non-notable company which fails WP:NCORP and has no sources at all . Kpgjhpjm 09:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 09:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 09:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 09:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 09:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Oleg Vishnepolsky

Oleg Vishnepolsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Oleg Vishnepolsky" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails WP:SELFPUB (Self-promotional content) and no reliable sources (everything comes from author own LinkedIn account). Fails notability: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Pointed out on talk page as well. Basicbbr (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Rodney Glassman

Rodney Glassman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Rodney Glassman" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Previously deleted in 2009. Fails WP:NPOL as a city council member and failed candidate and WP:GNG and if not deleted, needs to be rewritten to be less promotional. SportingFlyer talk 09:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Defamation Action League

Defamation Action League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Defamation Action League" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails the general notability guideline. Created by a single-purpose account. TeraTIX 08:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  • delete as per nomination.Mccapra (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TeraTIX 09:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 15:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 15:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 15:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui  09:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Apollo Brown

Apollo Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Apollo Brown" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Subject is an American hip hop record producer. Sources provided from Utube, listing and interview piece. A WP:BEFORE found sources primary from user generated source, sell, listing and interview and no independent reliable secondary sources found. Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ANYBIO and WP:SIGCOV. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui  09:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Rohith V. S.

Rohith V. S. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Rohith V. S." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

UPE Spam.Fails WP:NCREATIVE by a mile.No significant coverage about the subject is located, except as trivial name-mentions (and for bytes) as the director of two films in the news-reviews of the same. WBGconverse 08:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui  09:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Syamdhar

Syamdhar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Syamdhar" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails subject notability guidelines by a mile.No significant coverage about the subject, except in promo-interviews and as name-mentions in the review of his two films.TOOSOON. WBGconverse 08:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui  09:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Richard H. S. Werbe

Richard H. S. Werbe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Richard H. S. Werbe" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

no indication of individual notability; almost everything used as a reference here is primarily about the company. Merely placing on Forbes 30 under 30 is not notability in the sense used in WP--like other junior awards, it more closely amounts to : not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui  09:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Obinwanne Okeke

Obinwanne Okeke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Obinwanne Okeke" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Almost entirely promotional . I doubt there is enough reliable material for a NPOV article DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 05:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 05:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Article has been edited to conform to Wikipedia's neutrality policy User:Dinovate (talk)
  • Keep. Doesn't seem too promotional to me in its current form since its cleanup-- no external links, most information is sourced, seems like a fairly straightforward stub. Needs copyediting and the addition of some references, but a quick Google search (especially using 'news') provides many reliable sources (Forbes, Guardian, BBC News). Gilded Snail (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The Forbes 30 Under 30 lists 600 people per year, which is not exclusive enough to confer notability on someone on its own. — Newslinger talk 21:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Sources cited in the article fall short:
      1. Rallinca Media: Not independent, signficiant, or reliable. Routine mention from his PR agency.
      2. BBC: Not independent. This interview is a primary source because Okeke did most of the talking, and there was no separate analysis of him.
      3. Forbes.com: Not significant. Short one-paragraph mention.
      4. Bella Naija: Not significant or reliable. Passing mention from a blog without named staff.
      5. WeRunThings: Not independent or reliable. Interview from a blog.
      6. African Entrepreneur Startup Project: Not reliable. Blog with no known editorial process.
      7. Pleasures Magazine: Not significant or reliable. Insignificant coverage from a magazine without named writers.
From the sources not cited in the article, I found one article in Pulse.ng that may qualify, although I'm not sure about the reliability of that website since they don't provide information on their staff. However, one article isn't enough to satisfy WP:GNG. — Newslinger talk 21:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Not promotional. Sources quoted are reliable from my research.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui  09:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

New Year Festival in Busan

New Year Festival in Busan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "New Year Festival in Busan" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable event with no references Kpgjhpjm 08:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 09:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 09:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

John Turner (Texas politician)

John Turner (Texas politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "John Turner (Texas politician)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Reads like a political statement more than a encyclopedia article. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. reddogsix (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Anirudh Tanwar

Anirudh Tanwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Anirudh Tanwar" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails notability guidelines for actors, and WP:GNG as well. A case of WP:TOOSOON at best. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Sandwich short film

Sandwich short film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Sandwich short film" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

PROD rationale was "Non-notable short film with no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM" so since the PROD was removed by user Skwiki32 without any improvement or explanation, I'm nominating it for deletion. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

2016 The End

2016 The End (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "2016 The End" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

A movie that fails notability guidelines for films, and general notability guidelines. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Daniel Knapik

Daniel Knapik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Daniel Knapik" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

The subject is a former Mayor of Westfield, Massachusetts, a city with a population of less than 50,000, - and does not meet WP:NPOL. There is some coverage in Mass Live, which covers Western Massachusetts, and other local coverage. From what I saw in the coverage was primarily WP:ROUTINE. The subject is also covered in the news as "Dan Knapik." Enos733 (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Eliot Cutler

Eliot Cutler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Eliot Cutler" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Poorly written article with issues. Twice–failed candidate for public office who never once held an elected position; has been out of politics for years. Fails WP:NPOL/WP:GNG. Redditaddict69 (click here if I screwed up stuff again) (edits) 05:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 (click here if I screwed up stuff again) (edits) 07:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 (click here if I screwed up stuff again) (edits) 07:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

North Texas–UTSA football rivalry

North Texas–UTSA football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "North Texas–UTSA football rivalry" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

WP:NRIVALRY says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable" and defers to WP:GNG. GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The four current citations neither demonstrate a rivalry, nor meet the GNG bar of "significant coverage." Searches do not return significant coverage in independent sources, including 2017 description as a "budding ... rivalry"[1]. There have been five games played to date, 2013-2017. Fails GNG, might be WP:TOOSOON. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep – the following sources were found on the first page of Google:
    "North Texas’ short, bitter rivalry with UTSA continues this weekend" (North Texas Daily)
    "Naming the North Texas and UTSA Rivalry" (Forgotten 5)
    "UTSA vs. UNT is the Texas Rivalry the Conference Needs" (GoMeanGreen.com)
    "There’s definitely a history there and our players understand that...with these rivalry games it doesn’t matter" (San Antonio Express-News)

    Seems like several sources from both schools are referring to the game as a rivalry. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • #1. Mostly legit, but focussed on player/coach quotes as supporting. #2. "We have already established that this matchup has all of the necessary ingredients to be a rivalry." and not a RS in my view. #3. A message board post, not RS. 4. Paywall, view source says "a budding rivalry". Looking for significant coverage from RS which state there is a rivalry. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete if anything, this seems to be a regional rivalry at this time. I have no prejudice toward re-creation in the future if it comes to the level of notability required for inclusion in this encyclopedia. try another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - Same as PCN02WPS. The rivalry has even more sources than the ones listed above that talk about the topic. The Shula Bowl you could say is a regional rivalry. You don't see reports in Washington or another state talking about that rivalry on a national level. Unlike the UTEP rivalry with UTSA, UTSA and NT schools both state the rivalry and have multiple sources year in and year out. --Jpp858 (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Only #1 (North Texas Daily) is a WP:RS, while the other three are not. WP:GNG requires "significant coverage." Can you please share any new RS citations which you may have discovered and are required by GNG? UW Dawgs (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep There's nothing wrong with regional rivalries when they receive coverage in reliable sources. It's also worth noting that Texas has the same population as a medium-sized country, so it seems somewhat disingenuous to say it should be deleted because most of the coverage is from there. Smartyllama (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Would you please identify your new RS citation which demonstrate "significant coverage"? Because they are not currently in the article and haven't been located to date, which is precisely why there is an AfD. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Chandan Shetty

Chandan Shetty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Chandan Shetty" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)
(Find sources: "ಚಂದನ್ ಶೆಟ್ಟಿ" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Notability cannot be established due to lack of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention BrantleyIzMe (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 17:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 17:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The article has some references from The Times of India, which is a reliable source. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 18:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Also, if you search for his name in the Kannada language, ಚಂದನ್ ಶೆಟ್ಟಿ , you will find additional links such as https://vijaykarnataka.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gossip/chandan-shetty-music-in-seizer/articleshow/63666245.cms and https://kannada.filmibeat.com/news/team-all-oks-nangansiddu-song-controversy-chandan-shetty-reaction-029316.html These have the English version of his name in the URL, so they are probably primarily about him. They also each have a photo of him. I think this counts as in-depth coverage. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 18:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! It does count. The article was first nominated for deletion about 10 months ago but for some reasons it was not deleted. I think its now worthy to be on WP. However, it desperately needs attention from someone who is familiar with the subject (Indian musicians) BrantleyIzMe (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • This was deleted at that time but it was recreated:-) WBGconverse 09:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete given the issues of the article and possible failure to maintain the notability guidelines. If the issues are fixed and the article is improved drastically, a keep may be best, though that is unlikely. Redditaddict69 (click here if I screwed up stuff again) (edits) 06:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Andrew K. Ruotolo

Andrew K. Ruotolo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Andrew K. Ruotolo" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, county prosecutors are not usually notable. Coverage is routine, an obituary and a few mentions in stories about car theft. The previous discussion was closed as keep, although the result really should have been "no consensus". Rusf10 (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Dan Riehl

Dan Riehl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Dan Riehl" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG. Some passing mentions, but nothing substantive that I can find. Marquardtika (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Abhishek Dutta

Abhishek Dutta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Abhishek Dutta" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

The sourcing is really thin and I'm not seeing WP:GNG. Marquardtika (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Richard J. Marks

Richard J. Marks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Richard J. Marks" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Thirty-eight references must mean it's notable, right? Upon examination, no. Invited to take advantage of WP:THREE, the author came back with six:

  • Newsweek is a primary source interview with Marks and his partner, with no independent analysis by the interviewer.[2]
  • Link TV is a credit for "Video/Photography" at the end of a video. It is not independent, not secondary, and not significant coverage.[3]
  • China Daily is a primary source interview—Marks in the words of Marks and his partner—with no independent analysis.[4]
  • The Atlantic's content about Marks is five sentences and a quotation of a cleansing ritual he read.[5]
  • Washington Life is not significant coverage. It's a photo caption and the sentence "Amb. Lund and Blue Salon hosts ..., Richard Marks, ... and Haseltine, presented the speakers with hand-blown Swedish glass."[6]
  • Best of DC is a two-page advertorial spread, not independent, not secondary, and not significant coverage. Its content about Marks? "Our media company is headed by energy, environmental and media professionals, Richard J. Marks, Sophia A. Trapp and Christa Urbain Carr."[7]

The other thirty-two references are worse. The author has engaged in WP:BOMBARD, flooding the article with tangential material, perhaps in the hope that some notability will rub off on Marks. The second paragraph of the China section, for instance, says Hiu Ng and her husband Daniel Foa put Marks in charge of producing and implementing a competition in China. Instead of citing any source that says anyone put Marks in charge of anything, the draft cites sources to prove Ng is married to Foa, sources about Ng's uncle, sources about Clinton, Wen Jiabao, Gordon Brown, UN Under-Secretary General Maurice Strong, and the actress who presented the competition's awards.

  • Not significant coverage (mentions in the credits, listing as a member/speaker, photo caption, or other brief mention), many also lack independence: Credit Suisse, International Earth Forum, U.S. Dept. of Energy, CATE school bulletin, Marc Marks obit, Link TV, WIREC 2008 ad, ACORE, hulkmovie.com, Innocents at Risk, gcctf.org, and Inland Ocean Coalition
  • No mention of Marks: Forest Business Network, Credit Suisse press release, TV.com, The Telegraph, Clinton Foundation, Clinton Global Initiative, Selling Big to China, Women of China, Clinton Foundation press release, Culture Change, The Stranger, San Francisco Recreation and Park Commission (x 2), Webby Awards press release, and Marc Marks capsule bio,
  • Not reliable: factsanddetails (a personal website of a third party), IMDb, filminamerica (x 2, sourced from IMDb)

I was unable to evaluate one source, Bloomberg, which is behind a paywall.[8]. It would have to be a phenomenally good source to pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG on its own (or at best in conjunction with the five sentences in The Atlantic.) Worldbruce (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. promotional article, focussing in undue detail on a host of minor accomplishments. Nothing that I see is sufficiently substantial to prove notability , and the style is so outrageously promotional and full of puffery that if there is any notability , the article would have to be deleted and started over. Either the promotionalism or the dubious notability is an adequate reason for deletion, let alone the combination. DGG ( talk )

Gramercy Property Trust

Gramercy Property Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Gramercy Property Trust" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Delete The references are all based on company announcements and they fail WP:ORGIND. There doesn't appear to be any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. A footnote in The Blackstone Group would be more appropriate. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 15:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 15:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 22:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@Eastmain: What? Anybody can set up a business and launch it as a public company by having it listed on a stock exchange, and if you are in the United States there is a high probability that you will do so on the New York Stock Exchange, since that is by an overwhelming margin the biggest stock exchange in the country. (In fact it is by far the biggest in the world.) There are not far short of 3000 companies listed, of which many are not remotely notable, by Wikipedia's standards or any other standards. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson: @HighKing:. For notability of listed companies, please see WP:LISTED. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 12:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.

Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Institute of Philippine Culture

Institute of Philippine Culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Institute of Philippine Culture" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails WP:GNG, advertising based on related sources. Institute of the jesuit Ateneo de Manila University, not notable enough for a separate article. WP:COI. The Banner talk 16:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Since the nominator feels it is not notable enough for a separate article, the nominator should clarify if s/he thinks a merger is appropriate. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge to Ateneo de Manila University. Only one of the current sources is independent of the think tank, although it does seem to do important work. We often, although not uniformly, merge such institutes into the main univeristy article. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

List of M*A*S*H guest stars

List of M*A*S*H guest stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of M*A*S*H guest stars" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Unsourced list of guest stars on television program.

There's no debate that actors with wikilinks meet WP:N and that M*A*S*H was a popular televison show. But there are no sources about the topic of M*A*S*H guest stars treated as a whole, and list article fails WP:TVCAST, WP:V, and WP:LISTCRUFT. AldezD (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Shawn Moody

Shawn Moody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Shawn Moody" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Moody has not won a single election and only received 5% of the vote in the Maine gubernatorial election 8 years ago. He is now the GOP nominee for Governor in 2018, though a nomination does not verify notability by WP:N, WP:NPOL nor WP:GNG. He would have to win the election to attain notability, otherwise he is like any other politician this election cycle whose article has been deleted because they didn't win the election. Examples: Bill Lee (Tennessee politician) and Jane Raybould, nominees for Tennessee Governor and Nebraska U.S. Senator both closed as redirects. Redditaddict69 (click here if I screwed up stuff again) (edits) 02:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Denis Conway

Denis Conway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Denis Conway" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 04:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 04:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Paull (actor)

Andrew Paull (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Andrew Paull (actor)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 04:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 04:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Widenta

Widenta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Widenta" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Company does not pass WP:NCORP and article has several promotional aspects to it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - Subject lacks notability and independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains(talk) 02:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 04:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would expect a large manufacturing company like this one to generate a certain amount of coverage, but mos of what I can find consists of articles about how rich the company's owners are. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 04:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 04:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Mean In

Mean In (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Mean In" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

no apparent notability. mentions in various places only. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep: I guess we have references for his position in government of Cambodia. Plus, the investment of 500 startups into Khmerload seems quite notable. Ultra Instinct Greninja (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete none of the sources of the article make him notable - they all talk about cryptocurrency. SportingFlyer talk 00:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I guess we need some to consult a local Cambodian Wikipedian here. May be he could help us reaching the local media coverage. I agree with the cryptocurrency part but I guess for his position in government as director of NCCT makes him notable. Ultra Instinct Greninja (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Tape (JavaScript testing framework)

Tape (JavaScript testing framework) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Tape (JavaScript testing framework)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable JavaScript framework. Couldn't find any coverage. Does have ~4.7K GitHub stars, but all of the sources I could find are self-published. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 01:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Raguluthunna Bharatham

Raguluthunna Bharatham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Raguluthunna Bharatham" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)
(Find sources: "Burning India" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)
(Find sources: "రగులుతున్న భరతం" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

A non-notable film that does not meet WP:NFP or WP:NFO. Source searches have provided no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources about this film, nor any reviews in said required sources. North America1000 01:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Jeremy Ryan

Jeremy Ryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Jeremy Ryan" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Not a notable political candidate or protestor; I'm not convinced this is the same person that is affiliated with "Cells R' Us". Most of the references regard the person's criminal record. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Patrick Tan Boon Jin

Patrick Tan Boon Jin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Patrick Tan Boon Jin" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

No independent and non-trivial references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete Agree with nominator, not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Probably a vanity bio. The history of Visiber may be connected. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Sinister Squad

Sinister Squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Sinister Squad" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable film, only reviews from non-professional sources, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 00:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (tc) 00:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (tc) 00:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-notable film. SemiHypercube 00:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Coverage seems mostly restricted to blog-like sites. No coverage in reliable sources. — Alpha3031 (tc) 04:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Eggdancer Productions

Eggdancer Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Eggdancer Productions" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Article on a Saudi company that cites no sources except company's website. A routine BEFORE on Google News, Google Books, and JSTOR finds three RS references in which company is mentioned in a single sentence. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (tc) 00:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (tc) 00:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (tc) 00:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Greener Grass Production

Greener Grass Production (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Greener Grass Production" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Article on a company that cites no sources. A routine BEFORE search on Google News and JSTOR finds three incidental references (one sentence mentions in credit lines). Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (tc) 00:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (tc) 00:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (tc) 00:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The Bigger Picture Malta

The Bigger Picture Malta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "The Bigger Picture Malta" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Article on a company that has had no sources listed for the last nine (9) years. A routine BEFORE search on Google News and JSTOR fails to find any mentions of "Bigger Picture Malta." Chetsford (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (tc) 00:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (tc) 00:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (tc) 00:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Files

Files for discussion

August 14

File:Unreal Engine 3 Samaritan Demo Screenshot.jpg

File:Unreal Engine 3 Samaritan Demo Screenshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Engineguyman (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free screenshot being used in Unreal Engine#Unreal Engine 3 and First-person shooter engine#Early 2010s: Graphic technique mixes. Based upon discussions at User talk:Masem#Unreal Engine 3 screenshot and User talk:Hakken#File:Unreal Engine 3 Samaritan Demo Screenshot.jpg, it appears that the non-free use in the former is probably OK while the use in the latter is probably non-NFCC compliant. Using non-free content in broader genre-type articles generally seems to require that the screenshot itself be the subject of sourced critical commentary to provide the context required by WP:NFCC#8. Unreal Engine is mentioned by name within the "First-person shooter" article, but most of the relevant details are found in the stand-alone article as is typical WP:SS. There's really no reason per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI that a link/hatnote to that article where the screenshot can be seen is not a sufficient alternative to actually using the non-free image per WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#3. Suggest keep for "Unreal Engine" and remove from "First-person shooter". -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

File:SG 39 Cipher Device.jpg

File:SG 39 Cipher Device.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Scope creep (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

tagged OTRS received for over 7 months. After reviewing the associated ticket, I think it is unlikely that permission will be confirmed FASTILY 18:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment This is a public domain image, that was confirmed by the Mrs Rene S Stein NSA Librarian (Here she is: [9], when it was uploaded. The last I heard, the Wikipedia Foundation were in conversation with the NSA for the use of their images, for the whole Wikipedia platform. That was more than a year ago. Not heard anything back since. I tried to contact Rene around at that time, to get a OTRS Ticket fulfilled and was informed that the Foundation was talking to then. The document the image is taken from US Military document that was released by the NSA as no longer secret and as such it is public domain. scope_creep (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This is the document it comes from: [10]. It clearly states it is distributed free. scope_creep (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does that include commercial redistribution and modification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 04:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Tide Mills tidal and wind mill.jpg

File:Tide Mills tidal and wind mill.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Timtrent (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph apparently taken of a photograph in a museum, with no attribution or context for the original photo. Can't reliably flag it as {{PD-UK-unknown}} as it may have been a previously private photo donated to the museum. Lord Belbury (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep The file is a picture taken of a plaque in position out of doors in the Tide Mills complex, It is Fair Use because it is used for educational or discussion purposes in that a point made in it is discussed either in articles using the picture, or in the description of the picture when uploaded, or in both. Fiddle Faddle 21:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
    • @Timtrent: There seem to be two copyrights which need to be resolved here: (1) the copyright of the underlying work, and (2) the copyright of the photo of the underlying work. The latter is easily dealt with by the {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}, but it's the former which may prove to be more of a problem to resolve. Can you provide any more information about the underlying work? For example, who created it and when they created it, etc. Did you scan it from a book or was it part of some exhibition you attended? Any clarification you can provide will help in assessing its copyright status. Its possible that it's old enough ago to be within the public domain, but this just cannot be automatically assumed.

      If the underlying work's copyright status, however, cannot be verified, then the file most likely needs to be deleted. Relevant Wikipedia policy related to non-free content has been set up to be much more restrictive than the practice of fair use/fair dealing per WP:NFC#Background and files cannot simply be kept by claiiming WP:ITSFAIRUSE. It's unlikely that the underlying work would meet WP:NFCC#4 and WP:NFCC#8 even if a non-free copyright license were added for it; so, the best chance for keeping it is to figure out whether its old enough, etc. to be PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 04:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Year 2000 North Korea stamp commemorating the North Korea-loyal "Unconverted long-term prisoners" held in prison in South Korea (비전향 장기수).png

File:Year 2000 North Korea stamp commemorating the North Korea-loyal "Unconverted long-term prisoners" held in prison in South Korea (비전향 장기수).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Al83tito (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Very large non-free image (1.2Mpx). The question is keep? / reduce? / delete? I've set for no reduce for the purpose of this discussion. Allowing the facility to "zoom in", somewhat goes against NF policy. The need for text is also questionable as WP:NFC says An original, high resolution image (that can be reasonably scaled down to maintain overall artistic and critical details) may lose some text detail Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Ron, thank you for starting this discussion of this file I uploaded yesterday. I was aware that the image was larger than usual, and in good faith I uploaded the image including within the rationale a request for an exception. So I look forward to this assessment by the Wiki community. Part of the upload justification in the file page reads as follows:
This image will be used as the primary means of visual identification of 63 persons in the article that talks about them. It would have been categorized as an historic portrait, was it not for the fact that some of the individuals are still alive. This upload is the most efficient way of providing visual identification of all 63 individuals, within just one file.
NOTE ON IMAGE SIZE: Wikipedia's Non-free content policy indicates that WP:Image resolution should be kept as low as possible. Usually it should be kept under 100,000 pixels. When larger "Images which need for some reason to be larger than this need a detailed justification given; otherwise they should be resized or deleted". This image merits an exception and here is the special justification for being larger. First, even though technically the pixel resolution is of 1293 × 925, the spatial resolution is lower than that (this was achieved with a two-step process of scanning the source book, and then taking a screen shot). Second, and more importantly, part of the purpose of displaying this image is so that 63 individuals, with their portrait pictures as well as their names, can be visible and legible respectively. A zoom-in to any one portrait in the file will demonstrate how the actual resolution per portrait is low; quite pixelated, as well as the captions under each. However, this resolution still allows it to be reasonably legible. Reducing further the resolution would render the text in the image illegible, and the image would lose an important part of its value.
Image at left has a higher pixel count than the one to the right, but is still of worse spatial resolution.
As for the pixel count, I want to draw attention to the distinction between pixel resolution and spatial resolution, as indicated in rationale above. See illustrative example to the right.
However, this is just a basic technical consideration. The core of the matter is whether this upload, which efficiently, within one single file, includes portraits of 63 individuals that are the direct topic of the article, can be kept at the size it was uploaded.
One more thing: Ron refers to WP:IMAGERES policy which says that loss of text detail is usually acceptable. I would like to posit that the only practical way to identify the image of the person, with the name, is to maintain enough resolution so that the text is legible (without needing to be crisp-- a balance I was aiming to strike in the current upload size). The usual alternative, which is to transcribe the names (and other data) and location of 63 individuals within the image, into the description of the image, seems unpractical for the readers to make sense of it in this case.
I look forward to the community assessment. Thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 19:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I want to add that I am not especially knowledgeable on the meaning on spatial resolution. There is a chance that my interpretation of it is incorrect. I am open to being disabused. In any case, the core of the rationale for inclusion of non-free image, and then its unusually large size, hinge on another considerations as outlined above. Thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 23:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 04:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Categories

August 14

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Americans who grew up in poverty

Nominator's rationale: Not appropriate per WP:CATDD. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Which guideline in particular? Anyways we have Category:Billionaires, why can't we have a category on people with wealth, it balances things out.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Ramapo Community College alumni

Nominator's rationale: Ramapo Community College does not exist..Ramapo College in NJ does. Only one entry in this category anyway. Tinton5 (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Order of the Cross of Liberty, Medal of Liberty 2nd Class

Note: I combined nomination with different levels of the same award to yesterday's thread here. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the clasp to the Iron Cross, 1st class

Nominator's rationale: I may be wrong, but to me this seems a clear example of WP:OCAWARD. There are currently seven hundred pages in this category, which is just a list of people who won a low-level Axis military decoration in both world wars. Catrìona (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Keep If that award is used as a criterion for notability then it is a defining characteristic. The clasp was awarded when there was a preexisting iron cross from WWI and the recipient was due to receive another in WWII as I understand the articles about the matter. 1st class is not low-level either. Agathoclea (talk) 09:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Keep (Neutral on Duel Merge) This award is for those that earned both the WWI and WWII version of this award. We can't say that each award is notable enough for a category but winning both isn't. (We could have a conversation about whether we should dual merge each of these people into each award but I generally prefer fewer categories).RevelationDirect (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Lists of comics by Marvel Comics

Nominator's rationale:I propose Category:Lists of comics by Marvel Comics and Category:Lists_of_Marvel_Comics be merged. --occono (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xplicit 03:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:People associated with Junimea

Nominator's rationale: rename per WP:OCASSOC, making the association with Junimea more specific. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Hold on It's quite debatable whether Junimea ever had a formal membership process: a Junimist was one who attended the sessions regularly. Inclusion in this category is done on the basis of RSes defining X and Y as Junimists. I'm not saying "members" doesn't work as well (maybe it does), I'm just asking !voters to consider this before deciding. Dahn (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Alas no, Marco. Very few of them wrote. Many were simply orators or lecturers, some were just attending and listening. From the beginning, Junimea was also a political party, meaning that the category includes people who were also active as Junimist politicians. Dahn (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Would we still need a parent cat in that scenario? Also, some of the people who were attending are routinely categorized as Junimea people by outside sources which we follow. That is the nuance I feel you're omitting here. Dahn (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Could you give some examples of this missing nuance? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • One fairly known example would be Alexandru Odobescu -- the issue is bound to come up when the article on him is more developed. Odobescu was a writer who, in old age, attended Junimea and was published by the Junimists, but Z. Ornea for instance notes that he should not, cannot, be viewed as a Junimist writer. The fact of his attending is culturally and politically significant; it is not however a fact equivalent to his adopting the style or guidelines of Junimea. Likewise, Petru Verussi was neither a writer or a politician, he was a painter who attended Junimea, possibly the only one visual artist who integrated within the movement. There are also examples of other Junimists who were neither writers nor politicians -- I think this was the case of Lascăr Ciurea, who may not be significant enough to have his own article, but, in case he is deemed significant enough, would be so only as a Freemason who doubled Junimea by creating a Masonic Lodge from its core attendees.
WADR Marco, you also did not answer my previous: even if we split the cat into two, don't we also need a parent category? Would you rather have it under Category:Junimea people? Would that do? I mean, I can see your point about "associated with" being too loose, but let's see if we can come up with something that reflects the historical vagueness of that club. Dahn (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I never suggested Ornea should be added anywhere (?), while Odobescu clearly was a "member" in your definition, though certainly not a "Junimea writer", so your claim that we should purge him is whimsical (though note; he's not in the category at the moment, because the article on him doesn't even mention his affiliation to Junimea). You're still not clarifying what is wrong with "Junimea people" as an intermediary category, not what we should do about Junimists who were neither politicians nor writers.
And please, don't make the mistake of assuming the present state of the category and articles in it is ultimate. Your conjecture that we could not populate the "politicians" category is frankly weird: as you can read for instance in the article Vasile Pogor or Ioan Mire Melik, Junimea was something of a political party already in the 1860s and '70s (it was even part of a government coalition), and became an actual, fully registered, party in the 1880s. There were tens of people elected as Junimea representatives in the several legislatures. In some cases, notoriously including Titu Maiorescu and Petre P. Carp, they belonged to both categories you wish to split this into. Dahn (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • No they weren't. Notice even how the link says "1880"? There was no Conservative Party in the 1870s, but there was a Junimist party (sometimes known as Juna Dreaptă), and it took part in the first Epureanu government, of 1870, when Maiorescu himself was Education Minister. And even after the creation of a conservative party, Junimea, which was slightly more liberal, existed as a third-party, sometimes allied to the National Liberals. I repeat: in the 1880s, when you claim Maiorescu was representing the Conservative Party, he was in fact a president of the Junimist (or "Constitutionalist") party -- the party ran as such in the elections of 1888, for instance, when it fielded its own candidates. It was only later that Junimea, or at least its political wing, was absorbed back into the Conservative Party. Look, I know we have so far failed at covering that issue in the main articles, but you can read about in Petre P. Carp or Vasile Pogor or Ioan Mire Melik for now. All these articles clearly refer to several intervals where Junimea was a separate political party, before and after 1880. Or see Romanian general election, 1892 for exactly when and how Junimea stopped being a third-party. Dahn (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Once we do that, we can have Category:Junimea people as the embracing cat, which would also deal with cases of Junimists who fit neither descriptor, and as a rough correspondent of "people associated with". If you dislike it, you can argue for deleting it in a new CfD submission, though I note that you presented no argument as to why we shouldn't have it. Dahn (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I did not come up with a new argument. "People who were doing absolutely no more than attending and listening should not be categorized here, for them it is not a defining characteristic" still stands. Besides Category:Junimea does an equally good job in embracing. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Well your first argument contradicts your second, since, per your system, we would still embrace those articles, but under "Junimea" (which means putting them together with articles about inanimate things or concepts, just because). And I have questioned that theory (and the factualness) of "nothing other than attended" -- this is not about people who did "nothing", this is about people who did something other than write or engage in politics. For instance, people who painted, people who collected books for the society, people who were published by Junimea without necessarily adopting its guidelines, people who organized its Masonic Lodge etc. I really recommend reading up on Junimea before emitting verdicts as to what we "should(n't)" have. Dahn (talk) 04:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • In short, these are people whose connection with Junimea is not defining for them. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • They are mentioned as Junimists in every single source hat refers to them, but of course you know better. Dahn (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Rename and purge if necessary per nom & WP:OCASSOC. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Junimists; this is evidently the accepted name for participating people, and is similar to some other category names e.g. Category:Peronists. By all means create specific sub-cats for the politicians and writers, but I see no need to purge this one, as the above discussion shows that active participation by people of other professions could be WP:Defining. – Fayenatic London 19:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There appears to be a leaning for a rename, but the target is unclear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xplicit 03:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Ultra high-net-worth individuals

Nominator's rationale: Arbitrary categorization. No related subject that verifiably establishes $30 million+ as "ultra high-net-worth. - MrX 🖋 02:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Keep, read the article itself, there are a many scholarly sources that establish this definition, including but not limited to: --Prisencolin (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Wealth-X and UBS. World Ultra Wealth Report 2013. 
  • Grzeskiewiecz, Grzegorz; Tomasz Kozlinski (15–17 June 2004). "High Net Worth Individuals - The Clients of Private Banking" (PDF). 8th International Conferenec of Doctoral Students. Brno University of Technology (Czech Republic). 
Delete: This is an arbitrary and unhelpful categorization. Marquardtika (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
How is this unhelpful when Category:Billionaires supposedly is.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete. The sources supplied above are not from reliable publishers, and the term is not commonly used. Binksternet (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete Given there is no article titled Ultra high-net-worth individuals, no standard meaning to that term and a somewhat arbitrary definition seems pointless. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
@Geraldo Perez:, check again. This addresses your concerns.--Prisencolin (talk)
Thanks for the new redirect to the existing article. Reading the article it seems the definition varies depending on the source. I saw both 30 and 100 million as the entry point so inclusion seems somewhat arbitrary. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
The purpose of creating this categorization is that while having wealth is a distinguishing quality for many people, Category:Millionaires was deleted via AFD, but we currently don't have any categorization schemes any lower than Category:Billionaires. Since 30 mil is the lower cutoff we can decide on this one.--Prisencolin (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete – A whimsical creation. —IB [ Poke ] 04:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Places of the Euromaidan

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCVENUE
In 2013, Ukraine had widespread protests called Euromaidan and this category lists different places where those protests occurred. These events seem too transitory to be permanently defining to all these prominent locations. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: Notified Nickst as the category creator. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:National Heroes of Barbados

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TOPTEN and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
In 1998, Barbados celebrated a centenary and created a top ten list (there's literally 10) of influential figures from Barbados' history. Other than sainthood, awards given out decades after a person's death are rarely defining and this category is already lsitified here.RevelationDirect (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: Notified Ser Amantio di Nicolao as the category creator. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


Redirects

August 14

Kalyanasundaranar

Pattukkottai Kalyanasundaram was never known as "Kalyanasundaranar", and there is no mention of that name in the his article. I can't find any other worthy article to redirect this to. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Western education

clearly not a good target because not all western education is secular Prisencolin (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

It defently needs a different target. For example, North America has a large number of Catholic schools which are clearly not secular. This should be deleted unless a better target is found.--76.65.40.44 (talk) 06:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Templates

August 14

Template:Alla Pugacheva

The singer's navigational template consists of three links: the singer's article, a discography article and a redlink to a songs article. The two articles already link to each other making this template unnecessary. Aspects (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Yutaka Ikejima

Insufficient navigation; only one link that's is currently a stand-alone article, the rest have been deleted / redirected for lack of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Liu Yifei

Once the actresses's filmography was removed from the\is navigational template, only four links were keft: the actress/singer's article and three album redlinks. Therefore, it does not navigate anywhere and is not needed. Aspects (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Wikinewshas/Scientology

The last article is from 2012; the Wikinews category is automatically linked anyway so this is arguably unnecessary. Jc86035 (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Boldmono

I am not entirely sure of the utility of this template. I have just converted it to use TemplateStyles, but where bold should be used, more appropriate wikitext such as {{strong}} or even plain wikitext creating <b> tags may be more correct. (And where neither is correct, should the content be bold?)

I don't feel great about merging it to {{mono}} for this reason, but if that is the outcome of the discussion, it is a trivial merge. Izno (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: The three articles it is used in it probably should not be used. Replacement 1 (standard wikitext + kbd); replacement 2 (WP:MOSBOLD); replacement 3 (both of the prior cases). I would suggest at a minimum this template is not necessary or desirable for mainspace. --Izno (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • delete after replacing as suggested. Frietjes (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
    I think it can just be substed where it is used now and deleted otherwise. The edits to those articles have stood without reversion for a week now. --Izno (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Miscellaneous border templates

All of these templates violate WP:EXISTING and link three or less existing articles. --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 05:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Don't delete all of them. Functionally, two of these are used on each border article, one for each country (and obviously each article would use a different combination), which means that e.g. in Guatemala–Honduras border the two navboxes combined do link to five other existing articles. Jc86035 (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • delete any with no parent article; weak keep if they have a parent article. Frietjes (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: added a fourth link to {{Borders of North Korea}} – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 05:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
    • which still has no parent article. Frietjes (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:G-d

What's next? Template:D--ocracy? The seven dirty words? This may actually qualify for speedy criterion T2 (misrepresentation of policy), specifically Wikipedia is not censored. In my opinion, if someone cannot write about a topic in a neutral manner without self-censorship, they clearly have a long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Previous TFD nomination (2011). Primefac (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete {{G-y}} unless there's a real religion which genuinely treats "gay" as a sacrosanct (or execrable) word which is not to be uttered or written. Weak keep {{G-d}} per the previous TfD. Jc86035 (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete both one could hypothesize any number of religious objections to words, images, or concepts, why cater to two specifically - even assuming that someone's religious sensitivities need catering to at all, and that those sensitivities allow someone to input "G-d" knowing that "God" will appear, this can all be achieved by entering GXXXXXd and doing the search and replace function for "XXXXX" to "o" and one will be alright with one's maker, without these sorts of templates. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • delete both, easily replaced by javascript. ask me if you are interested. Frietjes (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete both, Primefac made a good faith attempt to assess the usage of the template {{G-d}} which the author NTK removed as "defeat[ing] the purpose of this template". How it defeats the purpose of avoiding typing "God" beats me. The necessity is not even documented in Word taboo. I've never heard of any such taboo regarding "gay". Anyone finding these circumlocutions necessary would be unlikely to be able to edit any relevant page with a neutral viewpoint. Cabayi (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep {{G-d}} per discussion at previous TfD. Delete {{G-y}} unless evidence is given that this is actually a religious concern instead of a POINT. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep {{G-d}} and delete {{G-y}}, per Sarek. While I don't hold by this myself, it seems like a pretty inoffensive (and simple) way for someone to contribute in accordance with religious beliefs. Note: I wouldn't like to see this as an unsubstituted template requiring parsing all over the wiki. As a substitution template, it's fine. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep {{G-d}}, delete {{G-y}}. There is nothing wrong with a template to cater to religious sensibilities which do not harm the project. I am very much not happy with the undertone of intolerance in Nowak Kowalski's nomination, and this editor should be tr-ted for this nomination. Debresser (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, I am being intolerant — intolerant of specific actions and content, not people, that is. You are now (apart from accusing me of bad faith) making a bold claim that someone with sensibilities which prevent the usage of the word "God":
    • would consider using search & replace a violation of the sensibility, and
    • would consider the use of this template "technically not a violation", and
    • would be able to write impartially about topics which require the use of word "God"?
    Because if either of this conditions is not satisfied, this template sees no legitimate use, and is only giving a bad example. (As i can see, my point was not raised at the previous TfD.) That, and the possessiveness of the template's creator pointed out by Cabayi, which prevents us from even verifying your claim. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
    I wish Debresser hadn't made it ad hominem. I do. That said, I don't agree that if either of the above conditions is not satisfied, this template sees no legitimate use. In fact, if use of this template is simply easier for an editor than other approaches, then its use is perfectly legitimate. In particular, templates for substitution (as opposed to templates for transclusion) are extremely handy as shortcuts, and don't add anything material to the overhead burden of the project. So how, exactly, is this one a problem? StevenJ81 (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete both, per Frietjes.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 06:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I strongly oppose to Frietjes' argument. Not all editor are comfortable with JavaScript. Personally, I wouldn't want to have anything to do with it, while with templates I am intimately familiar. Debresser (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Then use the text editor functionality - it's the little magnifying glass icon on the upper right of the box where text is written. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Debresser, you seem to be very agitated by this discussion. I hope you realize this nomination is not an attack on your or anyone else's religion, rather it's simply a discussion on Wikipedia's policies for templates that appear to be relatively unknown in the community anyway. With all due respect, please CHILLOUT. --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 02:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I am not at all agitated. I am familiar with Frietjes for a long time, and he is well versed in technical edits, but I prefer a more accessible Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
your use of pronouns indicates you don't know me that well. Frietjes (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete – The keep reasons in previous TfD are unconvincing, as they are here too. No evidence that editors wishing to edit Wikipedia will be unable to do so if this work around for a self-imposed limitation that that is a fringe practice at best. Tetragrammaton#Written prohibitions had as its only source a blog post by one guy referring to his personal practice. Senator2029 “Talk” 16:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep {{G-d}}, delete {{G-y}}, per SarekOfVulcan. Ltwin (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a clear consensus to delete {{G-y}}, but at the moment no clear consensus to delete {{G-d}}. This relist is only for the latter template.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Miscellany

Deletion review

14 August 2018

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:XfD_today&oldid=805794331"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:XfD_today
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:XfD today"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA