Wikipedia:XfD today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Hal (movie)

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

According to this source, the film was an expected project in 2014. I couldnt find any sources about the film, except provided in the article itself. Fails notability guidelines for films, and general notability guidelines as well. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Amit V Masurkar

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

Non-notable director (delete per WP:BIO criteria) Α Guy into Books § (Message) -  11:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

ARC Ratings

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

By its own admission it is not a major credit rating agency. The only ref is a PE-inspired notice DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. It rates articles in Reuters, the Toronto Star, the French version of Huffington Post and Business Standard, plus at least a couple of pages in the book Credit Rating Governance: Global Credit Gatekeepers Clarityfiend (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Article fails WP:CORPDEPTH, for despite being cited in a number of well-regarded sources (per CAPTAIN RAJU), none of the articles concern the subject. Rather, they refer to the article subject in passing or concern the industry as a whole (excluding the Toronto Star article). As ARC Ratings is not particularity notable (despite claims) when compared to other credit rating companies, it fails WP:MILL.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Games2win

Games2win (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Games2win" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails WP:NCORP, almost everything about them on the internet is essentially WP:PROMO or not a significant source. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Baek Su Rin

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

Non-notable writer which fails WP:AUTHOR. Α Guy into Books § (Message) -  10:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 11:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 11:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Eva Gutowski

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

This subject is a part time actress, and has a youtube channel. She is not notable. Sources are mostly brief mentions. The article has a very promotional sound to it that could mean there is some COI afoot. Fails WP:GNG. Not much significant coverage. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 15:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 15:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not going to !vote just yet, but can you explain the basis for "Sources are mostly brief mentions"? The sources in the Washington Post, People magazine, Conde Naste Traveller, Variety, People magazine (again) and The Independent are entirely about her; and while they're not extremely long, they're not one-liners either. Each of them seems to be much more than a brief mention. TJRC (talk) 01:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Originate

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

No indication of satisfying corporate notability or that its products satisfy software notability. Google search turns up the usual vanity hits, and no in-depth coverage.

Second and third sentences of lede paragraph are marketining gibberish. They could be deleted, leaving a stub, but deleting promotional about a non-notable company leaves a stub about a non-notable company. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I believe this company does satisfy corporate notability given that they are known within the space as inventing this particular business model which we are writing a research paper on. There are several credible articles which discuss this. Thanks for your suggestions around marketing language. I have further edited and would welcome any other suggestions around language. Thank you! Kine Sundberg (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, the company has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. These are not easily found in google due to the common-word name of the company "Originate". Here are some examples of articles:
    • https://venturebeat.com/2013/11/27/if-this-startup-succeeds-youll-only-need-to-charge-your-phone-once-a-week-exclusive/
    • https://techcrunch.com/2012/06/24/los-angeles-startup-accelerators/
    • https://www.forbes.com/sites/ilyapozin/2012/07/09/12-entrepreneurs-that-are-changing-la-forever/2/
    • https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/ceo-of-originate-inc-says-hes-always-been-entrepreneur/
    • http://www.sfgate.com/technology/article/Startups-get-human-capital-for-an-equity-stake-4825703.php
    • https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/5406/management-alums-turn-fitness-inside-out
    • http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/icm-manatt-and-originate-form-incubator-for-media-and-tech-startups-1201271823/

Kine Sundberg (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete no indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Analsyis of references in article fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND since they are either PRIMARY sources, run-of-the-mill business listings or based on company announcements. The references posted above also fail the criteria of establishing notability. This venturebeat article fails CORPDEPTH as it not in-depth and is a mere mention-in-passing. The TechCrunch article fails for the same reason - the company is merely name-checked. The Forbes article also fails for the same reason as it is a mention-in-passing on a profile of their CFO and is does not have the in-depth details required for establishing notability. The reviewjournal article fails WP:CORPDEPTH since it relies exclusively on an interview with the CEO with no independent analysis or opinion. If also fails as a PRIMARY source and is not intellectually independent. Similarly, the sfgate article fails CORPDEPTH for the same reason as it relies exclusively on an interview/quotations with the CEO. The universityofcalifornia.edu article fails CORPDEPTH for the same reasons as the first three references above as it a mention-in-passing in relation to mentioning that Scheinrock is president and CFO. The variety.com article fails WP:ORGIND as it is based on a PR and/or company announcement - the announcement is repeated with the same quotations and details in other articles such as this LATimes article, this Forbes article, this hollywoodreporter article and may others. This manatt.com reference clearly shows the Press Release that the other articles are based on. -- HighKing++ 19:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Phased plasma gun

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

PROD was removed with no rationale. Article is entirely non-notable WP:FANCRUFT that fails WP:NOTPLOT. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Jclemens:Nothing about that article shows that it's anything besides WP:LISTCRUFT as well. I count a grand total of zero reliable, secondary sources in it. It will probably end up being AfD at some point too.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
(Find sources: "PPG" plasma babylon 5 – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)
The lack of current sources doesn't mean sources don't exist. Sources likely exist to show PPG meets GNG, and I have the resources in my personal library to demonstrate that, but 1) it's not the best thing to have as a standalone article, in my opinion, and 2) Regardless of whether PPD could be defended as meeting GNG or not, the larger article is certainly more defensible. Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I find it doubtful that minor fictional cruft such as that article would be enyclopedic, even as a whole, it seems more like what you'd put in Wikia. But if it truly is then I would recommend sourcing it to back up your argument.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
If we had more editors who would improve existing articles, I would spend more time doing so, instead of only putting out fires. Right now, fixing up low-interest fictional elements articles isn't a huge priority: They're harmless, and as long as WP:ATD is followed by redirecting or merging NN stuff instead of deleting it, there's not too much risk. Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep The topic is notable; for example, see A Dream Given Form. Andrew D. (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. A Google Books search turns up a number of references, but these all appear to be fictional discussions of a weapon that has never existed and which doesn't appear to have enough non-trivial discussion in those sources to warrant a standalone article. Probably. KDS4444 (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Reynie Rutledge

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

Non-notable person; fails notability guidelines with, at best, some small local fame. PROD removed by creator. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 18:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm surprised an editor has proposed this page for deletion without offering any explanation. I will offer some details in support of keeping the article I just authored. A bank CEO and businessman in Arkansas may not be known worldwide, but he is a notable individual. Rutledge has been interviewed and discussed at length, and there are many sources available for information, some of which I have provided. Just because you don't know someone, doesn't mean they are automatically not notable. Brandonrush Woo pig sooie! 03:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The Mass Missile

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

Unremarkable band, fails WP:BAND JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete fails to meet WP:GNG Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. At least three albums on Sony, so satisfies WP:NBAND. Needs someone able to search through Japanese sources, where coverage will almost certainly exist. --Michig (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Albums being produced by a popular company does not make this group notable, neither does the context of both WP:NBAND and WP:NALBUM indicate/support your argument. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
What has NALBUM got to do with anything? WP:NBAND criterion 5 is "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels". Three albums on Sony clearly satisfies that. --Michig (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see #s 4 & 5 criteria. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 08:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Supersport 300 World Championship

2017 Supersport 300 World Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "2017 Supersport 300 World Championship" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

This article relies on citations from the promotion itself. Once you strip that away, there isn't enough to pass GNG. NSPORT provides no room to presume a single season of a motorbike racing series is notable. Sources like this and this, questionable as they are, aren't even used here because Boxmule appears more interested in using Wikipedia as a webhost to store sports statistics Chris Troutman (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - Ana Carrasco's victory in the event, making her the first woman to win a solo championship motorcycle race, has attracted enough coverage to pass GNG [1] [2] [3].--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Alex M.O.R.P.H.

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

The article mostly relies on user-generated sources such as Discogs to support its content, going against WP:USERG. Hakken (talk) 09:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 09:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 09:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Kyle Kulinski

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

Doesn't cite any independent reliable sources for notability; citations are links to self-produced YouTube videos. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment. Do you have an argument that addresses notability rather than article quality? --Michig (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    The argument is made quite clearly, because WP:BIO is pretty clear, as is WP:RS; a biographical article that isn't supported by independent reliable sources quite simply has to be deleted. Self-published YouTube videos are not evidence of 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. That doesn't currently exist in this article, and a quick search doesn't find any other substantive reliable sources discussing him. The burden at this point is to provide evidence that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable... and independent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. The previous AfD was closed as no consensus 4 days ago. Reopening this so soon is unlikely to be productive. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The two !votes were not based in policy; one essentially amounted to "he'll be notable someday," which is literally WP:CRYSTAL. That's not how we write biographical articles. A biography without independent reliable sources cannot exist on Wikipedia, per fundamental policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete This statement from above says it all. Self-published YouTube videos are not evidence of notability. Notability has not been established. Fails BIO and GNG. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 02:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete- Kyle gained notability as a co-founder of Justice Democrats.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Passes GNG as associated with Young Turks. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Did the nom try Deletion Review? I think re-nomming an AfD 3 days after it was closed (and low !Voter turnout to boot, I would of relisted it) is not the way to go. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
"Passes GNG as associated with Young Turks" - passing GNG requires independent reliable sources. Do you have any independent reliable sources that can support the writing of this biography? That's what we're looking for. An entirely-self-sourced biography is not appropriate for Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

List of Saucony sponsorships

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

No need for a separate list. Delete and move the sponsorship on the main page Saucony. Greenbörg (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 09:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 09:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Laxman Kagne

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

Non-notable producer, also active in a charitable trust. Topic doesn't meet WP:GNG. Part of a (probably paid) article series on members and activities of the Kagne family. Most of the article is a copypaste job from Halal (film) and doesn't inherit any stand-alone notability. Google search showed no in-depth coverage. GermanJoe (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 09:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 09:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Surekha Kagne

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

Non-notable actress, doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Part of a (probably paid) article series on members and activities of the Kagne family. Most of the article is a copypaste job from Halal (film) and doesn't inherit any stand-alone notability. Google search showed no in-depth coverage. GermanJoe (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

New Zealand 'A' cricket team in India in 2017

New Zealand 'A' cricket team in India in 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "New Zealand 'A' cricket team in India in 2017" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

The article is not suitable as it lacks the notability criteria. Probably A Cricket tours are not taken into consideration according to WikiProject Cricket Abishe (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 09:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 09:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 09:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete it's an A-team cricket tour, and so not notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Per the above. Also note that this user has created a few non-notable cricket articles for tours and competitions, simply because they exist. I've dropped a note on their talkpage a few days back to invite them to post at WT:CRIC first to seek clarification before they create anything else. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Jerusalem Boys Choir

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - They fail to garner any significant secondary coverage. Their albums are not critique by music journalists nor have they placed on a notable music chart. Hence, the group fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Although there doesn't appear to be enough coverage in English sources, there certainly are enough sources in Hebrew to support WP:GNG. A search for "מקהלת פרחי ירושלים" "מקהלת+פרחי+ירושלים" turns up plenty of WP:RS which could be used to expand the article. - GalatzTalk 12:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per the Hebrew source search provided later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Michel Quiñones

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

Non-notable MMA fighter does not meet WP:MMA or WP:GNG PRehse (talk) 08:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Podguide

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

I do not believe this term merits notability requirement for inclusion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 09:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 09:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

List of international cricket tournaments

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

The article which describes tournaments played by both men and women doesn't cite any sources and probably not matching the notability criteria. Abishe (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, the article may not be accepted or needed for WikiProject Cricket. So I decided that this is not a notable one. Abishe (talk) 08:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 09:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Suez Canal Bridge (disambiguation)

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

Ordinary, orphan WP:2DABS page where disambiguation is not required. Primary topic has hatnote to the only other possible use. De-PRODed by Patar knight. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 09:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 09:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Sweetman (disambiguation)

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

Ordinary, orphan WP:2DABS page. Disambiguation is not required: primary topic has a hatnote to the other use. De-PRODed by Patar knight. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 09:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 09:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Walpole Island (disambiguation)

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

An ordinary, orphan, WP:2DABS page where diambiguation is not required. Primary topic (a redirect to Walpole Island First Nation) has a hatnote to the only other use. De-PRODed by Patar knight who added a partial title match WP:PTM to the See Also section. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Delete Walpole Island - Algonac Ferry would never be referred to simply as 'Walpole Island' so there's no ambiguity. Delete per WP:2DABS. Boleyn (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 09:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 09:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

WEBT (disambiguation)

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

This is an ordinary, orphan, WP:2DABS page where disambiguation is not required. The primary topic has a hatnote to the only other use. De-PRODed by Patar knight who added a wiktionary reference to a non-English word. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Delete per WP:2DABS. This is to disambiguate Wikipedia articles, and is not a dictionary, I don't think the link to Wiktionary justifies a dab. Boleyn (talk) 09:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 09:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 09:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 09:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Daisy Edgar-Jones

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

Borderline notability. From my POV it's WP:TOSOON Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 06:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 06:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Inayatullah Faizi

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

No in-depth coverage found in WP:RS. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 17:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 17:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Pride of Performance was awarded to 100+ individuals in 2010 so how such award can make him notable? Greenbörg (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Can you give a link? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow assessment of new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 04:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Paperboy (2017 film)

Paperboy (2017 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Paperboy (2017 film)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Per WP:NFILM. Sources are publicly releases, it doesn't look as though the film has been released yet. Comatmebro (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 05:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 05:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Adam C. Walmus

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

Fails WP:BIO. Non-notable. Only source provided is primary and I didn't find any others. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 07:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 07:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Zero independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC).

Sarah Perry (American Author)

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

Non-notable writer & blogger - apart from a single passing mention in the New York Times here, I'm unable to find coverage of this person in independent, reliable sources - certainly not the kind of in-depth, significant coverage that would make her notable. The refs which do turn up (like those used in the article) are mostly self-published and/or blogs.

Note that she is not to be confused with the other, better known Sarah Perry, who is obviously notable and covered in plenty of RS. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

PCell (telecommunications)

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

The claims for the product have not been backed by public data after several years. This is a single product company that has not even delivered that product. Fails Wikipedia inclusion criteria in several ways. Daveburstein (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Travis Shredd and the Good Ol' Homeboys

Travis Shredd and the Good Ol' Homeboys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Travis Shredd and the Good Ol' Homeboys" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Does not meet criteria in WP:MUSIC, could not find reliable sources. Note that the link that is supposed to link to a record label instead links to a Zen-related topic. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Highland Records

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

Non notable, could not find sources, most of the search results are about another non notable record label in Louisville, KY. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Carole Chaski

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

Nice lady who does interesting work, but I'm struggling to find anything like GNG-compliant coverage. EEng 01:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak either way. Interesting to me as a Shakespeare authorship follower. With a GS h-index of only 10 in a popular field maybe too soon yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC).

Venniyil Govinda Panicker

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

An unsourced, non-notable bio. Did not Prod as it was Prod'd as a non-English draft. Legacypac (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

International Federation of Interior Architects/Designers

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

No coverage in reliable independent sources. Fails WP:ORG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Little Fresh Meat

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

The article feels like a WP:COATRACK for a Chinese neologism (xiaoxianrou) with multiple translations. The more general topic is of young male celebrities in China; a rename may be appropriate if there's no existing page on that topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Neel Akash

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

PROD removed without explanation. Upon reviewing the sources, they're unreliable and primary. Fails GNG and MUSICBIO. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 00:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 00:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 00:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 00:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 00:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Files

Files for discussion

September 24

File:NloodyKnucklesPromoPoster.jpg

File:NloodyKnucklesPromoPoster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Thebigs2update (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is not necessarily own work, as it's a film poster. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Categories

September 24

NEW NOMINATIONS

Events by year

more categories
Nominator's rationale: merge, "events" categories do not distinguish themselves from their parent "year" categories because year categories are collecting events almost by definition.
  • Merge -- This is clearly a redundant level of categorisation. However this is still 2017. How do we get categories for events that are not yet events? Peterkingiron (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:The Firesign Theatre

Nominator's rationale: Navigates too little content. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 07:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:People assisting Jews during the Holocaust

Nominator's rationale: This is a technical nomination that follows the previous discussion, which ended without consensus, to rename the categories in accordance with Category:Rescue of Jews during the Holocaust. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support These seem like very good suggestions, and "Polish people" is much better than "Poles and Polish citizens". Face-smile.svg — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Question At first glance, it looks as if "People assisting Jews during the Holocaust" has the same scope as Righteous Among the Nations, because Jews would dispute whether helping someone convert to Christianity actually is assistance/rescuing, and assistance that's notable enough to warrant categorisation really needs to be repeated and/or substantial, and without expectation of the favor being returned. Shouldn't this, therefore, be merged with Category:Righteous Among the Nations, and the Poles be merged into Category:Polish Righteous Among the Nations? Response to Marcocappelle's point — if someone hasn't been honored with חֲסִידִי אֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם‎ status, does he warrant categorisation here? To some extent, this category is subjective ("did he help them enough to get categorised that way?"), but we can all agree that so-and-so and such-and-such have been named חֲסִידִי אֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם‎. Nyttend (talk) 05:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I could support the merge provided that articles are checked manually to assess whether people really have this status. Per previous discussion, there may not be enough articles for two category layers. But if kept, the proposed renames are an obvious improvement. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support -- The two should match. The "Righteous" category depends on recognition by an Israeli institution, so that this should be wider. Those qualifying for the "Righteous" category should be there if possible, not in both; this is the pattern for all other countries. If this category can properly be emptied into that, we should delete the Polish category and redirect the other. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Directors of Disney

Nominator's rationale: To correspond with similarly named categories about the Disney company (e.g., Category:The Walt Disney Company, Category:The Walt Disney Company divisions). Trivialist (talk) 03:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


Redirects

September 24

Fatally wounded

This redirect is ambiguous. It could also refer to Murder or Casualty (person). Steel1943 (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment wouldn't this fall in WP:EUPHEMISM as with "mortally wounded"? Do we really need a provide a link for that? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment. The redirect got 49 hits last year, so I think it is useful for people search for this term to be taken somewhere appropriate. Even if we don't use it in articles and would not link it even if we did does not mean that people will not look it up, although search results indicate that it is frequently in use. The uses seem relate to the following situations: Battles (and other military actions), paramilitary actions, criminal activity and duelling in that approximate order of frequency. Other situations are possible of course, but are not as frequent. The criminal activities involved are it seems not normally (attempted) murders but people being shot (by criminals or by police) during a crime and/or during an (attempted) getaway. It seems to exclusively refer to people who did not die immediately but who sustained wounds/injuries to which they succumbed some time later (hours to days are common, weeks to months are not rare). For all these reasons a straight redirect to Murder is not something I would support. There is at present no Wiktionary entry at wikt:fatally wounded, and I am undecided at this moment whether one would be accepted (phrases generally need some degree of idiomaticy, things that are only the literal sum of their parts get deleted) but if one did exist I would not object to a soft redirect. More thinking is needed before I can make a firm recommendation about this one. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. 49 hits per year is firmly implausible. -- Tavix (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    • 49 hits per year is almost one person every week on average using this redirect - unquestionably a useful redirect if there is an appropriate target. Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, I believe that less than one hit per week is unquestionably implausible and will !vote to delete a redirect with such unbelievely useless statistics almost every single time. Thank you for repeating your opinion. -- Tavix (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
        • You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't change the fact that deliberately making it harder for readers to find the content they are looking for is incredibly arrogant and contrary to the project's fundamental goal of increasing access to the world's knowledge - and this would be true for even a tenth of this number of readers. Thryduulf (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
          • That's a great idea in theory, but we have strong evidence provided that this redirect is not being actively used. That is a classic WP:R#D8 situation on our hands. Additionally, redirects like those are WP:COSTLY since there is no benefits derived because it's not being used. And that's not even touching the "content they are looking for" argument, because it has not even been determined what someone using this search term may be looking for to begin with. -- Tavix (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
            • The problem with that argument is that we have evidence that almost 50 people a year are using this redirect. Unless you have somehow redefined mathematics such that 50=0 without my being aware of it of course. "Wikipedia is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language.—Jimmy Wales" note "every single person on the planet" not "every single person, except those who want to use search terms used by fewer than a few hundred other people each year". A high-quality encyclopaedia requires that those reading it are able to find what they are looking for, and where we can determine that we provide redirects regardless of how many people use it. There is no threshold below which people do not matter. Thryduulf (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
              • We're talking about a rate. I usually discuss implausibility of redirects in hits/day. Certainly the hits/day on this redirect is pretty damn close to zero. If, in order to get to a sizable number, we need to start discussing the hits/year, yeah, that is deep into the realm of implausibility. Remember we are talking about a useless redirect here, that has nothing to do with Jimmy Wales' grand philosophy of Wikipedia—frankly that is irrelevant here. I see you continue to bring up the "find what they are looking for" argument again. A simple page view tool does not determine whether people are finding what they are looking for, or even actively using the redirect for that matter. -- Tavix (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
                • Why does a redirect only become plausible if it is used multiple times per day? We want people to be able to find all knowledge, not just knowledge that is looked for multiple times a day. The page view tool does not show whether people are finding what they are looking for, but it does show that they are using this redirect to look for something. It is our job to do our best to determine what that something is, and point them in the right direction, not to delete it because they don't use it often enough your own arbitrary threshold. And as for Jimmy's vision, everything we do on Wikipedia should be done towards making that vision a reality in some way, and we don't do that by deleting things because not many people want to use it on a daily basis. Should we delete Castle Hill Railway (Bridgnorth) because it is was only used 12 times last year and people can find the content in other ways? Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
                  • Let's start with a hypothetical redirect that is literally never used, 0 hits going back years. Hopefully you can agree that is deletable. On the other end of the spectrum is the most used redirect (is there a place that lists the most viewed redirects?). That is obviously useful and should be kept. Somewhere along that spectrum is the "threshold" (more like a grey area) where the cost of the redirect becomes greater than its benefit (c.f. benefit-cost analysis). I've never provided a definition of where this threshold lies, I'm simply asserting that this redirect meets it. You do not, and that is fine, I respect your opinion on the matter. I do not believe people are using this redirect to find what they may be looking for, so I am claiming that Jimmy's vision is irrelevant with respect to a useless redirect. Finally, yes, I believe that redirect is useless, but let's not bring WP:OTHERSTUFF into this discussion (I thought you have learned that by now?) -- Tavix (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── re your hypothetical redirect used 0 times over years - no I don't agree, the redirect should not be deleted just because it is not being used. It should be deleted if it is implausible or so ambiguous that it's not possible to work out what it relates to, but not for being unused. It's unlikely that anything plausible will be unused though, as even some of the ridiculous eubot redirects got 3 or 4 hits a year (and you might remember I recommended deleting those ones). However, never have I seen a truly implausible redirect get more than 4-5 hits classified as human on the current stats tool. This gets double that amount, and so we should do our best to find a suitable target, and only delete it if we fail - and then it would be deleted because it lacks a suitable target, not because of it's view count. The maintenance burden of a redirect is so infinitesimal (on average you're looking at one vandalism edit that needs reverting every few decades, unless it gets nominated here) that even one actual human using it to find what they are looking for outweighs the cost (this is why WP:COSTLY so poorly represents reality in most cases where it is brought up). It's almost vaguely understandable when you try and claim a redirect used by 12 people a year is unused, but when you extend that to one used by more than 200 people a year (as you are doing on the redirect to Edward II) it removes my ability to treat the argument as being made in good faith. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not mind explaining my position to you over and over again, but I refuse to converse with someone who thinks I am acting in bad faith. Good day, Thryduulf. -- Tavix (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as ambiguous. There are a number of plausible targets for this, including wound, injury, death, etc. Rather than send readers to an arbitrary destination, let them use the search function. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is pointed at the best target, since "fatally wounded" results in death. Dying already redirects there. Overall, it seems that being fatally wounded has more of an affinity to the topics covered in death than those in other pages like wound, and injury, which almost entirely deal with far less severe cases. This also gets just over a hit a week, and is part of a group of commonly used English words/terms which can easily be searched for if the reader is not satisfied. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 11:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Deplorable

Should redirect to Basket of deplorables with a hatnote linking to the "deplorable" wiktionary page (see here). There is no Wikipedia article for any topic called "deplorable"; and readers searching it are most likely desiring the Clinton phrase, particularly as use of the word to refer to Donald Trump supporters has spiked in the last year. Chase (talk | contributions) 01:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Should it be a dabify then, with those two items? Deplorable word seems like a notable term from Narnia. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 11:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Macedonian Navy

For starters, "Navy" isn't mentioned at the target, and I haven't seen evidence of the Macedonian Lake Patrol Police being called a Navy (from my experience, Navies are typically separate from Police). Furthermore, my search for "Macedonian Navy" is overwhelmingly about the navies of the ancient Macedonian kingdom ("navy/ies" has 17 mentions on that page). With how ambiguous and controversial the word "Macedonia" is, I propose this redirect be deleted, although I'm okay with it being retargeted somewhere that describes the ancient Macedonian Navy (perhaps a section at Ancient navies and vessels?) -- Tavix (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. With the possible exception of the Vatican City, every country's navy is plausible search term - even landlocked ones (See Brownwater navy) and this redirect got 131 hits between 1 and 30 August and 1,399 last year. Fortunately for the project we don't decide what things are based only on your experience, we base them on evidence and the article makes it clear that despite the name this organisation is a branch of the Macedonian armed forces not the civilian police force so it is exactly what people will be looking for when searching this term or clicking on a link to it. If we information about the ancient Macedonian navy then that article can be added as a hatnote. The name of Macedonia is controversial, but only because it also refers to a region of Greece and it is not plausible for almost all sub-national regions to have navies so "Macedonian" in this context is not ambiguous with it - and even if it were then that would be a rationale for a hatnote or dab page, not deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
With the possible exception of the Vatican City, every country's navy is plausible search term Sure—if they have one. this redirect got 131 hits between 1 and 30 August and 1,399 last year. Search results only tell you that a redirect was used. They don't say how they were used or if someone arrived at the target they were wanting. Fortunately for the project we don't decide what things are based only on your experience, we base them on evidence I'll cast your snide remark aside, no worries. the article makes it clear that despite the name this organisation is a branch of the Macedonian armed forces not the civilian police force [citation needed] so it is exactly what people will be looking for when searching this term or clicking on a link to it. Not according to my search results. "Macedonian Navy" overwhelmingly refers to the ancient Macedonia. it is not plausible for almost all sub-national regions to have navies so "Macedonian" in this context is not ambiguous Ancient Macedonia wasn't a sub-National region, it was a kingdom with a navy as I linked above. even if it were then that would be a rationale for a hatnote or dab page, not deletion. But we'd need a second entry. There's still no evidence presented that the current target is known as "Macedonian Navy". -- Tavix (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
We should not require people to know the answer to their query before they have searched for the answer to it, it is likely that every country has a navy of some description so we should have redirects in place for the likely search terms such as this one. If you think that the target is wrong then why are you proposing deletion instead of retargetting? We don't delete demonstrably useful redirects (as this is) if they go to the wrong target, we retarget them. In this case disambiguation is needed (which is never a reason for deletion), and hatnotes can do that just fine (either way, assuming we do have something about the ancient navy). In your haste to persue your deletionism, you've completely overlooked the fact that I didn't say it wasn't ambiguous, I said it was not plausible that it is ambiguous with a navy of the modern Greek region - I know the ancient territory was not a sub-national region, but I was not talking about the ancient territory as you would have known if you read what I actually wrote. I know the lake police are not called the Macedonian Navy, that's why this is tagged as a {{R from incorrect name}}. Thryduulf (talk) 08:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
it is likely that every country has a navy of some description Do you have evidence for that claim? Fortunately for the project we don't decide what things are based only on what you think is likely, we base them on evidence. For what it's worth, List of navies says otherwise (and Macedonia isn't mentioned there at all, navy or no navy). why are you proposing deletion instead of retargetting? It's a vague search term (noting that Macedonia is ambiguous) and we don't have a good target for it. I mentioned in my nomination that I'm fine with retargeting somewhere that describes the ancient navy. Macedonia (ancient kingdom) mentions it several times, so that would work, but I would prefer a section or article that actually describes that Navy. In that regard, I think WP:REDLINK deletion to be beneficial here. I know the lake police are not called the Macedonian Navy Then there shouldn't be a redirect of that sort to that target! Going back to your first sentence, if someone is looking for "Macedoinian Navy", it would be confusing and misleading to redirect them somewhere that isn't called Macedonian Navy, whether that be correct or incorrect. that's why this is tagged as a {{R from incorrect name}}. It's not though. -- Tavix (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't assert "it is likely that every country has a navy of some description" the signficant majority of countries in the world today have a navy or equivalent water-bourne military force, therefore "<country ajective> navy" is a reasonable search term that should lead somewhere. Re not being called the navy - this is the entire point of having {{R from incorrect name}} and arriving at a target that is about a branch of the Macedonian armed forces that carries out duties on water is neither misleading nor confusing (as for the lack of tag, I thought the category was how I found this one, but obviously not. I'll tag it now). If something is ambiguous we disambiguate it (via a hatnote or dab page), we don't delete it, even if you don't like it - unless we only have information for one of the topics in which case we point to that as we do here. Thryduulf (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
For a redirect to be a cromulent {{R from incorrect name}}, it first has to be a search term that is actually incorrectly used to refer to the subject. There has still been no evidence provided to suggest that might be the case. -- Tavix (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
You mean other than the usage figures I quoted? I know that this is where I would expect this redirect to lead so it stands to reason that at least some of those thousands also use this search term to find information about the topic of the article. Some will probably be looking for the ancient navy, but not all as for example [5] and [6] demonstrate. And that's with less than 5 minutes searching. Thryduulf (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I also found a third, z15 [dot] invisionfree [dot] com/illyria/index.php?showtopic=62 but that trips the spam blacklist so I can't directly link it. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I guess that's something. I'm looking for a reliable source so a sentence can be added to Macedonian Lake Patrol Police that it is sometimes incorrectly/alternatively referred to as the Macedonian Navy. That way, it would be able to meet WP:DABMENTION in case it is decided to disambiguate the title. -- Tavix (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't know why the insistence on a reliable source, as I've clearly demonstrated this is a name that is used for the target which is what matters for redirects. A rigid reading of the WP:DABMENTION style guideline would for the same reasons be a detriment to our readers and therefore a perfect application of WP:IAR. Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Rather, it's confusing and/or misleading to have an entry in a disambiguation with no mention of the term in the article. Since that is a detriment to our readers, WP:IAR would not apply. -- Tavix (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
No, the disambiguation page would say that this is a term that is sometimes used to describe the target (see evidence presented above) nobody would be confused or mislead. In other cases, we can safely assume that someone using this search term knows what a navy is/does (if they don't then they can easily look up the navy article where the lead makes it clear that the activities the Lake Police undertake are covered) and that Macedonian can refer to the modern nation of Macedonia - nothing misleading or confusing about this at all. Thryduulf (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
That's an awfully long string of assumptions you'd have to make to get there. If that is a common set of assumptions, it should be easy to add a reliable source to the article. There'd be no need to violate WP:DABMENTION. -- Tavix (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Thryduulf in that we can expect users to search for the navy of just about any country. In a case like this, whether they're being clever or whether they don't realize Macedonia is landlocked, I want to do something for them besides just giving them search results, which may suggest we'd one day have an article. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 20#Andorran Navy for a similar discussion with, IMO, a good solution.
So how to proceed here? Unfortunately, Military of Macedonia redirects to Army of the Republic of Macedonia, with no mention of a navy. Does this police force function at all like a navy? If so, the redirect could be acceptable. Ideally, I'd like a sentence at Republic of Macedonia#Military or Macedonian Lake Patrol Police stating that Macedonia doesn't have a navy, and/or that the lake patrol is something like a navy, if that's at all accurate. We could then point to one of those places, and maybe add Macedonia to the list at Navies of landlocked countries. --BDD (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Navies of landlocked countries#Non-independent units and a blurb stating that while the Republic of Macedonia does not operate a military navy, it has the Macedonian Lake Patrol Police as a waterborne border police force. Ben · Salvidrim!  15:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    That would suffice for me. While a sourced statement about the country's lack of a navy, or the lake patrol's functioning as one, would be ideal, we should be fine with a statement that's simply easy to verify and unlikely to be challenge. Either "As a landlocked country, Macedonia has no navy" or what you've suggested fit those criteria. --BDD (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    @BDD: However, it's important to keep in mind that Ancient Macedonia did have a navy, and it's easily the primary topic from my fairly exhaustive search on the topic. -- Tavix (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
The how about Convert to SIA as drafted here? Ben · Salvidrim!  22:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
A couple issues with that. First, with the Ancient Macedonian navy being the primary topic, a disambiguation wouldn't be necessary per WP:TWODABS. Second, if the lake patrol article is to be used, "Macedonian Navy" is going to have to be mentioned there to overcome WP:DABMENTION. Sure, it'd be easy to add a sentence somewhere, but sourcing it would be problematic from what I've seen. -- Tavix (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm happy with that set index suggestion. Dabmention is not a hurdle as (a) this is not a disambiguation page, and (b) the associated explanation removes any possible ambiguity and will not leave anyone confused. Style guidelines (which is all the status dabmention has) must never be treated as more important than helping readers find the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 11:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Rocket City FurMeet

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Rocket City Furmeet

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

ZonieCon

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

FranFurence

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

ConFurence East

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Canadian Art and Cartooning Expo

Cancelled event, as described here. R with possibilities does not apply if no notability is established. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Anthrofest

Cancelled event, as described here. R with possibilities cannot apply if no notability is established. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

All Fur Fun

Cancelled event, as described here. No notability can be established to create an article. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Oklacon

Cancelled event, as described here. R with possibilities does not apply if no notability can be established. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Templates

September 24


Miscellany

Deletion review

24 September 2017

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:XfD_today&oldid=768967260"
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