Wikipedia:XfD today

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:XfD Today)
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
Shortcuts

This page transcludes all of the deletion debates opened today on the English-language Wikipedia, including articles, categories, templates, and others, as a convenience to XfD-watchers. Please note that because this material is transcluded, watchlisting this page will not provide you with watchlist updates about deletions; WP:DELT works best as a browser bookmark checked regularly.


Speedy deletion candidates[edit]

Candidates for speedy deletion
Africoon
Al-Amara Mosque
Allumahar
Baluch/Baloch Genocide
Cuntinent
Egel
L'Express de Madagascar
Cameron Guarino
User:Idk17272727
Byron Randall
Sports broadcasting contracts in Thailand
Uthman al-Khamis

Articles[edit]

< June 05 June 07 >

Purge server cache

Switch Music company[edit]

Switch Music company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Appears to be a defunct instrument company that didn't make much of an impact. The only sources are a Youtube video, a product catalog PDF, and a fan forum - and that's after a user contested my PROD and looked for sources. Google News returns nothing. A search of Guitar World also comes up empty. A search for one of their guitars only returns some sales listings. Seems non-notable. Mbinebri (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Zanahary (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No coverage for this instrument maker. Being defunct, I doubt we'll find much of anything at this point in time; what's used in the article for sourcing isn't sufficient. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I'm sorry, there was a deletion tag on the Switch Music company page that explicitly stated that : "If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming, or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it."
So, I have edited the article, removed the deletion tag, so how come it's up for deletion again although this was explicitly discouraged in the deletion tag?
I have also expressed reasons to retain (Keep) this article in the article's talk page, which I'll reiterate here: "Hi, I think that the subject of this article is relevant and interesting as Switch was one of the few companies using plastic rather than wood on a guitar body, equally it was manufactured by injection molding rather than carpentry. Although this was successful in terms of acoustic quality, and although the instruments were attractively priced, the company failed commercially. We can't link to the company website as it has ceased to exist. On the other hand this also means that this article can't be intended as marketing or to build company credibility. The information here is referenced by the creators best as we can given that there isn't much in the way of academic literature, which kinda comes with the territory. I have also added some inline references as requested by the deletion-proposer."
I'm saddened that an improper shotgun policy is being used where the article will be brought up for deletion multiple times until it finally is deleted. Maikel (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Chain[edit]

Mr. Chain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Company fails WP:NCORP. While several articles cited here provide significant coverage beyond trivial mentions, they are all in highly local publications (the Manistee News and the Traverse City Record-Eagle). Under NCORP, "Attention solely from local media (e.g., the weekly newspaper for a small town)... is not an indication of notability." A BEFORE search turns up no additional qualifying sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG. I think there should be more in newspaper archives - this company is very notable in its particular niche and most of the innovative things done by this company were in pre-internet era (it was founded in 1960). Nienders (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The WP:BURDEN is on the editor proposing material to prove notability; can you supply the newspaper citations? I searched archive sites in my BEFORE search but I only found local media coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 18:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - the local newspaper of Traverse City should be considered reliable and independent, but much of the news is mundane coverage. 14:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
    I agree that the Traverse City paper should be considered reliable and independent. But under WP:AUD, that's not all that's required. Significant coverage in "media with an international, national, or at least regional audience (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state) is a strong indication of notability. Attention solely from local media (e.g., the weekly newspaper for a small town), or media of limited interest and circulation (e.g., a newsletter exclusively for people with a very unusual job), is not an indication of notability. At least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." I think the debate is whether the paper serving Traverse City (population 15,000) is "local media"; I think it is, which is why I nominated the article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bermuda Smash Invitational[edit]

Bermuda Smash Invitational (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cricket tournament which fails WP:GNG, WP:NCRIC, and WP:EVENT. AA (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Amin[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jana Amin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of an activist, deleted at AfD in January and immediately recreated. Notability is not evident to me at all, as the article is a collection of activities which are run of the mill. Mccapra (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (with small potential Wikipedia:CONFLICT) as I said in previous discussion. The recreated article removed non-notable information and sources to address previous reasons for deletion, so "it was deleted before" is insufficient reason: this is a new article that should be judged on its own merits, but I still believe the subject has established notability due especially to articles about her in non-English sources. There is a danger of underrepresentation due to Wikipedia:Systemic bias if we insist on more notable English-language sources without recognising the Egyptian coverage as notable. Also, the previous deletion occurred just 8 hours after a single extra delete vote was placed after 3 relistings, so I believed that immediately recreating the article in a form that addressed the reasons for deletion was justified. With regard to Jana's activities being "run of the mill", correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding of Wikipedia:Notability is that it's not up to us editors to judge whether or not a subject's activities are extraordinary in their own right, but merely to summarise what sources are saying if the sources meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability and notability. Hence the question should not be "did Jana do something worthy of a Wikipedia article" but "are sources giving Jana coverage that is worthy of a Wikipedia article". (My possibly-biased opinion happens to be that the answer to both questions is "yes" but if we're supposed to focus on the second then no need to argue about the first.) Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 16:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’m not suggesting we need English language sources. We need in depth coverage in independent sources in any language. The piece in Elle is an interview where she talks about herself, as is the piece in Marie Claire. Two other sources are authored by her. Now This News is a passing mention. Some of the others have a strong whiff of PR placements. They tell us she works for an NGO, did a TED talk, and attended a lecture by Malala Yousefzai. She hasn’t received a well-known and significant award or honor, or been nominated for such an award several times; or made a widely recognized contribution in a specific field, and isn’t in a Dictionary of National Biography. So what exactly is notable about her? Mccapra (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is interviewed by a source, then the fact that the source decided to interview the person might in itself confer notability if that source does not interview just anybody. So I don't think we should dismiss interviews just because they are interviews without also asking the question: how difficult is it to get an interview in that publication? I'm imagining it's not that easy to get into Egyptian Streets and Marie Claire Arabia for example. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 07:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the one interview isn't in Arabic, English, or French, all of which are spoken in Egypt, so I'm not sure what using an Italian source has to do with Egypt... Oaktree b (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't commenting on the Italian source. I was commenting on the Egyptian Streets article and the Marie Claire Arabia article, which are in English and Arabic respectively. Whether these articles also count as "interviews" depends on exactly how you define an "interview", but either way my point was that getting published in Egyptian Streets and in Marie Claire Arabia seems notable to me. My point is wrong if it can be shown that these publications have a low acceptance standard of what they document, but I don't think that's the case. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 19:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Again? Same sources as last time, a TED talk and an interview don't make you notable here... As for the systemic bias, you're actually hurting the standards by using such low quality sources, thereby contributing ot the bias (oh, we'll give this one a "pass"). Still having a lack of sources and nothing we can use to create the article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned above, I believe it's not that easy to get into Egyptian Streets and Marie Claire Arabia. And not exactly the same sources as last time: I deleted some of the weaker ones and added in a couple more. That's why I think it should be re-evaluated on its merits in its current state. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 19:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheJournalish[edit]

TheJournalish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator with reason "this journal is endorsed and ranked by the Ministry of Research Technology, and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia (as already cited). Why would that not demonstrate notability?" This apparently refers to current ref. 3, but that database (SINTA) does not appear to be very selective and therefore fails both NJournals and GNG. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Indonesia publishes dozens of academic journals,[1] and for some reason the first one documented on Wikipedia gets PROD and AFD within days. Why is that? I can't see why the endorsement of the journal by the government would not establish notability. (See [2], the Director-General of Strengthening Research and Development, Ministry of Research Technology, and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia, Decree Number 105/M/KPT/2022.) The journal has been published for less than four years, but has more than 300 incoming citations according to Google Scholar.[3] Does this not clearly meet C2 of WP:JOURNALCRIT? -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm sorry, but 300 citations is rather pathetic, even for a new journal. Also, it appears that every journal published in Indonesia gets into Sinta, so that is not really a ringing endorsement. C2 is most certainly not met. As for why this got PRODded and then taken to AfD: I patrol all new articles on academic journals and if they appear not to be notable, I propose them for deletion. Nothing nefarious here. --Randykitty (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:JOURNALCRIT doesn't give a quantitative guideline, just that subjective one. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's because different fields have different citation densities. But even n a low-citation density field is 300 citations after 4 years not very impressive and certainly not enough for C2.
  • Delete SINTA is not embraced by the government, it's just classification/accrediation system for Indonesian journals. Being indexed by SINTA is basically just meant "this journal exist" the same way school accrediation exist Nyanardsan (talk) 12:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If I had to close this based on the discussion so far, it would be to delete. However, more discussion genuinely would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erasmus Student Network Armenia[edit]

Erasmus Student Network Armenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local branch of Erasmus Student Network, no independent notability. Broc (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Armenia. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Working on expanding the article. ESN Armenia is quite active and one of the more notable student organizations within the country. English publications may be limited as most of the content referencing the org is in Armenian. Will continue to expand with refs. Any help is appreciated :) Archives908 (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a subsection of Erasmus Student Network. I do not think it is bad that the information is out there if verifiable and noteworthy enough to mention specifically, though ESN Armenia is hardly notorious enough to warrant their own WP article, considering that there are 44 national, and even more regional ESN network organisations. Note also that Erasmus Student Network Yerevan has also been created, and would merit the same treatment. --Konanen (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Lushchai[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Yuri Lushchai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While it's not a G4, it does not appear that the issues raised that led to the prior version being deleted have been resolved. Lushchai was a wonderful person and active Wikipedian but does not appear notable as an author. WP:NOTAMEMORIAL unfortunately applies. Star Mississippi 02:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want just to note that I wasn't the one who moved the article to main space. Though I personally think that he is notable, I would be OK with submitting article later with more sources, which are listed on Russian Wikipedia forum and on Wikinews. BilboBeggins (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there is significant coverage of the person. And lack of English language sources is never an argument for deletion.
I would also like to note thst I am XFD closer on ruwiki, and User:Андрей Романенко who moved the article is long-serving administrator on ruwiki. So we might now something about notability rules, right? BilboBeggins (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Different languages have different rules as far as notability. No one is saying he isn't notable on RU wiki, and non English sources are 100% welcome but may not meet the bar needed for notability as required here. Star Mississippi 13:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is his biography in the source listed.
There are also plenty of Russian language sources in his death, but they are not neutral and I would rather not include them in the article. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: NOTMEMORIAL. Simply being a Wikipedian is rarely notable, the rest are stories of his passing. Nothing for notability. His life before death was very much non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    His notability is also due to him being a poet and scientist. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To my mind, the key source for this case is the op-ed at Radio Liberty arguing at some length for the special status of Lushchai as a cultural figure. This was not the reason behind keeping the article about this person in ru.wiki, there the closing admin opted for other criteria. Possibly other available sources don't provide so direct and clear reasoning for Lushchai's notability. However, other memorial articles (like this, for instance) also provide significant coverage of his life and are independent of the aforementioned op-ed. All in all I see this person as notable according to WP:BASIC. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Cintron[edit]

Veronica Cintron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vice President of Communications for the Tampa Airport, winner of multiple small awards doesn't establish WP:GNG for this article subject. In my BEFORE, I could only find mentions related to her work at the airport. The Emmy awards might be notable but they were regional and I wasn't prepared to watch a video to see if this claim was verified. Liz Read! Talk! 02:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supersci[edit]

Supersci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated by an IP user: Non-notable group, going by available sources. Both with its current ("Supersci") and its former ("Superscientifiku") name, the group is mentioned on some Swedish websites, but with very few exceptions (e.g. Sundsvalls Tidning) either these sources are non-reliable, or the subject is mentioned only in passing. GrabUp - Talk 18:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 2011, their "Timelines" was nominated (again, did not win) at the sv:P3 Guld. Example sources, at Sveriges Television here, and at Sveriges Radio P3 here. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've added three different sources that provide significant coverage. The article meets WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can’t check offline sources, but linked sources are not WP:SIGCOV.
  • 1st source: Are only sayings of connected ones of the subject, no in-depth coverage of the subject.
  • 4rth source: Nomination list of the award P3, I don’t know how much this award is notable. GrabUp - Talk 04:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1st source: I see what you mean, though the offline sources are more independent of the subject.
    4th source: The nomination doesn't confer notability, but I thought it was worth mentioning since it was brought up in the AfD. AlexandraAVX (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I found the third source (or at least an article about the same thing by the same author) online, so added it to the article if you want to take a look. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further evaluation of added sources would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Najma Akhtar[edit]

Najma Akhtar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC Dowrylauds (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michalis Koumbios[edit]

Michalis Koumbios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject is not notable. There are few (if any) reliable secondary sources; the single source used is apparently from 2006 and only available through archive.is. LoganP25 (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georgie Campbell[edit]

Georgie Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:EVENTCRIT; subject is notable only for passing away. As this is a recent death, WP:BLP1E should probably apply here. See also WP:PSEUDO. Firestar464 (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like a WP:BLP1E with little chance of WP:LASTING BrigadierG (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that as a top level 5* rider and on Team GB for FEI Nations Cup on multiple occasions she was already WP:NSPORT relevant, and lack of previous article probably more reflective of the overall poor coverage of equestrian sport on WP. Suggest that there should be enough for an article. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 09:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are achievement standards set out for equestrian sports at WP:NEQUESTRIAN - generally, a medal is required to be notable, not just participation. BrigadierG (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from this AfD, they were only ever guidelines but it was my understanding that WP:NSPORT, within which WP:NEQUESTRIAN falls, had been abandoned in favour of general WP:GNG notability, in-part so as to avoid the proliferation of single sourced historic competitors in favour of properly sourced, judged-on-their-own-merits, robust articles. A process which has clear merits, and without inbuilt asymmetry of certain sports having literally thousands of active competitors with WP:BLP articles and other sports granted three medalists at a time. If you permit a further example of the difficulties of the guidelines and how they could be perceived as a barrier to the collation of information; WP:RU/N had the criteria of only the semifinalists from the Women's World Cup, a tournament which takes place once every four years. However, in the pandemic the tournament was postponed for 18 months so a strict interpretation of the guidelines (which I saw being argued) would have no new 15-a-side female rugby union players permissible for over five and a half years. A hindrance to WP as an up-to-date information source, which an online encyclopaedia should have the capacity to excel at. Hildreth gazzard (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this person is only notable for passing then they fail the notability test, unless proven otherwise. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 15:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I noticed the article about her husband, and put up an AfD for that as well. Posting here as this would've been bundled had I noticed them at the same time. Firestar464 (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That AfD nomination was a dumb move as her husband is clearly notable, and bundling the two bios would have thus been a very bad move indeed. Schwede66 03:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article satisfies WP:GNG. Not uncommon to gain information from obituaries. Hildreth Gazzard (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I started this article on a distinguished equestrian. Strange to see that the article on her husband was also AfD. This page has been expanded on since I started it. Moondragon21 (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice to get an evaluation of additions to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freddrick Jackson[edit]

Freddrick Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:PERP, WP:NOTNEWS - I can't see that there's likely to be unusual or lasting coverage regarding this murderer. BrigadierG (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: NOTNEWS, killing four people isn't terribly notable in the US. Some coverage, but it's simply retelling the facts of a crime. Oaktree b (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He is notable due to his young age at the time of his crimes not the victim count as he has to be the youngest serial killer in Arkansas history. Startrain844 (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: And NONE of the sources use the term "serial killer", nor can I find mention of this anywhere. I wonder if this is OR or some wishful thinking... Oaktree b (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He is a serial killer because he committed the murders of three or more people, with the killings taking place over a significant period of time between them.[1][2]Startrain844 (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's original research; you can't create an article using that term when no one else has called him that. This effectively shames and degrades the individual, which is not the purpose of wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of serial killers on Wikipedia had no lasting coverage on news. Startrain844 (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to nominate any other articles that don't meet guidelines here. Again, they are serial killers as the media addresses them as such; this individual hasn't been called that in media. He's just another criminal, CRIME notability applies here. Oaktree b (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Murdered four people on different days over two years. Plenty of coverage. Meets WP:GNG. This effectively shames and degrades the individual, which is not the purpose of wikipedia. Yes, how dare we "shame and degrade" a convicted multiple murderer by calling him a serial killer (which is much, much worse than being a multiple murderer, apparently)! Poor little chap! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Sea Derby[edit]

Red Sea Derby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't seem to be a notable football rivalry. The references are generally about the country's relations, not football. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Durie Kallahal[edit]

Durie Kallahal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Article does not have notability, according to WP:POLITICIAN, a politician is not notable when him/her position is lower than Congressman/Congresswoman, I don't see WP:GNG notability either. TheNuggeteer (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files[edit]

Categories[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Futurist photography[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There's only one person in this entire category tree. The parent category (Futurist photography) only contains this category. Mason (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Russian Futurist composers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Duel merge for now. this category is really narrow and the parent category (Futurist composers ) isn't in need to diffusion yet. Mason (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Modernist women composers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Narrow category at the intersection of occupation, gender, and specific movement. The only person in the category is already in the right parent categories Mason (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Climate change filmmakers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Narrow intersection Mason (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st-century Polish cinematographers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The norm has been that modern professions like modeling, cinematographers, etc aren't diffused by century. Mason (talk) 02:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Landforms of Akmola Region[edit]

Nominator's rationale: So many redundant categories made (mostly) by the same user. Mason (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

"Alcohol expectations" and "Alcohol expectancies"[edit]

Neither of these are mentioned in the target article, leaving the redirects unclear in what they refer to. (However, Alcohol expectancies is a {{R with history}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history of Alcohol expectancies?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules[edit]

Template:Chinese conflicts[edit]

Excessively long, poorly organizaed, and unnecessary; these articles are included in per-dynasty navboxes about conflicts. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dag[edit]

Propose merging Template:Dag with Template:Dagger.
I'm going slightly more "discussion" with this TFD than anything, primarily thinking that {{dag}} should either be merged into {{dagger}} or renamed to make it more obvious as to why it's being used (though expanding the name might then make it longer than just typing out the <sup>...</sup> pair...). As it stands, {{dag}} by itself is potentially confusing (e.g. "what is a dag", or why it gives a superscript output) so I feel like something needs to be done. Primefac (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it strange that we still use archaic print notations instead of hyperlinked notes. How are either of those better than a regular {{efn}} note? Gonnym (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: The preferred option is to redirect {{dag}} to {{dagger}}. Given its minimal use, merging simplifies matters. However, if retaining the functionality is crucial, renaming {{dag}} to "superscript-dagger" or "dagger-sup" would clarify its purpose, albeit making it longer. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, it's basically only used as part of {{TAAR ligands}}. Do we need a template for this at all? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: If choose to merge and retain functionality
{{#if: {{{s|}}} | <sup>†</sup> | † }}

{{dag}} will output †
{{dag|s}} will output <sup>†</sup>
Anoop Bhatia (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 00:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany[edit]

Deletion review[edit]

Category:Dominican Republic people of European American descent[edit]

Category:Dominican Republic people of European American descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

That category was being used for Dominicans descended from United States citizens of European descent, aka White Americans (minus Middle Easterners), it wasn't used for "White Dominicans" as claimed by the deletion nominator. Even, there is still a separate category for Dominicans descended from African Americans, aka Black Americans (Category:Dominican Republic people of African American descent) as anyone can see it in the parent category Dominican Republic people of American descent since that parent category was subcategorized into different recognized American ethnic groups. This category was deleted based on a misunderstanding, maybe it just needed some clarification in the cat page. ★ Iñaki ★ (Talk page) ★ 02:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Serial murder". Britannica. Retrieved 2024-04-22.
  2. ^ an offender can be anyone.
    • Holmes & Holmes 1998, Serial murder is the killing of three or more people over a period of more than 30 days, with a significant cooling-off period between the murders The baseline number of three victims appears to be most common among those who are the academic authorities in the field. The time frame also appears to be an agreed-upon component of the definition.
    • Petherick 2005, p. 190 Three killings seem to be required in the most popular definition of serial killing since they are enough to provide a pattern within the killings without being overly restrictive.
    • Flowers 2012, p. 195 in general, most experts on serial murder require that a minimum of three murders be committed at different times and usually different places for a person to qualify as a serial killer.
    • Schechter 2012, p. 73 Most experts seem to agree, however, that to qualify as a serial killer, an individual has to slay a minimum of three unrelated victims.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:XfD_today&oldid=1222059439"