Wikipedia:XfD today
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
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]Articles
[edit]
- Juni Marie Benjaminsen (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 figure skater; provided sources relate to her siblings, who may or may not be notable, but notability is not inherited. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Norway. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- List of Formula Grand Prix wins by Sebastian Vettel (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)
Duplication of the List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Sebastian Vettel article, which is currently in the process of being deleted as well. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Farakka Port (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 existence of this port is questionable due to a serious lack of sources. A Google search yields no results for the so-called "Farakka Port". The cited sources in the article refer instead to a Farakka inland waterway, used for transporting coal to the Farakka Super Thermal Power Station near the Farakka Barrage. It seems it is actually referring to a floating terminal listed here. In any case, the topic fails to meet WP:GNG. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, India, and West Bengal. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Suggest merge some supported content to a section in Farakka. - Davidships (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - there is not a lot of coverage in English, but it's enough to verify, and combine with significant coverage in Bengali, and it passes GNG. I added another English language source. I've been redirecting and merging a lot of unsourced Indian-related stubs, but this is an easy keep. Bearian (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Biba Apparels (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 to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Delhi. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- MyG (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 to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Kerala. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Reelmonk (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 to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Kerala. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Licious (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 to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, Internet, and Karnataka. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ethics of simulated suffering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be a robust philosophical concept needing its own article. Two sources provided are self-published and not covered by reliable independent sources. The "connection to catostrphic risks" seems like WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and not directly supporting the notability of the concept itself. If anything, a brief mention of ethical concerns in simulated reality seems sufficient. ZimZalaBim talk 15:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think the concept is notable enough in itself. But some of it could probably be merged into the article ethics of uncertain sentience. Alenoach (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Biometric Consortium (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 program. Per a WP:BEFORE], there is no WP:SIGCOV, only routine coverage of conference announcements. Longhornsg (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I found a source like that, it is valid that it remains. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- [1] is a WP:MILL WP:BLOG and not a WP:RS to establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Books on the Delhi Metro (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 non-profit organization fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- South Asia Analysis Group (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 non-profit organization fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Data Security Council of India (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 non-profit organization fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Another alternative is to merge with NASSCOM. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Nuvoco Vistas Corporation (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)
Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Aditya Birla Sun Life Asset Management (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)
Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Maharashtra. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Examples of civil disobedience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of random examples of a very large concept, organized by country with some extra random sections on religion and climate change... it's a mess that is effectively a random list of poorly organized examples from the large category. It makes about as much sense as having examples of science fiction books or examples of famous people articles. If scholars discuss particularly famous cases of civil disobedience, those can and should be first covered in the main article, and split only here if we have too many such examples (which is not the case, this is just linked bizarrely from the "Choices" section of the main article, which is not about examples but about aspects of theory). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science and Lists. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete We have lists already listing protests and riots. This list things that don't have their own articles, so aren't notable, just random examples by the whim of a single editor. There is Category:Civil disobedience, showing far more things on it than this list does, and has subcategories listing things into categories for three nations that have the most entries. Dream Focus 19:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - We have an article about civil disobedience. A list of examples helps to explain that concept. The main article is already long, so a separate article makes sense. It could be renamed "list of" or somesuch, and inclusion criteria should be better documented, but I don't have a hard time seeing this as passing WP:LISTN. The topic being very large is a good reason to keep this split rather than list examples in the main article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Rename to List of civil disobedience movements and keep. The main Civil disobedience is too big. Azuredivay (talk) 09:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Azuredivay We should first have an article on civil disobedience movement. Right now it is just a (bad) redirect. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- But is that a distinct enough topic from civil disobedience? In that case, I have corrected the target of that redirect to Civil disobedience. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Azuredivay We should first have an article on civil disobedience movement. Right now it is just a (bad) redirect. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- We already have Civil disobedience. Azuredivay (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Returns from Troy (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)
All of the references are primary sources - i can find no secondary sources about the concept, ie actual discussions of "returns from Troy". Doug Weller talk 08:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Brian Bickell (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 person. Although he holds a high position in a large company, there is barely anything in the media about him. Kingturtle = (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Bickell has been covered by The Sunday Times and The Telegraph, both of which are notable sources considered to be reliable per community consensus. In addition, though no consensus has been reached on its general reliability, this piece from The Evening Standard could also arguably be considered this as well. In all three, he is primarily featured, not trivially mentioned. Because of that, I believe he meets the criteria for WP:NBIO. Jordano53 07:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Deborah L. Turbiville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A person only notable for one event. And, per WP:CRIM, she is not well known, and the motivation for her crime does not appear unusual. {{Sam S|💬|✏️|ℹ️}} 04:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Texas. {{Sam S|💬|✏️|ℹ️}} 04:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
•I agree that this page is not relevant and should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:4E3C:CC10:0:0:0:1F (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, Sexuality and gender, England, and Belize. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to an event-specific page. The event seems to pass WP:NCRIME guidelines, with in-depth coverage from reliable local and national news sources like CNN and NYT. While the person is not notable, I see no reason why the information about the event can't be kept. Jordano53 07:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Possible targets include: History of vice in Texas, Crime in Houston, Brothel#United States, Prostitution in the United States#21st century {{Sam S|💬|✏️|ℹ️}} 04:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I believe the first article listed to be the best, as it has more instances of specific events and incidents than the others. Fitting in this story would likely be easiest there. Jordano53 06:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Possible targets include: History of vice in Texas, Crime in Houston, Brothel#United States, Prostitution in the United States#21st century {{Sam S|💬|✏️|ℹ️}} 04:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirect and, if so, what the target article should be. Whatever article should have at least a mention of this article subject on it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CRIM. The article states that the subject was arrested, but not what happened after that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- August Capital (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:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Tagged for multiple issues. Was previously deleted per AFD. Imcdc Contact 03:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and California. Imcdc Contact 03:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:NORG and WP:SIRS). QEnigma talk 16:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously brought to AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Atlantic-Pacific Capital (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:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Tagged for multiple issues for years. Imcdc Contact 03:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and Connecticut. Imcdc Contact 03:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:NORG and WP:SIRS) criteria. QEnigma talk 15:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)- Keep
- Esti92 (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Al-Khair University (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)
It does not meet the criteria of WP:ORG or WP:GNG. The article was deleted in 2020 and recreated in 2021, but in my view, the school has not achieved sufficient notability to justify recreating the article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - There is a ton of WP:NEWSORGINDIA to sift through but I found this. Their notability may be from being part of a diploma mill.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Um ... WP:NEWSORGINDIA is not about Pakistan. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep notable diploma mill. Scammed a lot of innocent students, attracted a lot of media coverage, and even military official received its degree to become NAB director. Very notable per CNMall41. 103.194.93.34 (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep More than adequate sourcing available to satisfy the GNG + a bit of HEY...not sure how it's possible to miss the multiyear coverage of this notorious institution. While AfD is not clean up, the article could not be left to stand as it was and I have cleaned it up. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing I can find meet the GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. It hit the news at one stage for being a diploma mill but most of that coverage was focussed on the crime, not the company. HighKing++ 15:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
"at one stage"
? There's multi-year RS coverage going back a decade (and more) in English (I've not done any searching in Urdu): eg 2021 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2015, 2004. Whether focussed on "crime" or "company"(?) (it's a university), the content of the coverage is not relevant to notability questions. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Worth noting previous deletion was a soft delete on PROD/TNT basis, notability was not discussed. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'll also note that the previous AFD had participation from only one editor, the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Private universities should meet WP:NORG, which means that we need significant coverage at WP:ORGDEPTH about the institution. We have quite a lot of news coverage about the university, which, for instance, set up illegal campuses [2] and was indeed a diploma mill per the above. Coverage such as this [3] does indeed mention the university, but not at ORGDEPTH. This is a general problem. The sources are all about the mismanagement and illegal activities and not about the university itself. My feeling is that we don't have the sources for a university article, but we do have the sources for an article about either diploma mills in general, or perhaps about the event of this diploma mill in particular - and moreso because it seems to have created a bit of a storm in its resolution. I would be open to redirect targets. But I really cannot decide between straight delete of this article (which has nothing worth saving) or keep with the assumption this could be renamed and repurposed. The problem with deletion is not that the article would be deleted, but that the sources found in the AfD would lose visibility. The problem with keeping the article as it is lies in the possibility that this might languish and then be developed as if the encyclopaedic subject is the university, rather than the scandal. I am also reluctant to add a keep !vote when I think no consensus may be a better outcome. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Examples of feudalism (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 seems to be a WP:CONTENTFORK of feudalism, with seemlingly randomly chosen case studies (WP:INDISCRIMIANTE), haphazardly grouped (particularly considering the weirdly named section "Modern traces" which seems to be "random stuff that did not fit into the two other sections"). There is no need for such an article to exist; at best it can be redirected/merged to the parent article (WP:ATD-R, WP:ATD-M). The main article on feudalism is actually not too long, and is missing a 'by country' overview, which seems to be the way this organized, so merge might be best. If kept as a separate article (but why?), this needs to be renamed, although I am not sure how (Feudalism by country?). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was somewhat astonished upon checking the revision history statistics to find myself top editor by character count, despite having edited only one section over the summer (and probably due to the citations I added). This article already seems like it was split off from Feudalism as a daughter article, which I think it sort of might have been?I think the main problem here (this topic) is that feudalism is a term with a specific technical meaning, but its meaning has been broadened over the years to apply to a number of systems of territorial administration that are not technically feudal, but where the feudalism label can act as a useful heuristic. The main article doesn't do a great job differentiating what feudalism ism and isn'tm, and the article under discussion here serves that purpose, as well as hosting a bunch of hatnotes that would probably otherwise end up in a list article somewhere or in Feudalism#See also.I'm not 100% on straight merging into Feudalism: I think the examples of legit, consensus feudal societies could be worked into the main article, but without counterexamples of not-quite-feudal societies (which don't really belong in the main article), it will act as a magnet for that stuff. I'm real big on the concept of excellent list articles (like Infrastructure of the Brill Tramway), which I propose at every major notability discussion about our surfeit of microstubs (like WP:LUGSTUBS et seq.), and this article has the potential to become a great list article. It almost is, except for the title and structure. I also recognise I absolutely will not have the time to restructure it into an excellent list article unless this discussion is relisted at least four times. So I could see any of the following actions: retitle, partial merge, complete merge, temporary redirect until it can be sorted out, or keep.For now, Folly Mox (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is No consensus here at all, just a multitude of suggestions. User:Folly Mox do you have one outcome that seems primary to you?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Examples of in vitro transdifferentiation by lineage-instructive approach (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 appears well-referenced, but no reference mentions the term "lineage-instructive" in their heading. It is not obvious this meets WP:NLIST. Further, there is no criteria given for why those particular examples are included (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Perhaps per WP:ATD-R this could be merged and redirected to transdifferentiation, which is not too long. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Lists. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Merge Back in May 2012, User:Ilee0913 created two articles, this one (Examples of in vitro transdifferentiation by lineage-instructive approach) and its sister Examples of in vitro transdifferentiation by initial epigenetic activation phase approach. The pairing makes it clear that the odd phrasing is simply a marker for the different selections in the two articles. As nom says, the sourcing is robust. It may be that the two could simply be merged, with 'By lineage-instructive approach' becoming one chapter, and 'By initial epigenetic activation phase approach' becoming another chapter. In that case the merged article should be titled Examples of in vitro transdifferentiation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Chiswick Chap I think "Examples of..." is a pretty bad type of Wikipedia article (almost as bad as "Instruction to..."). Merge is a good idea, but why hot merge both to transdifferentiation? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe, if it doesn't unbalance the article under a load of examples. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Chiswick Chap Well, is a list of examples even encyclopedic? Smacks of WP:OR. What criteria has been used to select these examples? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well the criteria will disappear under a merge, so the question is academic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Chiswick Chap Well, is a list of examples even encyclopedic? Smacks of WP:OR. What criteria has been used to select these examples? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe, if it doesn't unbalance the article under a load of examples. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Chiswick Chap I think "Examples of..." is a pretty bad type of Wikipedia article (almost as bad as "Instruction to..."). Merge is a good idea, but why hot merge both to transdifferentiation? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any more support to a Merge and also to determine what the Merge target article is actually being suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Examples of groups (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)
Unreferenced arbitrary (WP:INDISCRIMINATE) collection of examples. Fails WP:V, WP:GNG. Also seems redundant to FA Group (mathematics); even the lead says plainly: "examples of groups in mathematics are given on Group (mathematics). Further examples are listed here". If kept, this probably should be renamed to List of groups in mathematics, but it would need referencing and sources showing how it could meet WP:NLIST, and clear rationale why some examples are shown here and not in the main prose FA article. Do we need a technically infinite list of examples of groups? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and Lists. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. As nom stated, this is redundant of the article Group (mathematics). Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator and follow up response. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as essentially redundant to the main article. That being said, there's probably a reasonable navigational list to be had for our various articles on specific groups and types/classes of groups, but this isn't even remotely that. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per above (though I am not opposed to a renaming). desmay (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Dihedral group of order 8 redirects to the dihedral group of order 8 section here. Assuming this article is deleted, we'll probably want a standalone article on D4, just as we have for D3. It'll be easiest if we can repurpose info from this article, such as the Cayley table from Examples of groups#Normal subgroup, as well as the Cayley graph (cube version) from the main section. However, to accomplish that while preserving article history, we would need to conduct an article split prior to deletion. Could the AfD closer do this, or does it need to be done beforehand? (In which case please let me know, I'm happy to do it myself.) Preimage (talk) 02:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Preimage It might be best to do it beforehand; closers are often too busy or uninterested in such actions. As for preserving of history for attribution, this could be done by redirecting this instead of hard deleting (perhaps to Group (mathematics)). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and move to List of mathematical groups. WP:V is not an issue because the group theory literature is enormous. I could easily see this as becoming the article to link to with {{main article}} from List of group theory topics#Basic types of groups, which lists a number of other groups that could be expanded on. Duckmather (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider the Redirection suggestion which might be necessary for attribution purposes. A closer might close this as Delete so if you want to preserve any content, do it now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Group (mathematics)#Examples and applications: To preserve the article history. This article should not be moved to List of mathematical groups as almost no text in the present version would be usable. It contains way too much instructive prose for indiscriminately chosen examples. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Kamna Pathak (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)
Looking at the sources, it does not pass WP:GNG even. Mostly all the sources available on google are discussing her replacement in a notable show, see [4], [5], [6]. Taabii (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Entertainment, India, and Madhya Pradesh. Taabii (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Happu_Ki_Ultan_Paltan#Cast: as the nominator indicates she is best known for that role and coverage attesting of that exists. -Mushy Yank. 10:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Happu_Ki_Ultan_Paltan#Cast. Not opposed to Delete. RangersRus (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: The actress has worked in multiple notable TV shows, a primary Google search results indicate significant coverage in reliable sources. Zuck28 (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Zuck28 Thanks for your comment, for a better understanding i appreciate you to please present those RS here? Happy editing. Taabii (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have added a few sources and updated the article, I will try to improve to the article in my free time.
- Zuck28 (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Zuck28 Thanks for your comment, for a better understanding i appreciate you to please present those RS here? Happy editing. Taabii (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Now adequately sourced.--Ipigott (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ipigott Most of the sources are Interviews, kindly check it. — Taabii (talk) 12:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- The sources are quite poor and not independent of the subject with claims and interviews. Subject fails the criteria for WP:NACTOR who did not have significant roles in "multiple" notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. RangersRus (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The sources are reliable, and the subject is well-researched with verifiable claims.
- 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 04:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further discussion on the sources added. Keep !votes, kindly comment based on our P&Gs and after giving a detailed analysis of the sources based on those P&Gs with a clear rationale why the article should be kept, not mere statements saying the sources are good.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Happu_Ki_Ultan_Paltan#Cast: Has only one notable role, so it's more appropriate to redirect, fails WP:NACTOR. I'm also open to deletion, as most sources are interviews (decent coverage, yet do not establish notability).--— MimsMENTOR talk 18:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. No valid secondary sources to prove WP:GNG. TitCrisse (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I can't find anything but interviews for this lady. No independent coverage. She has acted in one TV show, and what looks like an extra(?) in a film. I have done a search (searches from the UK aren't always good these days), I would be happy to re-evaluate my vote if idependent sources can be found. At the moment, this article doesn't demonstrate it complies with WP:GNG.Knitsey (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect I agree it should be Redirect to Happu_Ki_Ultan_Paltan#Cast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hendrea44 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A source assessment would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
- Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects (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)
With a recent expansion of what is considered "unrealized", it's really gotten to a point I have realized these articles largely stand to be rather WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT. As higlighted by @Erik:, "if a so-called "unrealized project" is not talked about in retrospect, it has little value", and as per WP:IINFO, ""To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Just a contemporary news article about a filmmaker being attached to so-and-so, with no later retrospective commentary, does not strike me as discriminate encyclopedic content to have". Having created this particular article myself, I no longer see this page being of note, and is just a trivial list of several projects, whether they were notable or not, that never came to be, their development or attempted production not being of vital note. Rusted AutoParts 20:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Lists, and Italy. Skynxnex (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: A perfectly standard page, with sources. WP:SPLITLIST applies. -Mushy Yank. 01:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: A good article, well formatted and written out and perfectly and completely worthy of it's own existence, with enough projects to constitute having an article of it's own to compile them all. Therefore, it is indeed a "page of note" and unworthy of deletion. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Burn it to ashes, and then burn the ashes, per WP:LISTCRIT (what constitutes "unrealized" is horribly vague), WP:NOTGOSSIP (so-and-so was rumored to be working on such-and-such), and the really excellent nomination statement. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to Luca Guadagnino – similar to my !vote at the AfD for David Ayer's unrealized projects, these types of projects can be covered better within the context of the filmmaker's entire career (see WP:PAGEDECIDE). Some of these projects are fairly trivial and could be cut, but that can be resolved through normal editing and discussion processes. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- The number of projects is too vast to merge. And too many of them are "of note" to warrant "cutting" as you suggested. As I've said before, this belief of "irrelevance" of these articles is just incorrect. I see no difference than if it were a career biography. In a career bio, bits and pieces of information are taken from various sources to sum up a person's career, and for an Unrealized Projects page, various pieces of information about films/projects that were unproduced are taken and compiled together. A career bio, should include information from that person's career, and ideally, if they're a filmmaker, have a note or background on every film they made. This is true of most articles. Every film is listed out and explained in order. So therefore, for a page which Unrealized Projects is the main subject, everything should be included that is KNOWN. Just as with a career biography ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- The page size of Luca Guadagnino is about 2500 words; this page is about 1500 words, which could easily be fit into that article (the general threshold to consider a WP:SIZESPLIT is somewhere around 6000 to 8000 words). And many of these sections could be trimmed; we don't need beat-by-beat details of the production history (actor announcements, writer announcements, etc.). For instance, there is as much coverage of Rio here as there is about Bones and All in the main biography, even though the former was just an announcement and the latter was a project he saw all of the way through. Hence why I feel this information could be incorporated into the main article about his career. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Again, I feel there are so many that they warrant having their own page. Many and several of these projects have also been mentioned in MANY outside sources "as a group or set" and therefore satisfies WP:LISTN. Case in point. I'm just a broken record here at this point. No special reason for this article to be deleted. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- The page size of Luca Guadagnino is about 2500 words; this page is about 1500 words, which could easily be fit into that article (the general threshold to consider a WP:SIZESPLIT is somewhere around 6000 to 8000 words). And many of these sections could be trimmed; we don't need beat-by-beat details of the production history (actor announcements, writer announcements, etc.). For instance, there is as much coverage of Rio here as there is about Bones and All in the main biography, even though the former was just an announcement and the latter was a project he saw all of the way through. Hence why I feel this information could be incorporated into the main article about his career. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- The number of projects is too vast to merge. And too many of them are "of note" to warrant "cutting" as you suggested. As I've said before, this belief of "irrelevance" of these articles is just incorrect. I see no difference than if it were a career biography. In a career bio, bits and pieces of information are taken from various sources to sum up a person's career, and for an Unrealized Projects page, various pieces of information about films/projects that were unproduced are taken and compiled together. A career bio, should include information from that person's career, and ideally, if they're a filmmaker, have a note or background on every film they made. This is true of most articles. Every film is listed out and explained in order. So therefore, for a page which Unrealized Projects is the main subject, everything should be included that is KNOWN. Just as with a career biography ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: The article is written appropriately and the current definition of "unrealized" is quite vague. Deleting this article would also give the precedence for deleting dozens of other articles that have the same features, such as Martin Scorsese's Nils2088 (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Nil2088 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
- Keep per WP:LISTN. This list has been discussed “as a group or a set” at ThePlaylist.net and The Film Experience. The Film Creator (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that The Film Creator (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
- I don't think those websites are referring to this page, they're referencing the projects independently. Wikipedia is not mentioned in either source. Rusted AutoParts 18:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- The projects have been discussed as a group or set and published in articles, and are therefore worthy of having their own Wikipedia page. That was the entire point. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- They literally said "This list"..... Even then, just talking about a failed project doesn't make the histroy of that project that important, unless the project is a long gestating one. Such as the production history for The Flash, or the development on the Akira live action remake. Rusted AutoParts 19:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- As in, the actual projects featured on "this list". ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- See the expansion of my comment. Rusted AutoParts 19:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, that's an opinion. More information could come into light in the future about each project. Some projects have loads of information, others do not. Just as career information in a career bio has an abundance of information, and others do not. This does not mean the others should not be included. Case in point. Since the projects are listed "as a group or set" in many, many, many other articles, the list passes WP:LISTN. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- The vast majority of Guadagnino's unrealized projects are tiny blurbs. The only ones that stand out as noteworthy are Find Me, maybe Scarface and Brideshead Revisited. Buddenbrooks, Lord of the Flies, Leading Men, Sgt. Rock and American Psycho are all projects he is still noted as working on, thus making them unapplicable to the page. Why is it pertinent to know that he was once attached to a film called Burial Rites in 2017, but nothing ever came of it? Why Swan Lake? Being a list doesn't inherently make it notable or necessary. We used to have a list of all the films granted permission to film during the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike, it was eventually removed because it wasn't noteworthy. Rusted AutoParts 19:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was not aware of the last example you mentioned. I would agree with that removal, because the films were granted permission to be 'realized'. However I would pose the question if there is a section of all the projects that were officially cancelled and never picked back up again as result of the 2023 strike? That would be a section to warrant keeping/having. Again, I'm not sure how else to explain it, just like a filmmaker's career bio lists out the background of every film they worked on (no matter how little the film, compared to how big the film, or how little information there is on this subject, as opposed to the amount of information on the other), they should still all be included because it is apart of the director's career. The same is true of unmade films, if it was an idea they had and was mentioned in an article-list it, official offers-list it, a project they worked on for five years-list it, a one-off article mentioning a project they were attached to-list it, etc. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- The vast majority of Guadagnino's unrealized projects are tiny blurbs. The only ones that stand out as noteworthy are Find Me, maybe Scarface and Brideshead Revisited. Buddenbrooks, Lord of the Flies, Leading Men, Sgt. Rock and American Psycho are all projects he is still noted as working on, thus making them unapplicable to the page. Why is it pertinent to know that he was once attached to a film called Burial Rites in 2017, but nothing ever came of it? Why Swan Lake? Being a list doesn't inherently make it notable or necessary. We used to have a list of all the films granted permission to film during the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike, it was eventually removed because it wasn't noteworthy. Rusted AutoParts 19:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- As in, the actual projects featured on "this list". ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- They literally said "This list"..... Even then, just talking about a failed project doesn't make the histroy of that project that important, unless the project is a long gestating one. Such as the production history for The Flash, or the development on the Akira live action remake. Rusted AutoParts 19:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- The projects have been discussed as a group or set and published in articles, and are therefore worthy of having their own Wikipedia page. That was the entire point. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think those websites are referring to this page, they're referencing the projects independently. Wikipedia is not mentioned in either source. Rusted AutoParts 18:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
It's important to note that @ZanderAlbatraz1145: is currently canvassing for votes. See here. Rusted AutoParts 19:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Here as well. Rusted AutoParts 19:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- And again. 2 of the 3 messaged have voted inline with Zander. Rusted AutoParts 19:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reverted my close and relisting per requests on my Talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Metropolis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has lots of references, but there is no definition of "metropolis", so it is essentially a discussion of the etymology and a prose list of some big cities. The etymology belongs on Wiktionary, not as a WP article. The list is far less useful than List of largest cities and the like, since there are no clear criteria for inclusion. There is no potential for the article to grow beyond this, because unlike mega city and megalopolis, there is no agreed definition for "metropolis"; it's just a synonym for "big city".
(Any deletion would probably involve merging or redirecting with Metropolis (disambiguation), which obviously should remain) Furius (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Economics, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep This might be a case of WP:TNT but I don't think we will benefit much from deletion. Shankargb (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Majoka (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)
Googling "Majoka" "tribe" -wikipedia, I find nothing relevant. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Punjab, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Files
[edit]- File:The Beatles Box Set.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Beat 768 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This three-dimensional object has two licenses: the object's license and the photographer's license. In this case, they are both non-free. It is possible to make a freer image by photographing the 3D object yourself; or turn it into a two-dimensional one. + WP:NFC#UUI#2 // Since the visual design of box set in the article described extremely few, the image in the infobox can only be used as a means of identification (WP:NFCC#8 / WP:NFCI). A two-dimensional image is sufficient for this purpose (WP:NFCC#3b). // Examples of acceptable use: [7], [8]. — Ирука13 05:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories
[edit]NEW NOMINATIONS
[edit]Category:¡Uno! ¡Dos! ¡Tré!
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme to categorize songs from a series of albums by that series. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Split to Category:¡Uno!, Category:¡Dos!, and Category:¡Tré!. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- I know there's Category:American Idiot but that's because there are more related articles beyond the songs from the album itself. Is there a need to begin having categories for songs by album? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Split or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 08:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, we have Category:Green Day songs for these songs. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Category:Morozov family (merchants)
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Morozov family (merchants) to Category:Morozov family
- Nominator's rationale: Everybody with the last name Morozov on Wikipedia is in this category and listed on Morozovs. There are apparently more on the Russian Wikipedia, but that shouldn't guide us here. Mike Selinker (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- There are two different and unrelated Morozov families. One is a boyar family, the other is a merchant family. They should not be merged into one. Otherwise, it may cause unnecessary confusion. Aronlee90 (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, Feodosia Morozova does not belong to this family. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Category:Orthwein business family
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Orthwein business family to Category:Orthwein family
- Nominator's rationale: Everybody with the name Orthwein on Wikipedia is in this category and listed on Orthwein, so a disambiguator seems unneeded. Mike Selinker (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Category:Sausmarez family (Guernsey)
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Sausmarez family (Guernsey) to Category:Saumarez family
- Nominator's rationale: Everybody named Sausmarez or Saumarez with a Wikipedia article is in this category (and in Saumarez), so I don't think we need a disambiguator. I think we should look to Saumarez and make this match the article title, even though there are two ways to spell the name. Mike Selinker (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Category:Dimitry Family (Creoles)
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Dimitry Family (Creoles) to Category:Dimitry family
- Nominator's rationale: I don't see any other articles on people with the last name Dimitry (with a y) that aren't in this category, so I don't think the disambiguator is needed. Regardless of that, "family" should be decapitalized. Mike Selinker (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Certainly decapitalize "family". Marcocapelle (talk) 10:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Category:Chavasse family (United Kingdom)
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Chavasse family (United Kingdom) to Category:Chavasse family
- Nominator's rationale: Everybody with the surname Chavasse on Wikipedia is in this category and listed on Chavasse family. No need for a disambiguator. Mike Selinker (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Redirects
[edit]Round 6
[edit]Generic title, round 6 can refer to anything, not only its original title DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Bundled both nominations that share the same target and rationale. CycloneYoris talk! 10:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Blunt weapon
[edit]- Blunt weapon → Blunt instrument (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
It's starting to look like blunt instrument may become a redirect. Either way, a blunt weapon is not the same as a blunt instrument. IMO, it should either redirect to weapon and be mentioned somewhere, or be deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Wait for the fate of the current target article and do the same. While I agree that "weapon" and instrument" are not the same ("weapon" means intended use while "instrument" in this context means occasional use), their usage and consequences thereof are the same and splitting hairs would be reasonable only in presence of RS. Ny presefence would be redirectr to blunt trauma --Altenmann >talk 18:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think regardless of the fate of the article, "blunt weapon" is used in more contexts than "blunt instrument" is. The latter is solely a legal term. And it would be WP:SURPRISE for someone to be looking for a weapon and be sent to medical trauma. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Zxcvbnm: It looks like that AfD Blunt instrument is leaning to keep. And from your comment it looks like it makes sense to suggest page renaming/redirect reversal. --Altenmann >talk 23:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think regardless of the fate of the article, "blunt weapon" is used in more contexts than "blunt instrument" is. The latter is solely a legal term. And it would be WP:SURPRISE for someone to be looking for a weapon and be sent to medical trauma. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Yevethan thrustship
[edit]- Yevethan thrustship → List of Star Wars spacecraft (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
For the same reason that I proposed that thrustship be deleted: the target section was deemed by the community to be "fancruft", and thus was removed, rendering the redirect useless. ZFT (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Brahuistan Province
[edit]- Brahuistan Province → Administrative units of Pakistan#Proposed provinces (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
This may require an expert on the region, which I am not. Regardless, the namespace is not mentioned in the targeted section nor the entire article about administrative units of Pakistan. Brahuistan is the name of a historic region and while it has a nationalist movement, I can find no evidence that it has been proposed as a new province of Pakistan, as implied by the redirect. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Complex math
[edit]- Complex math → Complex number (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Complex mathematics → Complex number (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Complex numbers aren't the only complex part of math though? For one, several people have lamented (publicly and privately) about how stuff like calculus and algebra are complex as well. For second, what's considered complex can be different from person to person (for example, a 6-year-old would think something like "8/4" is the hardest question ever made whereas a recreational mathematician could probably do it easily), so complex numbers might not actually be that complex to certain people. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 09:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. The phrase is inherently ambiguous, and readers have better to search separately its components complex and math. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.Lazard (talk • contribs)
- Delete per D.Lazard. One aspect of the problem is that "complex" has a technical meaning in math (referring to the complex numbers) and a colloquial meaning in general (something like complicated or difficult). Mgnbar (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment – I've bundled in Complex mathematics. J947 ‡ edits 22:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep: this certainly is very ambiguous between the two meanings. However, for one meaning (complex numbers) we have a good target and for the other meaning (complicated in general) we don't. Therefore I'm leaning towards this redirect being ok. J947 ‡ edits 22:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Additionally, unlike many areas of mathematics like calculus, geometry, etc., the study of complex numbers doesn't really have a better name as far as I know. Whilst perhaps incorrect (and therefore a {{R from incorrect name}}), "complex mathematics" is a decent guess at what it might be called. J947 ‡ edits 00:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously. Sure, you could say there's ambiguity between "complex math" and "math that's complex" in the same way that if you wanted to you could assert there's some ambiguity between Big apple and an apple that's big. There's no article for the general concept of "math that's complicated", and even if there were, Complex number would still be the correct target for "complex math". I'd be fine with a hatnote if anyone genuinely feels there's some confusion. BugGhost 🦗👻 00:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Nobody uses the phrase "complex mathematics" for this. When I typed "complex mathematics" into a Google scholar search, not a single result from the first 50 meant complex in the sense of complex numbers. Most of them were about "complex mathematics" tasks in education, meaning difficult, complicated, or advanced. –jacobolus (t) 04:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's a redirect, not an article title - it doesn't need to be the exact phrase scholars use. This article covers the accepted meaning of "complex" used in mathematics, and so the redirect is correct. We also don't (and probably shouldn't) have an article on the subjective concept of "difficult mathematics". BugGhost 🦗👻 08:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- There are lots of accepted meanings of "complex" in mathematics; see below. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's a redirect, not an article title - it doesn't need to be the exact phrase scholars use. This article covers the accepted meaning of "complex" used in mathematics, and so the redirect is correct. We also don't (and probably shouldn't) have an article on the subjective concept of "difficult mathematics". BugGhost 🦗👻 08:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Nobody uses the phrase "complex mathematics" for this. When I typed "complex mathematics" into a Google scholar search, not a single result from the first 50 meant complex in the sense of complex numbers. Most of them were about "complex mathematics" tasks in education, meaning difficult, complicated, or advanced. –jacobolus (t) 04:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, not a phrase which is meaningful or widely used as a unit. Curious readers should be looking up "complex" in Wiktionary and "mathematics" here, or else going to complex analysis or complex number. These titles have no inbound wikilinks from article namespace, another indication that they aren't very useful. –jacobolus (t) 04:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- To clarify, you're suggesting that if someone knows that there's a concept in mathematics using the name "complex" and wants to learn more about it, they shouldn't be allowed to search "complex math" on wikipedia, they should instead search the first word on a different website and the second word here? Or alternatively, the user should just come into knowledge of more specific terms (complex analysis or complex number), presumably through extra research on some more accomodating website, and then search it here? How on earth would that be a good experience for a reader? Why would any of that be necessary or expected? BugGhost 🦗👻 09:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. If we had articles on both the technical meaning and the colloquial meaning we could make a disambiguation page, or choose a primary topic with a hatnote. But we don't (Mathematics Made Difficult doesn't count), and we don't generally let the existence of a non-notable colloquial meaning get in the way of giving articles or redirects on technical topics their correct names. In technical mathematics, this can only mean the mathematics of complex numbers (unless maybe someone trying to be cute has used it for the mathematics of cell complexes), and complex number is the correct redirect target. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- "giving articles or redirects on technical topics their correct names". Are you saying that "complex math(ematics)" is a "correct name" for "complex numbers"? ZFT (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:RASTONISH (I couldn't really find somewhere more appropriate for such a vague term either). The plain meaning of this term is just difficult/technical/etc., not related to the complex numbers. A reasonable person looking for info on the complex numbers that already knows something about them will look up something like "complex numbers". A reasonable person looking for info about the topic that doesn't know anything about them will look for the term they found it referred to as, which will be something like the "complex numbers". The current target is misleading. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I really don't think it's astonishing for Complex math to redirect to the article on the well known mathematical study of complex numbers, I would think it would be astonishing if it went anywhere else. The "plain meaning" of something doesn't hold any weight for a redirect when there is an obvious specific topic that fits instead (see my Big apple vs "an apple that is big" example above). BugGhost 🦗👻 14:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Complex number is certainly not "an obvious specific topic" for "complex math". On the opposite, I think that many (if not most) people searching for "complex math" do not know anything of complex numbers, since people using "math" instead of "mathematics" have generally a very low mathematical level and do not know complex numbers at all. Also, when searched, "complex math" is probably written as an altenative of "difficult math" or "advanced math". So, for there readers, redirecting to complex number goes against WP:ASTONISH. D.Lazard (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
since people using "math" instead of "mathematics" have generally a very low mathematical level and do not know complex numbers at all
- Is this a serious claim? Any source for that, or just a gut instinct insult? I've got a maths degree and wouldn't bat an eye at either math, maths or mathematics being used to describe it. Also, where I am from, complex numbers are taught to 14 year olds, who generally feel no elitist need to say "mathematics" all the time, but still have the ability to understand the topic. BugGhost 🦗👻 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)- I do have to say that I think reading anything into "math" vs. "mathematics" is inappropriate...regardless, this is an implausible, vague search topic, and if you really want to get into the weeds, who's to say that this hypothetical searcher isn't looking for Complex analysis instead? That's a
whole ass branchwhole-ass branch of math. And before you cry "disambiguate", no, just delete. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Your "Big Apple" analogy fails completely for a couple reasons -- 1) it's a very well established nickname for the city in widespread use, as opposed to "complex mathematics", which is not, and 2) people would be very unlikely to search for the topic of a large apple, whereas a search for advanced (or higher, or upper level, etc etc) mathematics is a lot more reasonable. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think the likelihood of someone searching "complicated math" is as about likely as someone searching "large apples", as both terms are too vague and ill defined to be articles. I genuinely don't understand the logic of saying this redirect should be deleted because it is allegedly ambiguous with a subjective, vague topic that doesn't (and won't ever) have an article. If it is ambigous with something that isn't at all suitable to be an article then there is no ambiguity at all, and the original target should remain. BugGhost 🦗👻 01:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Complex math" isn't a topic. It's a vague phrase that nobody uses to refer to the redirect target, and a plain reading suggests it's more likely to mean higher mathematics (while we don't have an article specifically about that, we very well could...most any university math degree curriculum contains something like a "transition to higher mathematics" course) than to mathematics about the complex numbers. If you really insist on the latter, again, why the complex numbers, and not complex analysis? Or are you suggesting that this is merely a couple keywords smushed together? If that's the case, we shouldn't be redirecting based on that, but even if we should, then also why not abstract cell complex, CW complex, chain complex, complex manifold, simplicial complex, etc. etc? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Re: "why not a bunch of other articles with the word complex in?" - Because they are clearly not the primary topic. Complex analysis is the study of functions that use complex numbers (extension of real analysis), and so not the introductory base article for the concept of complex numbers. The rest of the articles you listed are not serious suggestions - they are arbitrary articles you picked out of a hat that no one is suggesting, and are obviously more niche and very unlikely to be what the user is trying to find when searching "complex math".
- The study of complex numbers is not a niche topic - I feel some participants are confusing the topic with a some novelty number classification, like lucky numbers or happy numbers. Complex numbers are a hugely important pillar of modern mathematics and have usages that are both influential and applied. They underpin essential concepts in signal processing, computer graphics and quantum physics (examples linked), and dozens of other fields. It is undoubtedly the primary topic. If you need evidence of this, please see David Eppstein's vote above, as his view on this topic should be given some weight. BugGhost 🦗👻 11:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Complex math" isn't a topic. It's a vague phrase that nobody uses to refer to the redirect target, and a plain reading suggests it's more likely to mean higher mathematics (while we don't have an article specifically about that, we very well could...most any university math degree curriculum contains something like a "transition to higher mathematics" course) than to mathematics about the complex numbers. If you really insist on the latter, again, why the complex numbers, and not complex analysis? Or are you suggesting that this is merely a couple keywords smushed together? If that's the case, we shouldn't be redirecting based on that, but even if we should, then also why not abstract cell complex, CW complex, chain complex, complex manifold, simplicial complex, etc. etc? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think the likelihood of someone searching "complicated math" is as about likely as someone searching "large apples", as both terms are too vague and ill defined to be articles. I genuinely don't understand the logic of saying this redirect should be deleted because it is allegedly ambiguous with a subjective, vague topic that doesn't (and won't ever) have an article. If it is ambigous with something that isn't at all suitable to be an article then there is no ambiguity at all, and the original target should remain. BugGhost 🦗👻 01:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Complex number is certainly not "an obvious specific topic" for "complex math". On the opposite, I think that many (if not most) people searching for "complex math" do not know anything of complex numbers, since people using "math" instead of "mathematics" have generally a very low mathematical level and do not know complex numbers at all. Also, when searched, "complex math" is probably written as an altenative of "difficult math" or "advanced math". So, for there readers, redirecting to complex number goes against WP:ASTONISH. D.Lazard (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I really don't think it's astonishing for Complex math to redirect to the article on the well known mathematical study of complex numbers, I would think it would be astonishing if it went anywhere else. The "plain meaning" of something doesn't hold any weight for a redirect when there is an obvious specific topic that fits instead (see my Big apple vs "an apple that is big" example above). BugGhost 🦗👻 14:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. The study and usage of complex numbers is not normally referred to as "complex math". I agree with jacobolus (04:19, 22 December 2024). Adumbrativus (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The term "complex" in its technical sense is used with various nouns (complex number, complex plane, complex analysis, complex conjugate, etc.). The phrase "complex math" is not much of a stretch, so it's a plausible search term for this topic. As for the colloquial sense of "complex", I agree with User:Bugghost: what would a reader be looking for? It seems unlikely that an encyclopedia would have an article on the vague and subjective topic of "math that's complicated". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, disambiguate, or hatnote. Just because "complex" has a specific meaning within mathematics, doesn't mean that "complex math" should redirect there, due to the fact that there are other possible interpretations of the phrase; redirecting "complex math" to "complex numbers" implies that the latter is the only instance of, or is synonymous with, the former. Put another way, even though "complex math" (the subjective/vague meaning) doesn't/shouldn't have it's own article, but "complex numbers" does, the latter is (arguably) a subset of the former; having a term with multiple (potential) meanings pointing to only one of several seems inappropriate to me, because that leads to incorrect assumptions/implications. A redirect should take you to the topic you are looking for, not a subset of it; if there are multiple (potential) meanings/interpretations, then a disambiguation page is more appropriate, or at least a hatnote at the primary topic. ZFT (talk) 07:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Complex#Mathematics. In the disambiguation subsection the reader can find related terms to it. Alexcalamaro (talk) 07:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- That seems much more reasonable. I do not agree with BugGhost's and Eppstein's reasoning; redirects should be as direct and straightforward as possible. Your proposal therefore seems like the best solution. ZFT (talk) 07:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- But none of those terms would ever be called "complex math". I've also trimmed that section down, as it was rife with WP:PTMs. I was conservative in my removal, but I still wound up removing several. The dab page is a bad target, and a bad target is worse than no target at all. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- If they would never be called that, then why are we having this discussion? ZFT (talk) 08:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Common lime
[edit]- Common lime → Papilio demoleus (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Common Lime → Papilio demoleus (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
There is no evidence that a primary subject has been specified, as Papilio demoleus is commonly called the Common lime butterfly, but "Common lime" more commonly refers to the tree Tilia × europaea. KOLANO12 3 09:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Retarget to Tilia × europaea, which my searches indicate is the primary topic. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I just added Common Lime to this RfD; that redirect hasn't been touched since it was created on 5 April 2006. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I created the sentence-case redirect on 5 January 2015, in response to this 4 January 2015 edit by William Avery whose rationale was "Downcasing per MOS:LIFE" (I patrol for untruthful hats) – wbm1058 (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @Bjh21:, who created the title-case redirect. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Based on my other edits that day, I think I came across the butterfly article for other reasons and noticed that it started with a common name ("The Common Lime or the Lime Butterfly is a common Swallowtail butterfly.") and there wasn't a redirect at that name. So I don't think I considered the tree at all, and would have no objection to the retargeting. --bjh21 (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Disambiguate. The shade tree is definitely more primary than the butterfly, but is it more primary than the citrus (which can be called a common lime to distinguish it from other kinds of limes such as kaffir limes or key limes)? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Disambiguate is my first inclination as well. Besides the butterfly and the plant which is not closely related to the lime fruit tree, (common) lime most commonly refers to Lime (fruit), Lime (material), and Lime (color). – wbm1058 (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Retarget to the Tilia × europaea. As far as I can find, "common lime" is used exclusively to refer to this, and never to the butterfly, the fruit, the material, etc. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's difficult to search because of all the colloquial usages, but here's an example citing "common lime" for the fruit: [9]. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, you managed to find one that uses this (even our article doesn't, and this source wouldn't be valid to support adding it in either), and with that in hand, the first thing I found here directly contradicts this usage, saying the key lime is a variant of the "common lime" rather than a synonym for it. Regardless, if such heroic searching is required to find this, then the tree is pretty clearly the PTOPIC, and a hatnote there can point back to the dab page for anyone actually looking for the fruit (or something else), although I think that's still overkill. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I searched Britannica for "common lime" and at the top of their list was European linden which is a red link here, hah! Second on the list was "Lime (tree and fruit, Citrus species)". What I did not see in their search results, even after scrolling way, way, down, was any butterfly. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, you managed to find one that uses this (even our article doesn't, and this source wouldn't be valid to support adding it in either), and with that in hand, the first thing I found here directly contradicts this usage, saying the key lime is a variant of the "common lime" rather than a synonym for it. Regardless, if such heroic searching is required to find this, then the tree is pretty clearly the PTOPIC, and a hatnote there can point back to the dab page for anyone actually looking for the fruit (or something else), although I think that's still overkill. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's difficult to search because of all the colloquial usages, but here's an example citing "common lime" for the fruit: [9]. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Disambiguation draft made Cremastra 🎄 u — c 🎄 16:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Why? As I noted above, there's a very clear PTOPIC for this term, so what would be the point of this? We already have a dab page at Lime itself, so why do we need another here? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Love and Longing in Bombay
[edit]- Love and Longing in Bombay → Vikram Chandra (novelist) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Notable book. Has at least one interwiki. Should a red link per WP:RED (otherwise it messes up the interlanguage link template). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Template:NavigationAustianChampionsFigureSkatingMen
[edit]- Template:NavigationAustrianFigureSkatingChampionsMen (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] →
It doesn't appear that this redirect is currently in use on any articles. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Quapauw tornado
[edit]- Quapauw tornado → 2008 Picher–Neosho tornado (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Rare mispelling of Quapaw (four hits total for this spelling, none related to the tornado). Most google hits for the correctly spelled version of the term seem to refer to the 2014 tornado (see e.g. this article, which we don't have an article for. Rusalkii (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Must've misspelled it on accident. EF5 03:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Picher deadly tornado
[edit]- Picher deadly tornado → 2008 Picher–Neosho tornado (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
No references at all to this phrasing anywhere in the target or online. Doesn't seem to be particularly useful as a search term over Picher tornado which already points to the target. Rusalkii (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Smasnug
[edit]This REALLY doesn't seem like a plausible misspelling for "Samsung". If anything, this should redirect to Shanzhai as "Smasnug" is a semi-infamous Shanzhai producer User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 02:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment It's not exactly a *plausible* misspelling of the name, but it is an *intentional* misspelling... an intentional misspelling used by counterfeiters when selling fake Samsung products [10], and spread widely as a meme by YouTuber DankPods. RachelTensions (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, not mentioned at target, and no indication why it redirects there. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Planet B (TV series)
[edit]- Planet B (TV series) → Mnet (TV channel)#Upcoming programming (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Not mentioned in any part of the target page. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 02:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Planet B is a former name of Boys II Planet. Aidillia(talk) 02:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- So i don't know that the title was changed. Aidillia(talk) 02:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Planet B was the name that "Boys II Planet" was originally announced under. ([11]). It'll likely be retargeted to that article once the show gets underway and the article is moved out of the drafts. RachelTensions (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
The Xian H-8
[edit]- The Xian H-8 → Xi'an H-8 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- The Xian H-8 bomber → Xi'an H-8 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Proposing deletion as these two are implausible redirects - people are not going to search for an aircraft as "The [Manufacturer] [Designation]", and even less so as "The [Manufactuer] [Designation] [aircraft type]". - The Bushranger One ping only 01:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Templates and Modules
[edit]This template was transcluded into a single article, the related Lebus train collision, and realistically will not need to be transcluded anywhere else, which denies the point of templates in general. Now that the template content has been included in the above target article, this can template is redundant and can be deleted. Deeday-UK (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Single use template The Banner talk 03:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
WP:NENAN, 2 links for players, one for staff. The Banner talk 03:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Miscellany
[edit]Deletion review
[edit]It is clear to me that the subject meets notability guidelines. Several solid sources were found late in the deletion discussion. I think if more editors were involved who examined those sources, the article would have been kept. Thriley (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse The discussion clearly shows that you and others made their cases there but failed to convince the other participants. DRV is not for taking a second bite at the apple. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)