Wikipedia:XfD today

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

Candidates for speedy deletion

Arabic–Javanese of Klego

Template:Cycling data FDC

Emanuele Naboni

User:Hamzajanah/Hamza JanaH

Draft:Invicta Racing

Jhalra Mosque

Draft:List of Kenyan Counties by Hdi

User:Lucfev/Rico Browne

User:OLIVIAMAL 68/sandbox

The Wild Hunt (news source)

Tribhuvan Narain

User:Trieu Thuan Son REAL

View (social media)

Articles

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< January 18	January 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

List of geographic bodies by area

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

There is no clear criteria to decide what should be on this list. Currently it has oceans, international organizations, and planets named Earth. But why not time zones, deserts, etc. It could include anything. Wizmut (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1968–1971 East Pakistan communist insurgency

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

I dispute that there was one such phenomenon, effectively there is a degree of WP:SYNTH here. The material on the PBSP armed struggle can be dealt with in the PBSP article, the material on the NAP-Communist Party-Student Union Guerrilla Forces is dealt with there (and can't really be framed as a 'communist insurgency', rather it was a subset of a larger nationalist campaign). There is no relation between the PBSP and the other grouping, they were not part of a single movement or tendency. There were also other groups conducting armed struggle in East Pakistan, and in opposition (to a degree or other) to Bangladeshi independence. Combining pro-Soviet, pro-Chinese groups and intermediary groups into a narrative of a 'communist insurgency' is ahistorical. Soman (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries and territories by border/area ratio

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

A curious data point that is covered by

people copying the article [1][2]
this guy on reddit [3]
a couple homework/math websites [4][5]

I figured this was too old for WP:PROD and maybe someone knows of a book with a similar table. I like the list but it's probably not notably covered as its own thing. Wizmut (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NLIST. Procyon117 (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH. Trivial statistic, plus border lengths aren't well-defined. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4XO

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

Fails WP:GNG and has no SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and New Zealand. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If someone can find archived Dunedin newspaper, this should be a very easy article to improve. The station looks to clobber the GNG if someone can get the sourcing for it, as it appears to have been the leading private station in this area for some time. Our NZ radio coverage, particularly on pre-internet topics, suffers from lack of references, but don't let that be a hindrance to determining notability. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some newspaper articles going up to 1989.

Additionally the proquest search '"4XO" AND "Dunedin"' returns a few results although I'm not sure how useful these are. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SK2242 (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Susovan Roy

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable actor, doesn't passes WP:NACTOR. I got a mail from User:Xegma, they written, Hi Taabi, this is my article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susovan_Roy why you tag deletion for it. Please remove it. I'm that actor pls withdraw it. They also closed the discussion and drafted the page. It's a clear WP:COI. The closing admin can ask me for the proof of their mail, I'll be happy to share. Taabii (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, India, and West Bengal. Taabii (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting here as I did at ANI, Xegma is p-blocked from this discussion to avoid further disruption. They're welcome to contribute elsewhere. Star Mississippi 15:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 U.S. House legislative coalition

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

I am creating this deletion request on behalf of the community, not because I actually believe this article should be deleted.

Just for some context, I created an early draft of the article and abandoned after getting feedback from others that it probably wasn't notable. User:Dcpoliticaljunkie found the draft and improved it. They nicely asked on the talk page if I felt it was ready to be moved to mainspace and I said it was.

More importantly, I believe that AFD is one of the few bureaucratic processes that actually work on Wikipedia. User:Antony-22 started a merge discussion, but I find that those discussions often don't get seen by the community at large. AFD is much more obvious and the discussion is generally more structured. A few other users have made comments on the article talkpage asking for the articles deletion.

I am leaving those comments and the merge discussion below. I will add my own !vote when I get some time, probably at some point tomorrow.

This is not a European-style legislative coalition, even an informal one. Unlike in parliamentary systems, in the United States it is common and unnoteworthy for legislation to pass with some votes from both parties. The idea that Republicans should try to pass legislation without any Democratic votes is a new one—even the Hastert rule didn't require that—and one that has not even been put into practice.

What this article does have is a good description of funding-related legislation during the 118th Congress, but that text is customarily in the article for each year's federal budget. I propose to move the text to 2024 United States federal budget and 2025 United States federal budget, and possibly other articles, as appropriate. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do an AfD right now but this article seems to be deletion worthy with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH violations. 1) the idea that there are any coalitions (and I use that term loosely) between fractions of the Republican and Democratic parties exist is dubious at best and outright false at worst. 2) the infobox, especially but not to the ideology section, makes claims that are not supported in any of the sources. 3) the article can't even agree who is apart of this "coalition". 4) this article synthesizes sources from the 2 speaker elections in 2023, the removal of Kevin McCarthy, and the various bills to stop a government shutdown to create a narrative unsupported by reliable sources TheMysteriousStar (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Better off to put this in the 118th congress page. 2600:1700:1850:81F0:94CB:F7E5:B61B:B6F1 (talk) 07:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Esolo5002 (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge There is simply no legislative coalition. There's certainly something to say that the budget bills and some other bills were passed by an atypical bipartisan majority, but to put that in a standalone article calling it a coalition isn't right at all. It's significant that the intransigence of the Freedom Caucus has required the speaker to call votes that will pass with Democratic votes, but it's not a consistent set of members or that they're being whipped like a coalition. I think 118th United States Congress is welcome to use prose sections that incorporate this content, as well as 2024 United States federal budget and 2025 United States federal budget. Reywas92^Talk 23:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The coalition was definitely extremely informal, which makes it hard to parse through sources for. But there are several reliable sources that discuss, in detail, Republicans being unable to pass bills by themselves. Wikipedia goes off of what sourcing says, even if things aren't super formal. I think [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] and [11] are enough. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Split text to 2024 United States federal budget and 2025 United States federal budget, and possibly other articles as appropriate, per my comments copied above. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is clear synthesis. We should not create a concept out of thin air, and a review of the secondary sources does not establish notability for this hypothetical coalition. Legislative bipartisan action can be effectively covered at other pages without inventing a framework to explain it all - that's what historians do, and we're not historians. WP:NOR. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Split. To appropriate articles. Onikaburgers (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I almost feel like this discussion should have a procedural close as there is no identifiable deletion nomination rationale, at least not one that is obvious.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that a number of editors have made arguments for both keep and delete in good faith, I don't think a procedural close would be appropriate - there's evidently valid debate to be had about the fate of this article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not super familiar with the deletion process on Wikipedia but I feel that there is enough substantial coverage of this phenomena in the 118th Congress, which was unique and a distinct feature, that the article is appropriate. We did not "create a concept out of thin air". It seems some of the hang up is a result of the name and I would not be opposed to discussing a better name for the article such as "Bipartisan cooperation in the 118th House". At the very least, there is well-written content in this article that could be utilized elsewhere, but given the breadth of coverage about an unprecedented need for bipartisanship for the House to function, I believe this article (perhaps renamed) should remain in the encyclopedia. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't know why people keep saying that bipartisan support of funding bills is unusual, when it is in fact commonplace in the United States. Look for example at the votes for major funding legislation for 2019, 2018, 2017, and 2016. The unusual thing here is the unsuccessful attempts to pass funding legislation along strictly party-line votes. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you object to reworking the article into something along the lines of "Bipartisan cooperation in the 118th House"? With 1 keep, 1 weak keep, 1 split, 1 merge/split, and 1 delete/merge it seems most who are not supporting keep do not object to the article's content but to its description of "coalition" (however informal). That's not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. While I think describing it as a coalition is defensible with the sourcing we have, I concede that it is less so that an article on bipartisan cooperation without describing it as a coalition. Thoughts? Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would object–my whole point is that the 118th Congress in fact features less bipartisan cooperation than historically usual. If the article is retained, a more appropriate title would be something like Attempted party-line votes in the 118th Congress.

Also, I'm not proposing to "throw the baby out with the bathwater". As I said, the text is actually quite good, and all of it should be preserved, but in the articles that typically cover this kind of content. As it is, this article is mostly a content fork of the annual U.S. budget articles, and that kind of WP:REDUNDANTFORK is itself against policy. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Alanis

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet GNG and no longer meets NMMA Nswix (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Nswix (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deb Hutton

AfDs for this article:

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

Virtually non-existent, secondary, reliable source coverage for this individual in Canada, fails WP:NBASIC. Recreating previously AfD’d page (from 2006) but there has been an ounce of more coverage. Only really covered in one article (about her volunteer role as a “fixer” after a scandal) and the rest are passing coverage, mostly in what would probably be considered WP:NINI & WP:BIOFAMILY. She the wife of Tim Hudak.

Lots of trivia in the article, in an apparent attempt to bolster notability, such as passing mentions of affiliations, prior employers, or the fact that she was part of a debate prep “acting” the part of a well known politician. Even the bulk of the fixer story was basic quoting of either her or other people directly involved. While has worked with politicians, does not qualify as a politician for notability/BLP requirements.

Otherwise nobody seems to be really covering her.

Attempts to handle through notability tagging and talking with article creator have failed. Independent research has uncovered precious little for a WP:BIO.

Not to be confused with either of the two more notable Deborah Hutton’s of which come up in search results even for Deb.

Also was mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jaime_Watt which was also deleted, but now a redirect.

Would be okay with merging some into the husband, but there is precious more than a sentence or three worth moving. TiggerJay (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TiggerJay (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. 2 articles discuss her role in the Greenbelt scandal. This fact is about her and not her relationship with Tim Hudak.

2. She was not Tim Hudak's wife when she became Premier Harris's chief of staff, that has nothing to do with her marriage. I think that there may be offline sources that cover this in greater detail, given the time period in question.

3. She is an independent political actor. She writes political columns which have been discussed: https://www.ombudsman.on.ca/resources/speeches-and-articles/speeches/2019/politicians-cannot-do-the-work-of-independent-officers-of-the-legislature-(qp-briefing) https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/how-the-right-defends-policy-lite-brown-hepburn/article_1206a6f9-ea8b-56fd-9b3a-cab27386e28f.html I haven't been able to source the original columns yet or encyclopedic sources, but I think there's potential here.

4. There's another article which provides substantial coverage about her currently linked in the article and it has nothing to do with Greenbelt scandal.

5. She currently on the Metrolinx board of directors. Metrolinx is a controversial agency, and I may be able to find sources that are about her role as a director specifically. Such a source would could be paid, such as a transportation or engineering magazine, given the niche topic.

I may prematurely moved the article from draftspace. I think the most appropriate action is that it is moved back to draftspace, given the likelihood that more information can be uncovered. Legend of 14 (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this article: https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ontario-liberals-target-conservative-leader-hudaks-wife-over-cancelled-gas-plant. That's 4 independent sources, with substantial coverage, about 3 different topics. Legend of 14 (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yissum Research Development Company of the Hebrew University

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

WP:PROMOTIONAL article for a subsiduary of Hebrew University of Jerusalem that doesn't seem to have any presence in it's own right per WP:INHERITORG. Current sources are, a database entry which doesn't establish notability. Times Higher Ed and Jewish Post (archived) do mention Yissum (they call it Aleph-Yissum in the THE article) but only in passing. Also cited NYT, Jewish Press and The Verge articles which don't mention Yissum at all. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Israel. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Article PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, added plenty of references today. Thank you for your support! Tvogelyissum (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The Jerusalem Post article counts as significant coverage in an independent reliable source. Of the other sources, while two are from the Times of Israel the one that goes into more depth was written by Yissum's CEO, and the other has just a short paragraph about the company. ToI does have more stories about the company such as this and this constitute in-depth coverage from reliable sources, so I think the subject is notable. Perhaps it could be adequately covered in the article on the university? Richard Nevell (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, looking at the article, it doesn't seem like new sources have been added here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feng (surname 酆)

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

Not sure why this was deprodded since it still fails WP:NNAME. It could be redirected to the one person with the name but the parenthetical disambiguator would make it an implausible target, as someone searching up "Feng (surname 酆)" is going to expect information on the surname and not Feng Yunhe. Of the two sources in the article, one only mentions the name and the other is a dictionary. The sources I could find online are not much better, pretty much only WP:ROTM name websites of questionable reliability. I can't see anything suggesting evidence of notability for this name. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. 新編百家姓 [New Edition of the Hundred Family Surnames] (in Chinese). Taipei: Cheng Chung Book Company [zh]. 2005. p. 327. ISBN 978-957-0917-529. Retrieved 2025-01-13 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "春秋時期,鄭穆公有個兒子叫豐,在鄭僖公時任大夫,豐的孫子施、卷以他們的祖父的名為姓氏,稱為豐氏。二是出自國名。周初,周文王的第十七子封於酆國,後人以國名為姓,稱為酆氏。後來,後人中有取酆(現簡化為豐)的左邊為姓,即豐姓。豐姓是當今少見的姓氏,人數不多,但分布很廣,天津、河北、山東、內蒙古、廣西、雲南、四川等地均有豐姓。歷代名人唐代有高僧豐幹。宋代有義士豐存芳。明代有狀元豐熙,書法家豐坊,詩人豐越人,學者豐寅初,進士豐慶。現代有著名教育家、畫家豐子愷。慶麼姓淵源慶姓來源主要有三. 豐姓始祖公子豐慶姓始祖慶輔."
  From Google Translate: "During the Spring and Autumn Period, Duke Mu of Zheng had a son named Feng, who served as a minister during the reign of Duke Xi of Zheng. Feng's grandsons Shi and Juan took their grandfather's name as their surname, and were called Feng. The second is that it comes from the name of the country. In the early Zhou Dynasty, the seventeenth son of King Wen of Zhou was granted the title of Feng State. Later generations took the name of the state as their surname, and were called Fengshi. Later, some descendants took the left side of Feng (now simplified to Feng) as their surname, namely Feng. The surname Feng is a rare surname nowadays. There are not many people with this surname, but it is widely distributed. People with the surname Feng can be found in Tianjin, Hebei, Shandong, Inner Mongolia, Guangxi, Yunnan, Sichuan and other places. Famous people throughout the ages: In the Tang Dynasty, there was the eminent monk Feng Gan. In the Song Dynasty, there was a righteous man named Feng Cunfang. In the Ming Dynasty, there were the top scholar Feng Xi, the calligrapher Feng Fang, the poet Feng Yueren, the scholar Feng Yinchu, and the Jinshi Feng Qing. In modern times, there is the famous educator and painter Feng Zikai. There are three main sources of the surname Qing. The ancestor of the surname Feng is Gongzi Feng and the ancestor of the surname Qing is Qing Fu."
2. "【姓氏小談】酆姓" [[Short Talk on Surnames] Feng]. Merit Times [zh] (in Chinese). 2010-08-05. Archived from the original on 2025-01-13. Retrieved 2025-01-13.
  The article notes: "出自姬姓：周武王滅商後，封自己的弟弟，即周文王的第十七子於酆邑，建立侯國，世稱酆侯。周成王時，酆侯被廢黜，其後人以酆為姓氏。酆姓主要分布在湖南、陝西、安徽、湖北等省市。據說，出自山西省洪洞縣的酆姓族人曾遭遇大災荒，多數向北方遷移，遷出的人們大多居住在山西省朔州一帶，大同也有一些。"
  From Google Translate: "From the Ji surname: After King Wu of Zhou destroyed the Shang Dynasty, he granted his younger brother, the seventeenth son of King Wen of Zhou, the title of Marquis of Fengyi and established a marquisate, known as Fenghou. During the reign of King Cheng of Zhou, Marquis Feng was deposed and his descendants took Feng as their surname. The surname Feng is mainly distributed in provinces and cities such as Hunan, Shaanxi, Anhui, and Hubei. It is said that the Feng clan from Hongdong County, Shanxi Province once suffered a great famine and most of them migrated to the north. Most of the people who migrated lived in Shuozhou area of Shanxi Province, and there were also some in Datong."
  The article lists these notable people with the surname:
  1. Feng Shu (Chinese: 酆舒) – a self-proclaimed king in the Lu State during the Spring and Autumn Period
  2. Feng Shenzhi (Chinese: 酆伸之), a jinshi during the Song Dynasty
  3. Feng Yingchu (Chinese: 酆寅初), director of the Imperial College during the Hongwu period. From the late Yuan dynasty and early Ming dynasty.
  4. Fengmou (Chinese: 酆謀) – a jinpi during the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom
  5. Feng Zhesheng (Chinese: 酆哲生), a translator and visiting lecturer at the University of Hawaii
3. Zhang, Xuexian 张学衔 (2000). 华夏百家姓探源 [Exploring the Origins of the Hundred Surnames of China] (in Chinese). Nanjing: Nanjing University Press [zh]. p. 129. ISBN 978-7-305-01708-7. Retrieved 2025-01-13 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "酆〔 Fēng 〕京兆郡渤海堂酆姓起源京兆,祖宗酆侯。"
  From Google Translate: "The surname Feng originated from Jingzhao, and the ancestor was Feng Hou."
  The article notes: "【姓氏来源】《元和姓纂》记载: “周文王第十七子酆侯之后,以国为姓。”《左传》上说: “酆舒有二隽才,京兆。”由此可知,酆姓是出自 3000 多年以前周文王的第十七个儿子酆侯,由于被封于酆(今陕西户县东) ,所以,子孙也就按照当时的习惯,以国为姓,称为酆氏。望族居京兆郡(今陕西长安东)。【历史名人】春秋时潞国有执政大臣酆舒。宋代有著名道士酆去奢。【宗祠堂号】渤海堂。出自宋代酆去奢的故事。酆去奢,少为崇山官道士,精思忘瘦,一心行道,据传说去渤海向蓬莱仙岛,得道成仙而去。后世酆姓人家就以他去“渤海”成仙作为纪念,取堂号为“渤海堂”。【楹联】二擅隽才(酆舒) ,双成寿考(酆寅初)。"
  From Google Translate: "【Origin of surname】《Yuanhe Xingzhuan》 records: "The descendants of Fenghou, the seventeenth son of King Wen of Zhou, took the country as their surname." "Zuo Zhuan" says: "Feng Shu has two talented people, Jingzhao." From this, we can know that the surname Feng comes from Fenghou, the seventeenth son of King Wen of Zhou more than 3,000 years ago. Because he was granted the title of Feng (now east of Huxian County, Shaanxi), his descendants also followed the custom at that time and took the country as their surname, called Feng. The prominent family lived in Jingzhao County (now east of Chang'an, Shaanxi). 【Historical celebrities】During the Spring and Autumn Period, there was a ruling minister Feng Shu in Lu State. In the Song Dynasty, there was a famous Taoist priest Feng Qushe. 【Ancestral Hall Name】Bohai Hall. It comes from the story of Feng Qushe in the Song Dynasty. Feng Qushe was a Taoist priest in Chongshan when he was young. He was so devoted to Taoism that he forgot his weight and practiced Taoism. According to legend, he went to Bohai Sea and went to Penglai Island, where he became an immortal. In later generations, people with the surname Feng used his immortality in Bohai Sea as a commemoration and named their hall "Bohai Hall". [Couplet] Two talented people (Feng Shu), two longevity (Feng Yinchu)."
4. Peng, Guifang 彭桂芳 (1980). 五百年前是一家 [500 Years Ago, We Were One Family] (in Chinese). Vol. 1. Taipei: Li Ming Cultural Enterprise [zh]. OCLC 13993130. Retrieved 2025-01-13 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "唐代的京城是建於長安,則當時酆姓人家最多的地方其中的道理,十分顯然。鄭姓的始祖是周文王的兒子酆侯;豐姓雖然是鄭穆公之子豐的後裔,但是,當時鄭國也是由周文王的後裔所建,則推算起來,豐姓豈不也是源自周文王?所以,酆姓與豐姓,實際上是一根兩枝,算起來都是黃帝軒轅氏的姬姓後裔。兩姓源異而本同說起來,我國姓氏的奧妙之處就在這裏,鄭姓與豐姓,雖然乍看之下各有各的來源,彼此之間並無淵源,但是如果再進一步認真地追溯起來,就可以發現另一番景象———在三千年以前,兩姓根本就是一家人。"
  From Google Translate: "The capital of the Tang Dynasty was built in Chang'an, so it is obvious that Chang'an was the place with the largest number of families with the surname Feng at that time. The ancestor of the Zheng surname was Feng Hou, the son of King Wen of Zhou. Although the Feng surname is a descendant of Feng, the son of Duke Mu of Zheng, the State of Zheng was also founded by the descendants of King Wen of Zhou. So, doesn't it mean that the Feng surname also originated from King Wen of Zhou? ?Therefore, the surname Feng and the surname Feng are actually two branches of the same root, and both are descendants of the Ji surname of Emperor Huangdi Xuanyuan. The two surnames have different origins but the same origin. This is the mystery of Chinese surnames. Although Zheng and Feng have their own origins at first glance and have no connection with each other, if we take a closer look, Looking back, we can find a different picture—three thousand years ago, the two surnames were actually one family."
5. Wang, Daliang 王大良 (2001). 当代百家姓 [The Hundred Surnames of Contemporary China] (in Chinese). Beijing: Meteorological Press 气象出版社. p. 194. ISBN 978-7502-9305-23. Retrieved 2025-01-13 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "酆 feng 酆姓人相传是周文王的后代。早在商朝末年,周文王之子周武王灭商建国,为了扩大王室的势力,把自己的多位弟弟分封于天下,其中第 17 弟被分封于酆(今陕西户县一带) ,为侯国,史称酆侯。后来,酆侯的后代便以这一封国的名称为姓,姓酆,从而成为最早的一批酆姓人。鄭姓得姓以后,在历史上又以京兆等为郡望,并出现了春秋时潞人酆舒、宋朝进士酆伸之等著名人物。当代,酆姓也是一个分布较为广泛的姓氏,尤其是在陕西、四川等省,都较为容易见到以此为姓的人。"
  From Google Translate: "Feng. It is said that people with the surname Feng are descendants of King Wen of Zhou. As early as the end of the Shang Dynasty, King Wu of Zhou, the son of King Wen of Zhou, destroyed the Shang Dynasty and founded the state. In order to expand the power of the royal family, he divided the country among his brothers. Among them, the 17th brother was given the title of Marquis of Feng (now Huxian County, Shaanxi Province). , known in history as Feng Hou. Later, the descendants of Feng Hou took the name of this fiefdom as their surname, Feng, and became the earliest group of people with the surname Feng. After the surname Zheng was derived, in history, Jingzhao and other counties were considered as the ancestral home, and there emerged such famous figures as Feng Shu, a Luren in the Spring and Autumn Period, and Feng Shenzhi, a Jinshi in the Song Dynasty. Nowadays, Feng is also a widely distributed surname, especially in provinces such as Shaanxi and Sichuan, where it is easy to see people with this surname."
6. 中國百家姓解說辭典 [Dictionary of the Explanation of the Hundred Family Surnames of China] (in Chinese). Taipei: Shin Wen Feng Print Company 新文豐出版公司. 1985. p. 94. Retrieved 2025-01-13 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "酆出中國有姓酆的人,也有姓的人,這兩個姓氏的讀音相同,其間只差了一個邑字旁。那麽,這兩者之間是不是有什麼特別的關係或淵源呢?要弄清楚這個問題,就得先行把兩個姓氏的姓源分辦一下一關於酆姓的姓源,「姓纂」和「名賢氏族言行類稿」都是這樣記載的:「周文王第十七子鄂侯之後,以國爲姓,左傳酆舒有二雋才,京兆。」鄭豐兩姓的來源,這兩者之間是不是有什麼特別的關係或淵源呢?相信這必然是一個大家所關心的問題。要弄清楚這個問題,就得先行把兩個姓氏的姓源分辨一下————中國有姓酆的人,也有姓的人,這兩個姓氏的讀音相同,其間只差了一個邑字旁。"
  From Google Translate: "There are people in China with the surname Feng, and there are also people with the surname Feng. These two surnames have the same pronunciation, with the only difference being the character "邑" on the radical. So, is there any special relationship or origin between the two? To clarify this question, we must first analyze the origins of the two surnames. Regarding the origin of the surname Feng, "Xingzhuan" and The "Records of Words and Deeds of Famous Clans" all record it like this: "The descendants of the seventeenth son of King Wen of Zhou, Marquis of E, took the country as their surname. Zuo Zhuan recorded that there were two talented people in Fengshu, Jingzhao." The origin of the two surnames Zheng and Feng, Is there any special relationship or origin between the two? I believe this must be a question that everyone is concerned about. To clarify this question, we must first distinguish the origins of the two surnames. In China, there are people with the surname Feng and people with the surname Feng. The two surnames have the same pronunciation, with the only difference being the character Yi.."
7. Less significant coverage:
  1. 宝宝的第一本国学启蒙书：三字经百家姓 [Baby's First Book of Chinese Classical Education: Three Character Classic and Hundred Family Surnames] (in Chinese). Beijing: China Textile Press [zh]. 2020. ISBN 978-3-16-148410-0. Retrieved 2025-01-13 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "酆姓氏来源周武王建立周朝后,将他的弟弟封于酆邑,他的后代以地名为姓,酆姓就是由此产生的。"
    From Google Translate: "Origin of the surname Feng: After King Wu of Zhou established the Zhou Dynasty, he granted his younger brother the title of Marquis of Feng. His descendants took the place name as their surname, and the surname Feng came from this."
  2. Gao, Zhuguan 高諸觀 (1981). 台灣人的根: 八閩全鑑 [Taiwanese Roots: A Complete Guide to Fujian] (in Chinese). Yilan: Taiwan News and Culture Publishing House 台灣新聞文化出版社. OCLC 17074117. Retrieved 2025-01-13 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "The exact time when the Feng surname migrated to Taiwan cannot be verified. Most of the surnames in Taiwan come from Fujian,"
    From Google Translate: "The exact time when the Feng surname migrated to Taiwan cannot be verified. Most of the surnames in Taiwan come from Fujian,"
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Feng (surname 酆) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you finding these sources. Personally I don't believe these sources prove notability as they are all just lists of names repeating the same story about how the name supposedly originated. I don't think appearing on these kinds of lists suggests notability, especially since most of these sources have very similar titles. And they all contain only a brief paragraph about the name tantamount to a mere mention. Pretty WP:ROTM stuff. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources were published in 1980, 1985, 2000, 2001, 2005, 2010. The sources show that the surname has been extensively discussed for decades. There is enough information that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" (quoting from Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline). This depth of coverage about the surname means that WP:NOTDICT is not violated. The guideline Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Minor differences notes: "An article about a given name or a surname is an anthroponymy article that contains a list of people with this name as well as encyclopedic content about the meaning, etymology and history of the name." The sources provide enough information to write an article that has "encyclopedic content about the meaning, etymology and history of the name". Cunard (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Names still have to meet WP:NNAME, which states that a name that nobody with a Wikipedia article has is likely not notable unless it has exceptional sourcing, as names are just words above all. The sources you’ve provided are almost exclusively lists and dictionaries, and most of them are just different iterations of the same source, the Baijiaxing. I don’t believe that WP:NOTDICT hasn’t been violated. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NNAME doesn't say anything about exceptional sourcing. It says that A properly sourced article about a name may still be notable without a list. In other words, a name that meets WP:GNG is presumed notable, like any other topic that meets GNG. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes though like I said it is an anthroponym so any name without significant in-depth sourcing is not notable unless two or more people with Wikipedia articles have it. That’s why I said “exceptional sourcing” since there’s really no other way for a name to be notable if it there are no articles about people with the name. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need exceptional sourcing, just significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. In any case, I've added several other notable people to the list in the article (they don't yet have articles on the English Wikipedia, but they do on the Chinese Wikipedia). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets GNG per the sources found by Cunard. I suspect all surnames in the Baijiaxing will meet GNG, because of sources (like some of the ones above) that discuss the history of each surname in the poem. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I strongly suspected before seeing this AfD that the hundred surnames were all notable, and the in-depth source coverage uncovered above confirms it to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Azaiez

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

Bio of a footballer where most of the content is unsourced. Both sources in the article indicate that the subject was not n the team that won the Africa cup of nations in 2004 so there is literally nothing here that is sourced. A search for sources is complicated by the fact that there’s a Saudi player of the same name, but I don’t see in-depth coverage of this subject. Articles on ithe4 wikis are just sourced to databases. Mccapra (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Tunisia. Mccapra (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he won AFCON, the premier tournament in Africa. Really poor nomination. Giant Snowman 12:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Bad article, but certainly a notable player. Anwegmann (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any SIGCOV in Arabic- or French-language sources for Azaiez. He did make a single appearance for Tunisia at the 2004 AFCON, but it was in a final group stage match after Tunisia clinched progress after winning its first two group stage matches and fielded a largely reserve side in that match. I found that he also played in a single AFCON qualifier (according to RSSSF), but otherwise only appeared in a handful of friendlies. We can't really say much else about this footballer as there are no other online sources available. Jogurney (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jogourney. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ramam Raghavam

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

~~Not able to find two full length reviews in reliable sources and there are~~ not enough independent sources for GNG apart from routine coverage. Fails NFF/GNG. Draftify/ATDR - Dhanraj (actor). Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Andhra Pradesh. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Tinker Watkins

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

Biography of a non-notable individual and a contested draftification. Unless being President General of the Daughters of the American Revolution is considered an inherently notable post (and I don't know of any consensus that would indicate such), she fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. A quick review of sources:

[12], unreliable per WP:ANCESTRY.COM
Non-independent sources from organizations Tinker Watkins was affiliated with: [13], [14].
WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in non-independent sources: [15], [16], [17].
More trivial mentions: [18] and a single passing mention in a newspaper photo caption

I searched for more in the standard BEFORE search, but the page creator seems to have put every possible source into this article, making it unlikely that there is more out there since none of these sources qualifies for notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Tennessee. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. President General position in Daughters of American Revolution does not appear to be an inherently notable position, many of the others don't have Wikipedia pages. Can't find any non-trivial mentions of subject besides what is already included in citations. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Berman

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

Tagged for notability since 2018. Time for the community to discuss this and decide one way or the other. Not clear the subject passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, California, Missouri, New York, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Via Vinci Academy

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

The Via Vinci Academy never really got off the ground. It was a short-lived project that went bankrupt in 2011. The only claim to fame is that the project prompted the dutch government to introduce a regulation that allows only recognized universities to carry the word "University" in its name. I think the so-called "Via Vincy Academy" does not pass WP:ORG and the best we can do is delete the article. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Schools. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no sufficient coverage. Drushrush (talk) 06:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HueningKai

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

The subject of this article has not yet demonstrated individual notability outside of his band, Tomorrow X Together, which is a criteria per the notability guideline at WP:BANDMEMBER. This is evident from the largely empty "Career" section that shows very little in the way of individual activity that would assist in establishing individual notability.

Subject has not released any solo singles that have charted anywhere that could assist in establishing individual notability, or participated in any activities of note outside of his membership in the band. The article mentions his individual participation in a YouTube series, which was uploaded onto the band's YouTube channel, but it doesn't seem to have received WP:SIGCOV outside of a few sources that are largely churned from a press release.

Recommend redirect to Tomorrow X Together

Note this AfD is the result of a contested WP:BLAR RachelTensions (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Korea, and South Korea. RachelTensions (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: as the person hasn't met WP:MUSICBIO in general. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 02:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tomorrow X Together. Subject is not independently notable. Random86 (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Backwards

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

Delete per WP:TNT. Been tagged since 2009 and nobody has pitched in. So many issues in this article, including the use of many quotes with no supporting attributed sources of potentially copyrighted materials. (his jokes probably are copyrighted and these quotes are likely copyright infringements unless we give attribution). The only source used is an SNL transcript which is a primary source. There's unsubstantiated claims of varying kinds that require a source because of the nature of the claim. This person is notable but the article requires a complete rewrite. Best to blow this up and start over from scratch.4meter4 (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Entertainment, and Georgia (U.S. state). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per not WP:NOTQUOTE Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 03:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, he has sources on him in Newspapers.com, Professor Backwards To Entertain At Taylorville Country Club Stag (The Taylorville Daily Breeze Courier), Prof. Backwards (Nosdnomde) Staging Swohs Twice Nightly (The Morning Call), Professor Backward Hit With 'drawkcaB' Actions (The Commercial Appeal), Professor Backwards Comes To Greenville (The Greenville News) and Professor's Murder Predictable (The Greenville News). It doesn't have to be deleted, it could still be rewritten in the same article. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We might have to get an admin to redact the copyright infringed material from the article history if you want to pursue this option.4meter4 (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for goodness' sake, his murder made SNL's Weekend Update. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability was never the issue here. The article had copyright infringement violations and was entirely unreferenced (although much of that was gutted after it was brought to AFD). This was a WP:TNT nomination.4meter4 (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I should mention that this article has really been gutted including all of the details of his passing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hancock Chapel, Indiana

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

The name of this as "Hancock Chapel" as opposed to just "Hancock", seems to be an accident of map updating/reading, because a topo in the 1950s just calls the place "Hancock". The actual chapel, which is still there, is a bit south of the label, on the west side of the T intersection. There is a scattering of buildings about, but not so obviously organized as to make clear it was a town. Baker says right out that Hancock was a 4th class PO, but it's not at all clear that the updated label was sup[posed to be for the church, and rural churches usually are labelled. Searching is impeded by the commonness of the name and by the presence of Hancock County. By all means, go ahead and try to clarify this, but at this point it seems to be a somewhat made-up place due to unclear map labels. Mangoe (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful India

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

A highly promotional page for a non-notable fragrance brand. (Sample puffery: True to India’s philosophical essence and its universal message of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam—Sanskrit for “ The world is one family “— it is a reminder that we are all ONE and that PEACE is our true nature.) Not a single source would qualify for WP:NCORP; it's all press release-based churnalism, unbylined content in WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources, sponsored content, etc. Nothing qualifying found in WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and France. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Typical paid for advertorials and promotional content you would expect from likely UPE. Nothing meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly promotional and nothing to suggest notability. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatantly promotional, no sigcov. Procyon117 (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1927 U.S. Figure Skating Championships

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Non-notable figure skating competitions. I had attempted to redirect these articles to U.S. Figure Skating Championships, as has been done with literally hundreds of similar articles over the past month, but was reverted on the grounds that "This page have [sic] a reference source". As if that was the problem. Since the medalists were the only information supported by what sources I could access, I added those sources to the parent article. Recommend deletion or forced redirect back to U.S. Figure Skating Championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Skating. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All pages have a references source, it's not non-notable. If you think it's not enough, you can add it more. The past year was so far and it need more time find the sources. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect: There's no need for an individual page for each year; the information can be better presented on a single page for the recurring event as a whole. Espatie (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I have already merged what little there was of value. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Espatie: No need for an individual page for each year, what does it means? If you agree that, all pages should be redirect. Stevencocoboy (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what it says: there is no need for a separate article for every year of this event. One page for the event as a whole, with a combined table of results is sufficient Espatie (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Commission of Agricultural Engineering

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

Blatantly promotional, unsourced article about an organization. It could be notable, but I see no reason for the article in its current to remain on the mainspace. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Organizations, Education, and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and need more sources. HeMahon (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voice (Indiana)

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

Non-notable promo article. A google search only really yields self-published and primary sources. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Education, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neoh Hui-min

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

Does the subject of this article meet the guidelines for notability for academics? Cannot find much independent or external references about her. Unsure if Deputy Director position confers notability but again limited search results aside from academic papers InsomniaOpossum (talk)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Biology, and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is an associate professor, which is a sign that it's probably unlikely that they meet WP:NPROF. I couldn't find any mention of major awards etc. and I don't think the Deputy Director position could confer any per se notability. So the only criteria they could meet would be WP:NPROF#C1. An h-index of 26 and about 4000 total citations in a relatively high-citation field is not bad, but I don't think it's quite enough for C1. MCE89 (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Breast implant illness

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

I've never attempted to invoke WP:TNT before, but I'm going to go ahead and try here, very cautiously. This is a stub article on a notable topic created by a user who has been blocked twice from creating new articles following their history of mass-creating short, poorly written, and poorly sourced stubs (like this one). There is absolutely nothing useful on this page or in its history. The sources are obviously inadequate for a medical topic. If someone wanted to improve this article, they would have to restart from scratch, and I mean that without a hint of exaggeration. Therefore, I am carefully suggesting we TNT this to encourage this to happen. To be clear, I understand that this is almost never a good reason to delete an article, and I understand that opposing views exist, such as WP:TNTTNT. Still, even after reading through opposing essays on the matter, this looks to be an extremely rare case where nothing associated with this article is salvageable (neither what's currently there nor in its history). I am fully expecting backlash over this, but I would like to emphasise that I wholeheartedly agree that using deletion as cleanup is almost always a bad thing. This is an extremely uncommon case where the entire article is unusable. All that said, and while I myself don't feel qualified enough to do so, if anyone else had the time to improve this, I would withdraw my nomination immediately, as again, notability is not the problem. Anonymous 02:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Medicine. Anonymous 02:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I am not going to pretend that I don’t understand the TNT argument or have never considered it myself. That said, I’m not sure I understand it, here. It’s a stub. Just work on it as-necessary. From a quick Google, it appears that the topic is likely notable. (Not to get into WP:OR territory, but as a side-note, it’s not a proper diagnosis because it sounds like it is a mild post-operative infection) That said, it being a stub — in my opinion — works against the TNT argument. It would need to be just a huge set of information along with egregious errors for me to consider wiping an article completely. The title is salvageable, no? Breastcancer.org and the Mayo Clinic both refer it as BII. Surely someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine could assist with this?

MWFwiki (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic certainly seems notable - a quick search reveals articles in The Guardian [19], the Australian ABC [20], Spectrum News [21] and the BBC [22]. Surely it would be possible to expand and improve the article, rather than deleting it? The information in it doesn't seem incorrect, just not appropriately expressed. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The news sources demonstrate notability, so they have a valid function, and what is said appears to be true. It's surprising anyone would attempt to write a med. article without using any MEDRS sources. Here are some:

Cohen Tervaert, J. W., et al. "Breast implant illness: scientific evidence of its existence." Expert review of clinical immunology 18.1 (2022): 15-29.

Kaplan, Jordan, and Rod Rohrich. "Breast implant illness: a topic in review." Gland Surgery 10.1 (2021): 430.

Magnusson, Mark R., et al. "Breast implant illness: a way forward." Plastic and reconstructive surgery 143.3S (2019): 74S-81S.

Newby, Jill M., et al. "Understanding breast implant illness." Aesthetic surgery journal 41.12 (2021): 1367-1379.

There are plenty more med. sources available. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above. There are more sources available too, but the ones linked above should prove sufficient for notability. WP:TNT doesn't seem appropriate here given it's only a five-sentence stub. Procyon117 (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murugan Chillayah

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

Looking at the given sources:

[23] is not SIGCOV and only links him as a contact, also not independent as it's a partnership with his association
[24] and [25] do not mention him at all
[26] is IMDB
[27] is his association's official website (primary)
[28] only lists his association in a bullet list of many others, no SIGCOV
[29] is another of his websites
[30] is an interview he gave to a council his association joined, neither independent nor secondary
[31] is another SIGCOV-free bullet list
[32] doesn't mention him, and, looking at the context of how it was used, wouldn't have been independent either way
[33] is his speaker profile at an event, not independent
[34] is literally an advertisement
[35] is the same as the first source, but this time with the title of a different paragraph
[36] is yet another list with no content beyond names
[37] and [38] are open letters he helped writing, very primary
[39] gives me an error 404, but appears to be another open letter

All in all, out of 17 references, exactly zero provide secondary, independent SIGCOV, making this a very likely WP:GNG failure. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism, Malaysia, and India. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this link should work (grabbed from archive). You're right that it's just another open letter. Procyon117 (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2017 United Express passenger removal

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

No WP:LASTING effects apart of Wikipedia mirrors, thus fails WP:NOTNEWS. Protoeus (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this very easily passes the WP:LASTING test. It led to changes to USDOT rules, new legislation, and impacted United's financials and reputation into at least the medium term. Looking it up in Google Books and Google Scholar, it's an incident that continues to be very widely discussed in the fields of public relations and aviation law. I don't think this is a case of WP:NOTNEWS at all. MCE89 (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Police, Aviation, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is not the article's first nomination; a 2022 renaming makes this less obvious. The earlier discussions were not too long after the incident, attracted many comments, and were quickly closed — Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Express Flight 3411 was a SNOW closure, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Express Flight 3411 incident (2nd nomination) came too quickly after the first nomination and was a speedy keep. I'd expect a more reasonable discussion eight years later, though I myself have no opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and strongly so. This was a major news story that clearly had a WP:LASTING effect just by looking at the sources in the article. The clearest one is the NY Times article which led with the incident four years later. SportingFlyer T·C 03:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the above. Far more significance than, for example, a video game article, or even an article about a notorious crime that attracts morbid interest, but has no lasting effect. DonFB (talk) 05:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems pretty clear per the above votes and the impact of DOT legislation per MCE89. Also worth noting that WP:LASTING is only one guideline for establishing notability, and articles can still be notable without having inherently lasting effects (but I would argue this one has had them). - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT – Continued, significant, and in-depth coverage in secondary sources is present with lasting effects and changes existing as a result of this incident.^[1] The incident is also the subject of numerous case studies. [40] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^
- Zhang, Benjamin (13 April 2017). "United is promising to make major customer service changes". Business Insider. Retrieved 19 January 2025.
- Zhang, Benjamin (26 April 2017). "United Airlines just announced 10 major changes to avoid another violent passenger-removal incident". Business Insider. Retrieved 19 January 2025.
- Fernández, Alexia (27 April 2017). "United Airlines Announces 10 Policy Changes in Response to Passenger Removal Incident". People. Retrieved 19 January 2025.
- Zumbach, Lauren (9 April 2018). "A year after a passenger was dragged off a United flight, everyday indignities remain". The Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 19 January 2025.
- Aratani, Lori (9 April 2018). "A year after the infamous United dragging incident, has anything changed for airline travelers?". The Washington Post. Retrieved 19 January 2025.
- Bever, Lindsey (9 April 2019). "Doctor who was dragged, screaming, from United Airlines flight finally breaks silence". The Washington Post. Retrieved 19 January 2025.
- Weed, Julie (27 January 2021). "While You Weren't Looking: Revised Airline Policies May Make Flying Better". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 January 2025.
- Thomaselli, Rich (10 April 2022). "Five Years Later, What Have We Learned From United's Dr. Dao Dragging Incident?". TravelPulse. Retrieved 19 January 2025.
- Hartley, Kate (30 July 2024). "United Airlines passenger removal scandal – what can leaders learn?". Polpeo. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes the WP: LASTING. HeMahon (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Marano

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

Non-notable history denier. Few sources on google search, all of them more than 5 years old; this raises the prospect that the subject's notoriety was short-lived and has not endured. YouTube channel has fewer than 20K subscribers; most videos less than 5 years old have fewer than 500 views. There is mention in the Reuters source of one or more videos with over 300,000 views; however, it is not on the YouTube channel, and no other reference to this purported video could be located. Risker (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that the YouTube channel has a 16-year-old video, "Westboro Baptist neutralized by the Patriot Guard Riders" that has over 900K views; its SEO tags are "Patriot Guard Riders Westboro Baptist Fred Phelps gay military funeral army navy air force marines coast guard free speech propagandabuster propaganda buster tony WBC", several of which are heavily-searched terms. The article subject is not noted to have anything to do with either Westboro Baptist Church or the Patriot Guard Riders, in the article or in any reliable source that I could locate. That makes a single highly viewed video out of 2.6K videos. Risker (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, Internet, Connecticut, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this article because I need time to gather enough information about him. Beside I'm using information from Japan's wikipedia to create it. Besides he's one of the history deniers we need to worry about and avoid for non-Asians Youtubers. Besides, you can help me by translating the source citations from the Japanese wikipedia and get this issue resolved. Koreanidentity10000

Hello, Koreanidentity10000. I see you have been adding information from another project. Please read this information on how to copy information from another Wikimedia project, because you're not correctly attributing that information. Remember to include the reference sources when you are copying over the information. If it isn't referenced in that project, then it should not be coming to English Wikipedia. I will give you time to sort this out, but right now with your changes, it is now a copyright violation with poorly referenced or unreferenced material. Since this is a biography of a living person, this is a fairly big deal. Risker (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gio Talente

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

Promotional biography of a "social reputation analyst"; appears to have been constructed as WP:ADMASQ by an editor later blocked for sockpuppetry. Sources do not support notability under any criterion. They are:

WP:TRIVIALMENTION quotes in media on other topics that do not constitute WP:SIGCOV: [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47],
WP:PRIMARYSOURCE interviews: [48], [49],
Primary/affiliated sources (official bios, course descriptions, etc): [50], [51],
One source does not mention him at all: [52]

Nothing else was found in BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Italy. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

El Vaquero

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

Student newspaper of one college. Relies on Primary sources. Research has found no other significant sources.Fails WP:NNEWSPAPER Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glendale Community College (California)#Student media: best I can tell, this is the standard alternative to deletion for otherwise non-notable student-run media entities. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Education, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naale (film)

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

Two unreleased films that fail to establish notability. The first film may have been unfinished, which is why it is listed here as a short film [53]. The first film was also incorrectly listed on the 2008 list of films, but the sources were emerging in mid-December 2008 and a release seemed unlikely [54].

In an attempt to salvage, the film article I added information about the second unreleased film, all passing mentions.

Additional sources assessment table

Source	Reliable?	Significant?	Notes
Indiaglitz [55]			See Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Guidelines on sources.
Filmibeat [56]

Although, I find this database site dubious [57] Kailash29792 assured me of its usefulness for Malayalam cinema. It lists all of the released films and some unreleased films. While it lists the 2017 version as unreleased (first with a pink U and then with [ പുറത്തിറങ്ങാത്ത ചിത്രം ] (transl. [Unreleased film]), it has no mention of the 2008 film, so without a doubt that film was never released. Without proper sourcing, redirect to Dileep filmography, the only page where it is mentioned. DareshMohan (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect it for now. no indication of notability and yet unreleased. sources are only spreading buzz around whether it'll will release or not and other things. HeMahon (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rommy Sulastyo

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NACTOR. Two films are not on Wikipedia. Only source present is "top 10 pictures with sister" and her sister is not covered on Wikipedia either. Besides that, anything I could find is either not reliable or independent. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seacourt

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

This subject may be worthy of an article, but this writing isn’t yet an article. Nuke, draftify or something, but get it from mainspace. Qwirkle (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology, Geography, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this version is totally fine, though unremarkable. That someone added a bunch of questionably-sourced notes since doesn't change the notability here. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elli. It needs some clean up, particularly to the section on the name, but the previous version is fine and the subject seems to be notable. I don't think this is in WP:TNT territory. MCE89 (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it looks like it was a perfectly normal article before TRESISR (talk · contribs) edited it – just revert most or all of those edits, they are the source of all the weirdness and original research in this article and in another AfD. I have already cleaned up or reverted a lot of their extensive history of unsuitable edits on other articles. Joe D (t) 10:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elli. 17 years of edits can hardly lead to a conclusion that "this writing isn’t yet an article", even if some of the edits are questionable. We do not delete articles just because they need improvement. We try and improve them.--Mhockey (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I removed all of the OR per comments above. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and thanks to @LaundryPizza03: for their cleanup. PamD 11:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Morag McLaren

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

Can't find anything that suggests Morag McLaren is notable. The only source in the article is very weak. Guiy de Montfort de L'Amaury 00:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Music, Theatre, and Scotland. Guiy de Montfort de L'Amaury 00:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Dance. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see plenty of coverage in the British Newspaper Archive. I'll add it and come back to vote. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files

File:Acqua di Parma Colonia 2.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC8. Fair use logo already available locally. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 09:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

24 US presidential election

24 US presidential election → 2024 United States presidential election (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This redirect is pretty vague, 24 can be the 1824 or the 1924 one. This redirect seems to be classic case of WP:RECENTISM Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as author. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 12:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apache shirt

Apache shirt → Telnyashka (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Appears to refer to shirts commonly worn by the Parisian criminal Apaches (subculture) rather than the Native American tribe. A quick search suggests the most common use by far is a shirt worn by or referencing the Native American Apaches. Rusalkii (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coppa Maifredi

Coppa Maifredi → Circuito del Garda (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target. Appears to be a race at held at this course, see e.g. 1962 World Sportscar Championship, 1963 World Sportscar Championship. If there was only one such article I would retarget there, but there's two of them. Not sure if it should be mentioned in the article for the course, but I don't have enough context to add it; as is the target is a stub. Rusalkii (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for signaling that, I forgot it inthe 60s. Joking. Anyway, my initial idea was to explicitly cite the Coppa Maifredi event in the target article. Would it solve everything ragarding this entry? gtp (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Explicitly mentioning the race in the target article, assuming it is reasonably WP:DUE and not shoehorned in, would address my concern. Rusalkii (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The creation of a redirect was due to the fact that racing venues usually are more lasting than their counterpart events (due to sponsors, category-changes, oil crisis). So, particullary in old races, some venues keep living while obv. their "Coppa" events don't. gtp (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The event has not yet been cited in the target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drake the type of guy

Drake the type of guy → Drake (musician) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Drake the type → Drake (musician) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention of "the type" or anything similar at the target article. Not a plausible way of navigating to a page about "Drake (musician)". Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khmer ultranationalism

Khmer ultranationalism → Khmer nationalism (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention of "ultra" at the target, nor "ultranationalism". Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Torpedo Theodore

Torpedo Theodore → List of Mario franchise characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention of this character at the target, nor anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guesra

Guesra → Ultraman (1966 TV series) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Page move vandalism, since reverted. Not mentioned at the target, not a helpful redirect. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I thought JBW had taken care of it per the prior RfD post-close discussion, and all was good. Jay 💬 06:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was everything except that one, I think it was the first G3 of the group and therefore evaded notice on the second go. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Judging from my comment following the previous deletion discussion, it seems that I intended to speedy-delete this as debris from page move vandalism, and I must have missed it by mistake. JBW (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TVTROPES

Wikipedia:TVTROPES → Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not TV Tropes (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I thought of disambiguating this redirect but i was worried that someone's gonna revert it as "not needed". For this reason i had to RfD it instead. You have only three choices: either keep this redirect as it is now, retarget it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#TV Tropes, or disambiguate it with containing only the two following pages:

Do not delete this redirect nor propose to do so. 67.209.130.107 (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to RSP entry. It makes much more sense as a shortcut for the essay about "not being TV Tropes" to be WP:NOTTVTROPES (which is already a shortcut for it), and for the shortcut to RSP to be WP:(name of source) similar to virtually all others. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh men's national kho kho team

Bangladesh men's national kho kho team → 2025 Kho Kho World Cup (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
England men's national kho kho team → 2025 Kho Kho World Cup (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Sri Lanka men's national kho kho team → 2025 Kho Kho World Cup (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Same reasoning as the nomination statement of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 15#Kho kho teams -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SCCTM

SCCTM → Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This abbreviation seems to mostly be used for the South Carolina Council of Teachers of Mathematics. I can't find any usage of it referring to the film. Rusalkii (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there's an article about the teacher's council mentioned above. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless there's an article about the council of teachers mentioned above. Here's some usage: [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without a mention, this is confusing, especially if it's ambiguous ("what's this 1964 film got to do with the teachers' organisation I was looking for?"). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Make America Rock Again

Make America Rock Again → Make America Great Again (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention of "rock" at the target article. Apparently fails WP:NTOURS since its exception, and was the subject of a BLAR last year because of it. So it seems like there likely won't be an article at this title possibly based on such. But I come here instead of AfDing as there's many mentions of this tour across Wikipedia, and doesn't feel like a helpful redirect in its current state, but maybe something else makes more sense?

It should be noted that this'll be my last nomination for my editing session: when I started drafting this nomination I wrote "no mention of "BLAR" at the target article". Sure I caught myself in a couple of seconds but it was a couple of seconds too late to spare me from leaning back in my chair and looking up at the ceiling thinking "how", lol. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Create article - Create article which had a sufficient number of references prior to being redirected. Otherwise, either keep, or retarget to either Scott Stapp or one of the other bands on the tour. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore per Jax 0677's contestation of the WP:BLAR. I agree that notability of this tour is plausible (eg: Billboard, Esquire, Houston Press). -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't keep as is: I don't believe the current target is a good target, in support of restoring with improved sourcing or retargeting. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chin Up

Chin Up → The Fairly OddParents season 1#ep5 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I think people searching for "Chin Up" are more likely to be looking for the exercise than a television episode, even considering the different capitalization. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to chin up. Potentially create Chin Up! (actual episode name) in its place, since it doesn't seem unused. Tule-hog (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Pull-up (exercise) consistent with Chin up. This is interesting. Normally I'd quote WP:DIFFCAPS too, but in this case I think the nom is right. I'm left wondering who actually searches for an episode of a TV show using the episode name? How would one know an episode name without knowing which TV show it was part of? This particular situation is made mored difficult by the problem of putting a hatnote at the current target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pullani

Pullani → Poulain (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target, so not very helpful. Cremastra (u — c) 13:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Misspelling. Pullani is the anglicized spelling of Poulaini. Poulain is an 1100s term designating French Christian settlers in the Crusader States in the Levant.Arbeiten8 (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thiolester

Thiolester → Thioester (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Acknowledging that I'm way out of my depth with chemistry, this seems to be a sort of sub-topicky thing that's not discussed at the target, rather than a UK/US spelling difference as the creator implies in their edit summary. For example:

[64]: "‘thioester’ will be used as a general term for sulfur-containing esters, whereas the terms ‘thiolester’[...] will be used when specifically indicating one of the

structures..."

[65] "When in formula 1 Z is an alkyl or aryl group and Y55O, the term thiolester may be used." Cremastra (u — c) 14:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hi, you're right, it is indeed not a UK/US spelling thing, and I learned the correct interpetation upon reading your references. But I'd vote to keep the redirect, as the current Wikipedia Thioester page does not use the interpretation that "thiolester" is a subset of "thioester" - it just ignores the terminology thiolester altogether, which is what the vast majority of folks do, even when writing in contrast with other things like thionoesters and dithioesters. Overall, thiolester is just an exceedingly rate term. In my literature library, I have 1700 papers that use thioester (in pedantic meaning, "thiolester" structures), 30 that use thiolester. P.S. the existing redirect page at Dithioester to Dithiocarboxylic acid is perhaps more problematic as an ester (with thiols or not) is not synonymous to a carboxylic acid. Photocyte (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RedWarn

RedWarn → Wikipedia:RedWarn (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Recently created redirect from mainspace to project space (WP:RFD#DELETE#6). Some people dislike these, though I don't feel strongly about it. (Not eligible for R2.) SilverLocust 💬 14:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clear primary topic [66]. Cremastra (u — c) 16:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnecessary WP:CNR. When possible, we should avoid having the project space leak into the mainspace, and there are no other mentions of this term in the mainspace. - Eureka Lott 18:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Cremastra. New editors may be reverted using this antivandalism tools and wish to find out what it is. Ca ^{talk to me!} 07:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete People capable of using RedWarn competently know not to look in mainspace - others will either already have a link (since every edit is tagged with one) or have no reason to care. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above, but also because the tool wouldn’t otherwise meet GNG to be an article. TiggerJay (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An unnecessary and inappropriate WP:Cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Magibon.com

Magibon.com → Magibon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target. magibon.com doesn't seem to be an official website. (NPP action) jlwoodwa (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sridevi (upcoming film)

Sridevi (upcoming film) → Sridevi (unreleased film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This is an {{R from move}} but is misleading and ambiguous (with Sreedevi (film)). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject of Sreedevi (film) is not ambiguous with the nominated redirect, considering the subject of Sreedevi (film) was released in 1977 and is in no way "upcoming". Steel1943 (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Similar names, sure, but not ambiguous per Steel, and we have the hatnote for that anyway. How is it misleading? Isn't it plausible that readers look for a film that was announced (in 2014, but readers may not recall years) but not yet released? Jay 💬 11:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jay: Misleading because it's not "upcoming". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kappi

Kappi → Pekko Käppi (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Per a recent RM at Kappi Plateau, there seems to be no real consensus on what to do with this redirect, as all of Pekko Käppi (the current target), Kepi and the Kappi Plateau seemed to be options, along with disambiguation between them (which is what I would tentatively support). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to notify the RM participants. @Gjs238, Bunnypranav, Mdewman6, Tiggerjay, JIP, Toadspike, and Sennecaster: See above. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe consensus was roughly to keep this current redirect, add a hatnote to the recently moved page. It’s too early to really compare for the purposes of a primary redirect. I think revisiting either a full DAB or a primary redirect to the plateau should be done sometime a few months from now. And therefore maintain the status quo. TiggerJay (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Kepi. A few days ago I created Käppi as a redirect to Kepi. "Käppi" is the original form of the name of the hat (see de:Käppi) and a term still widely used in the Swiss military. I think this usage is far more notable than the Finnish musician Pekko Käppi. After this is retargeted, Pekko Käppi and the Kappi Plateau should be added to a new Kappi (disambiguation) page, and that page listed in the see also of Kepi (disambiguation) and added to the hatnote of Kepi, so that readers sent to the hat article can still find the other two. Toadspike [Talk] 09:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. Since there is some ambiguity, Kappi should not redirect to Pekko Käppi because "ä" in Finnish isn't just a letter with an accent, it's a separate letter, so Pekko Käppi shouldn't be a primary topic. Kepi isn't the primary topic either. I've drafted a disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Kepi seems to be a good option for now as Käppi already redirects there. In the end there should be a proper disambiguation page listing all the possible meaning.s JIP | Talk 10:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JIP: We just edit conflicted – I read your mind ;-) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shady job

Shady job → Yami Baito (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

General term that shouldn't redirect to this particular form of shady job. Quick google suggests vast majority of English usage isn't referring to the Japanese concept. Rusalkii (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

The reason I created the redirect from Shady job to Yami Baito is that in the Japanese version of article , it was written as (英:Shady job). I was going to suggest renaming the article, but as I usually use the Japanese version, I did not know how to suggest renaming the English version, so I created the redirect.

Since the other party's opinion stated that it was about Japan, I would appreciate it if you could suggest renaming it to "Shady job in Japan".

Thank you.--Tomo.s.429 (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Shady job in Japan" doesn't have as much of an ambiguity problem, but if you do a search there are only three results, and none of them refer to Yami Baito. I don't think the article should be renamed, since it looks like English-language articles use the term "yami baito" without translating. Rusalkii (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and subsequent explanation as to why it is generic and not relative to Japan. Jay 💬 11:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to soft redirect to Wiktionary yami baito. "Shady job" is not really an English-lang idiom—a term whose meaning is more than the literal sum-of-its-parts. A typical native en speaker "gets" that "shady job", outside of the Japanese context, just means "a job which is shady". However the translated term from Japanese is idiomatic: "a fraudlent job offer, or an offer of a job involving criminal acts, which persons typically are recruited for online, particularly on social media, with alluring promises of lucrative compensation for easy work". (The literal translation from Japanese is "dark part-time job": see entry. "Yami" means "dark" with much the same semantic range as English "dark", both literally "the absence of light" as well as the various figurative meanings of "distasteful", "concealed", "perilous" etc.)

Also if I'm not mistaken, Yami Baito ought to be moved to Yami baito per WP:TITLECASE. --Slowking Man (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is WP:OR. No evidence that yami baito is translated as "shady job". Also, not mentioned at the target. Paradoctor (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a couple I found, including from NHK: [67] [68] --Slowking Man (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Both articles use "shady job" merely as shorthand for "shady part-time job". When yami baito is mentioned, it is always translated as "shady part-time job". Paradoctor (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I don't disagree that they repeatedly use the phrasing "shady job", with the contextual understanding that the more complete phrasing is "shady part-time job". But dropping parts of phrases to shorten them, and use of the contracted varieties in preference to the full uncontracted phrase, is quite common in English. One random example that comes to mind: "to eat one's own dog food" getting frequently contracted to just "dogfooding" or "dog-food": "we're dog-fooding that product on a regular basis". I am skeptical that people are overly concerned about observing a strict distinction between part-time and full-time work, when employing an idiom taken from a foreign language. --Slowking Man (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That argument requires that "shady job" is used alone in some of the sources, independent of "shady part-time job", like "dogfooding" and "dog-food" are. Otherwise it is no more than local shorthand. I couldn't find any, maybe you can?

The only evidence we have right now is an unsourced claim in the Japanese Wikipedia that "shady job" is the English translation of 闇バイト: (やみバイト, 英:shady job). From what I've seen, this is in error. Paradoctor (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of cameos of the Mario series

List of cameos of the Mario series → Mario (franchise) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Cameos in the Mario series → Mario (franchise) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Cameos of the Mario series → Mario (franchise) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No such list or topic in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom or retarget to a specific heading if applicable. Also, if only 2 or 3 exists, won't 2 act as 3 and vice versa? TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom and as... kind of vague, if i'm being honest. on top of there not being a list, what would this mean for donkey kong, for example? consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 11:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The List of cameos of the Mario series redirect was created as a result of a merge and I have tagged it as an {{R from merge}}. Jay 💬 20:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Particularly, List of cameos of the Mario series was merged into Mario in popular culture, which was then blank and redirected to Mario ("nothing to merge").

I'm not familiar with how the community/policy goes on this rather protracted case of attribution of removed/diluted content. Tule-hog (talk) 07:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Cameos of the Mario series could be redirected to Mario#Cameos which mentions other characters, outside of the series itself.
- Delete: Cameos in the Mario series not so much.
- Comment: Barring my subcomment above about attribution, from what I understand from MOS:LISTBASICS, lists are a particular formatting style which Mario#Cameos does not follow so would not suit List of cameos of the Mario series. Also not familiar here with the precedent of 'List of' redirects to non-lists. Tule-hog (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Târnavele Blaj

Târnavele Blaj → CS CIL Blaj (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target. Quick google suggests this is a location(?) in Blaj, doesn't point to the team. Rusalkii (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Târnavele was the name of the team in the 1980s and comes from the rivers Târnava Mică and Târnava Mare, which together are called Târnavele. They will be mentioned in the article, but it will take some time. Here are two articles^[1]^[2] in Romanian, where the name of the team is mentioned. Florin (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ 1
^ 2

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per creator and tag as {{R without mention}}. Jay 💬 19:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of mention, unless that gets fixed prior to this discussion being closed. (I oppose keeping and tagging this redirect with {{R without mention}} since the purpose of that template and its category is to put the redirect in a maintenance category to inform editors the redirect needs to be nominated for RFD ... which is what we are currently doing.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the usage of ..to inform editors the redirect needs to be nominated for RFD documented? Jay 💬 16:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not technically mentioned anywhere, but it's assumed (and has been on numerous occasions) since the template throws the page into a maintenance category with the usual response being to nominate the redirect for RFD. In other words, we are already discussing the "maintenance" by having this discussion, and tagging the redirect starts the process currently in progress all over again. Steel1943 (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there are editors who patrol the category to nominate redirects at RfD, it is their prerogative, but why assume that the consumers of the category are regulars at RfD? Jay 💬 20:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really what I mean. The only way I can think of responding to this is that the nominator essentially already "patrolled" this redirect by nominating it. Why go through the same thing twice? Steel1943 (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. A container category can be patrolled. How do you "patrol" an individual redirect? Jay 💬 15:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, technically, only as a new page patroller. Unofficially, patrolling the redirect by "finding" it, which the nominator did. And even then, I'd imagine the majority of Wikipedia readers (not editors) would not even know or care how to view a redirect without automatically being redirected to its target page ... which apparently brings me back to the point that since the problems regarding this redirect have discovered and a discussion has been started, the odds of such issues being discovered again is rather low, so probably best to figure out a semipermanent solution during the course of this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: giving time for a mention to materialize
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules

Template:NGC objects:1-500

Template:NGC objects:1-500 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:NGC objects: 1-1000 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:NGC objects:1-500 with Template:NGC objects: 1-1000.
This is an exact duplicate of half the larger template. The larger template aligns with the list. Alternatively, delete the larger template as a duplicate. -- Beland (talk) 10:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all NGC 1-500 numbered templates to Template:NGC objects: 1-1000-type templates for several reasons originally outlined @ WP:AST here:
1. To match Template:NGC objects, which groups by 1000
2. To cut the height of New General Catalogue#External links in ~half
3. To align with the list articles

~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NGC objects:501-1000

Template:NGC objects:501-1000 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:NGC objects: 1-1000 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:NGC objects:501-1000 with Template:NGC objects: 1-1000.
This is an exact duplicate of half the larger template. The larger template aligns with the list. Alternatively, delete the larger template as a duplicate. -- Beland (talk) 10:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all NGC 1-500 numbered templates to Template:NGC objects: 1-1000-type templates for several reasons originally outlined @ WP:AST here:
1. To match Template:NGC objects, which groups by 1000
2. To cut the height of New General Catalogue#External links in ~half
3. To align with the list articles

~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TCC Entry

Template:TCC Entry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions or documentation. Created in June 2024. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:World Aquatics U20 Championships women's water polo tournament winners

Template:World Aquatics U20 Championships women's water polo tournament winners (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Having only two links makes this an unhelpful template. Bgsu98 (Talk) 05:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay if you want to delete the template. I don't mind and that's all. Stevencocoboy (talk) 05:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Galway under-21 hurling team managers

Template:Galway under-21 hurling team managers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 00:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dublin under-21 county hurling team managers

Template:Dublin under-21 county hurling team managers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 00:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany

Deletion review

[1] 
Zhang, Benjamin (13 April 2017). "United is promising to make major customer service changes". Business Insider. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

Zhang, Benjamin (26 April 2017). "United Airlines just announced 10 major changes to avoid another violent passenger-removal incident". Business Insider. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

Fernández, Alexia (27 April 2017). "United Airlines Announces 10 Policy Changes in Response to Passenger Removal Incident". People. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

Zumbach, Lauren (9 April 2018). "A year after a passenger was dragged off a United flight, everyday indignities remain". The Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

Aratani, Lori (9 April 2018). "A year after the infamous United dragging incident, has anything changed for airline travelers?". The Washington Post. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

Bever, Lindsey (9 April 2019). "Doctor who was dragged, screaming, from United Airlines flight finally breaks silence". The Washington Post. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

Weed, Julie (27 January 2021). "While You Weren't Looking: Revised Airline Policies May Make Flying Better". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

Thomaselli, Rich (10 April 2022). "Five Years Later, What Have We Learned From United's Dr. Dao Dragging Incident?". TravelPulse. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

Hartley, Kate (30 July 2024). "United Airlines passenger removal scandal – what can leaders learn?". Polpeo. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

[2] Zhang, Benjamin (13 April 2017). "United is promising to make major customer service changes". Business Insider. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

[3] Zhang, Benjamin (26 April 2017). "United Airlines just announced 10 major changes to avoid another violent passenger-removal incident". Business Insider. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

[4] Fernández, Alexia (27 April 2017). "United Airlines Announces 10 Policy Changes in Response to Passenger Removal Incident". People. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

[5] Zumbach, Lauren (9 April 2018). "A year after a passenger was dragged off a United flight, everyday indignities remain". The Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

[6] Aratani, Lori (9 April 2018). "A year after the infamous United dragging incident, has anything changed for airline travelers?". The Washington Post. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

[7] Bever, Lindsey (9 April 2019). "Doctor who was dragged, screaming, from United Airlines flight finally breaks silence". The Washington Post. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

[8] Weed, Julie (27 January 2021). "While You Weren't Looking: Revised Airline Policies May Make Flying Better". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

[9] Thomaselli, Rich (10 April 2022). "Five Years Later, What Have We Learned From United's Dr. Dao Dragging Incident?". TravelPulse. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

[10] Hartley, Kate (30 July 2024). "United Airlines passenger removal scandal – what can leaders learn?". Polpeo. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

[2] 1

[3] 2

[1]

[1]

[2]

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creating articles Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and voting	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates

Speedy deletion candidates

Articles

Additional sources assessment table

Files

Categories

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Vaporware video games

Category:Music generated games

Virtual reality -> Extended reality

Palestine

Category:Deaths from medical malpractice

Category:Civil parishes in Telford and Wrekin

Children of Category:1480s in Spain

Category:Japanese non-binary professional wrestlers

Template:US-aviation-accident-stub

Category:Works about economics

1980s/1990s wildfires in North America

Category:Wildfires in Canada by year

Category:Expatriates from Austria-Hungary in the Kingdom of Serbia

Redirects

24 US presidential election

Apache shirt

Coppa Maifredi

Drake the type of guy

Khmer ultranationalism

Torpedo Theodore

Guesra

WP:TVTROPES

Bangladesh men's national kho kho team

SCCTM

Make America Rock Again

Chin Up

Pullani

Thiolester

RedWarn

Magibon.com

Sridevi (upcoming film)

Kappi

Shady job

List of cameos of the Mario series

Târnavele Blaj

Templates and Modules

Miscellany

Deletion review

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.