Wikipedia:XfD today

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

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


Speedy deletion candidates[edit]

Candidates for speedy deletion
Capital punishment in the State of Palestine (disambiguation)
Myxocyprinus
User:Perspectivamrecords/sandbox
Template:Taxonomy/Pseudobangia corderoi
User:Togo Uniform/sandbox

Articles[edit]

< June 03 June 05 >

Purge server cache

The Lost Symbols[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BAND. Also, There are not enough sources to determine notability.

The ref used in the article is irrelevant to the page's subject. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 05:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of preserved Boeing aircraft[edit]

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

It duplicates the content on the main article pages. (e.g. Boeing 707) Dedicated aircraft on display articles are only created for single types when the list becomes too long for the main article. The list also includes pictures, which runs counter to the WikiProject:Aviation style guide.

Subsequent to the creation of this AfD, I discovered there is an additional article created by the same user at: List of preserved McDonnell Douglas aircraft. –Noha307 (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minotaur VI[edit]

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

Non-notable rocket model; I can't find sourcing beyond the company's website used now in the article. The blog used as the second source isn't a RS either. Delete for lack of sourcing, not meeting notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oaktree,
I will admit that yes, this article had a lack of sources. There are reputable secondary sources I used during edits of other Minotaur rockets that can be applicable here; I have since added those to the article. The spaceflight101 source is a data sheet from Spaceflight101, which is a now-defunct but otherwise reliable spaceflight news website. I did a little bit of digging just now and found that they have a whole encyclopedia of different launch vehicles (https://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/). The PDF I linked as a source is actually originally posted on this page: https://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/minotaur-v/. I personally find that to be a valuable secondary source, and I would expect other pages on that site to be useful for future edits of other launch vehicles.
As for the article's notability, I personally feel it's notable since Minotaur VI is still listed as available on Northrop Grumman's website and has capabilities that other Minotaurs do not have (i.e. can get payload to Mars). However I will say I may have bias as I created this article, so I am absolutely open to opinions from others regarding its usefulness. IanThePineapple (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scene description language[edit]

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

I can’t find any sources that discuss more than one scene description language in-depth, so this fails WP: NLIST. A PROD was removed on this article without any sourcing changes. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denice Zamboanga[edit]

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

An article on this mixed martial artist was deleted three years ago after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denice Zamboanga as failing to meet either mixed martial arts notability or general notability. At the time, there were also multiple drafts, probably because someone was trying to game the system. The originators were then blocked for sockpuppetry. This article does not differ materially from the deleted article. The subject still is not top-ten-ranked, and so does not meet mixed martial arts notability. The article does not speak for itself and explain how the subject meets general notability. The subject's association with the ONE Championship is now verified, but "so what?", participation in the ONE Championship is not grounds for notability. The article has been reference-bombed, but nothing in the article refers to significant coverage in an article that does not speak for itself. This article differs enough from the deleted article so that speedy deletion is not in order; but it does not differ enough from the deleted article to avoid deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western Canada Youth Parliament[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Nothing in Google news or books. Nothing when searching in cbc.ca. Only primary sources in plain Google search. LibStar (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Mbotela[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NJOURNALIST / WP:ANYBIO. BoraVoro (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Procedural keep per meeting at least some credible and keep...able input. There can be sources since the article somewhat meets inclusion by importance and source by few reliable source per WP:RS. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 09:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing lots of keep opinions from this editor on this day, and regrettably, most of them do not make sense. "Procedural keep per meeting at least some credible and keep...able input" is close to nonsense. "Somewhat meets inclusion by importance and source by few reliable source" is not a helpful or useful comment. Please state which sources are reliable and contribute towards notability. Geschichte (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after reading Geschichte's comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Smith (politician)[edit]

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

Neither being a county supervisor in a largely rural county of less than 100,000 people nor running for the US House of Representatives give automatic notability, and as far as I can tell she received only WP:ROTM local coverage throughout her career. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monastery Among the Temple Trees[edit]

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

Fails the requirements of WP:NBOOK, the work of a non-notable author. Has been tagged as such since Feb 2023 without any improvement. Was de-prodded without establishing how it was notable. Dan arndt (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find book reviews, or even very many sites to buy the book, further indications on non-notability. No coverage of any kind found. Nothing we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continenttimes.com[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Also see WP:NPERIODICAL. Further noting that this was previously deleted under a different name, see Contínent Times (digital newspaper). B3251 (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Ferrada[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Never held any office that makes them inherently pass NPOL and not enough sources to pass GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward J. Crawford[edit]

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

This page was first deleted in 2019 and despite being a WP:REFBOMB this new incarnation shows no additional evidence of notability under GNG or NBIO. Coverage is in school publications; WP:TRADES publications like local business journals and magazines (and without feature-length coverage that would permit the use of trade pubs to establish notability); self-published sources; or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs in longer lists of people. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article is highly promotional. I began checking the citations and only got through the first section, but a number fail validation or are not reliable sources (e.g. something he himself wrote). As it is, I cannot (yet?) find anything that would make him noteworthy. It will take work to cut the article down to the actual reliable sources, and then to ones that are significantly about him. My gut feeling is that there will not be significant sources, but it will take some time to figure that out. Lamona (talk) 05:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your assessment is incorrect. The 3 places you marked the page with [verification failed] were not accurate. 2 of the sources used this article, which you need to find his photo and click on it, and then a long bio will appear which verifies the info. Next you had an issue with source 11 freemannews.tulane.edu/, it partially verified the content, but the source 12, right after verifies everything. As far as being promotional, please feel free to revise it. Most of the article was written by me, but at least one other person has added to it. I am pretty certain that I didn't write anything promotional myself. Lionsonny (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of coverage exists. Here are the good sources:
Forthworth Inc - This article has significant coverage on him.
Travel Talk - Long article on him and his family
Hawkins Crawford - Article about his wedding and has a bio about him and his wife.
Forthworth Business - A good long paragraph of bio on him
tulane.edu - Article about his Tedx Talk. It is short, but the fact that he did a Ted talk should help with notability.
Book: In the Warlords' Shadow - This book contains a few paragraphs of info on him.
Voyage Dallas: This is an interview, but there is 3 paragraphs of intro about him that is not an interview, hence it should count towards notability.
texas.gov - A long paragraph of bio on him
Peace Corps Connect - Click on his image and you will see a long bio on him.

Based on all the above, significant coverage exists and he meets notability guidelines. Lionsonny (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lionsonny None of these sources is valid for establishing notability:
  • Fort Worth Inc is a WP:TRADES magazine, and only lengthy, in-depth features (not short news items like this one) from trade publications can be used to establish notability.
  • The "Travel Talk" article appears to be from a magazine called "University Park Life," which appears to be a real estate promotional product. (See example: https://issuu.com/daveperry-millerrealestate/docs/hea_carla_uplife_for_issuu). Furthermore, the PDF is hosted on the subject's own website! There is no way this can meet the standard of reliable and independent.
  • The wedding announcement can be used to verify facts but not to establish notability, since wedding announcements are generally supplied or based on data supplied by the couple and thus not independent.
  • Fort Worth Business - same trade publication issue noted above.
  • Tulane - source is not independent as it is his alma mater, plus it is a brief mention, not WP:SIGCOV
  • The book I cannot view, but if it's only a few paragraphs in a full book, that's unlikely to be considered significant coverage.
  • Voyage Dallas is an WP:INTERVIEW and thus a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and ineligible to count toward notability.
  • Texas.gov is a WP:PRESSRELEASE and thus a primary source.
  • The Peace Corps site is a short official bio, not a long one, but either way not an independent or secondary source.
As I said when nominating, this is a WP:REFBOMB trying to create an illusion of notability through sheer volume of sources, but as I show here, none of them passes the bar of notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going with Delete - due to lack of independent sources. The book has two nice paragraphs about him, but that is not enough to establish notability. The remainder are mainly local fluff pieces. The TedX talk does not establish notability - there have been hundreds/thousands of them and "TedX" is now a franchise. I find short bios that cannot be determined to be independent and a bunch of name checks. Although there are sources that state facts that are in the article, either they are not independent or are not sufficiently reliable. This person has done some interesting things so if a few reliable sources write significant and independent works about him, he could have a presence here. Lamona (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. based on presented citations above by Lionsonny, this person will meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. In particular, Forthworth Inc, Forthworth Business, Book: In the Warlords' Shadow, Peace Corps Connect and Voyage Dallas have good amount of coverage on him. Hkkingg (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The references presented by Lionsonny for GNG purposes have been disputed by two editors, and endorsed by another. Relisting for further analysis of these sources by other editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, same comment as Daniel.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ripple20[edit]

Ripple20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

is mostly copy and paste; not notable enough. most sources are notifications of the vulnerability under discussion Maccore Henni user talk Respond using tb, please. 16:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G12 104.7.152.180 (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't see how this is a copy/paste or copyvio. I created this page from multiple sources and the copyvio report shows that it is unlikely to be a copyright violation. Additionally, there is more information about this vulnerability now than when the page was first created, so I believe that it is still notable and the article can be expanded. —Ost (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Earwig only brought up 2 reverse-copies. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laniatus[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, no coverage to speak of. There's some confusing connection between this company and probably-notable HeroEngine, but I can't discern what it might be, and RS haven't covered it in any case. ~ A412 talk! 04:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hexaware Technologies[edit]

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

Tone seems improved but there does not seem to be any ORGCRIT eligible sources since the previous AFD. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The previous version was deleted in 2020. This is quite a different from previous. I can see here significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. And a listed company at National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange. MeltPees (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, if all you're going to do is past a few specific articles from draft to mainspace and then show up at several AFDs eventually you're going to attract scrutiny like an SPA. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for spamming. MER-C 09:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some sources are reliable but still do not help with notability, lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Wikipedia is not a business directory. RangersRus (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The last AFD discussion was in February 2020 and since then the company received several articles and stories such as this article in Bloomberg 1, the Hindu articles 2, 3 and 4 (which is considered a reliable source per WP:RSP), and this article from Reuters. More citations might haven't included in the 2020 previous page version such as The Hindu article 5 and the Reuters article 5. Rchardk (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rchardk, reliable is fine and all, and if that were the only criteria it could have been kept even back in 2020, but there are three others. Can you take a look at the rules for trivial, especially routine coverage or those for independence and tell me which of the sources you posted meet those? They seem like the usual announcements copied from press releases. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please assess new sources,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Splint (programming tool)[edit]

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

This was PRODed in 2012 but wasn't deleted for some reason (I can't find a de-PROD in the edit history). Independently, this article doesn't meet WP: N -- I can't find any reliable secondary sources about the subject. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, a Google Books search brings up plenty of coverage, e.g. here and here. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, the second source didn't have much coverage, here is a better example source. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the second and third sources you provided give in-depth coverage. The first one might, but Google Books cuts off the passage. The onus is on the person providing sources to show that a source covers a subject with enough depth to establish notability. Are you sure this article should be kept? HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As Raccoon demonstrates, It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers. —WP:NSOFT Aaron Liu (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Narayandas Laddha High School[edit]

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

I cant find any mention of this school in reliable secondary sources, fails notability requirements for school (WP:NSCHOOL). Ratnahastin (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Narayandas Laddha High School article does not provide enough reliable sources to demonstrate the school's notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Furthermore, the article lacks detailed, verifiable information and appears insufficiently comprehensive to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia.--Welcome to Pandora (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Reber[edit]

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

I found nothing that shows notability per WP:AUTHOR. SL93 (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I think her work on Blues Clues, Chicken soup for the teenage soul, and others targeting the youth market, are significant. Her work seems to be a positive input for that target audience. Her listings on the Authority Control Database indicates that her works are also of interest to audiences in countries beyond the United States. — Maile (talk) 04:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how that makes her pass the author guideline, or where the significance is without even one bit of significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Kurakin[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed without explanation. Not to be confused with Dmitry Kurakin, sociology professor at Yale University. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of stamp clubs and philatelic societies in the United States[edit]

List of stamp clubs and philatelic societies in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most likely fails WP:NLIST, consists of 60% red links. WP:NOTDIRECTORY also applies, and I didn't find WP:RS describing this list besides third-party directories. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed list of notified projects for AFD readability
  • Comment The links I clicked on had no references at all, or none that would count as reliable sources. Didn't check all of them. Dream Focus 19:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the listed clubs are local organizations which would be unlikely to satisfy the notability criteria of WP:ORG. Hence, this looks mostly like a directory, which Wikipedia isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This list is self-defining, and does not require extensive documentation. So far around twenty entries are individually notable, and the reasons suggested for deletion are not persuasive: 1) the number of redlinks is irrelevant; there is potential for expansion, and the list would be perfectly valid if the items were not linked, as long as it's possible to verify the existence of items that don't have their own articles; for this, third-party directories are fine. That said, some effort to document them is necessary, but fixing that is part of the normal editing process, not a valid reason for deletion. There is no deadline for locating sources.
2) none of the criteria of the cited WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply; this seems to be one of those policies that people cite because it sounds like it would apply, apparently without bothering to read and understand it. Specifically: this is not a "simple listing without contextual information"; the context is clearly given. It is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics; the items on the list are all closely connected by subject matter. It is not a cross-categorization. It has nothing to do with genealogy. It is not a program guide. It is not a business resource. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is about collections of information that have no encyclopedic value for readers; this list clearly has value. "This list is full of redlinks and doesn't have enough sources" is not a valid rationale for deletion. It's a reason to improve the list. P Aculeius (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P Aculeius, those are all very good points, thanks for pointing them out. However, you have not addressed how this list meets WP:NLIST, do you think you could explain how it would to justify a speedy keep, as the fact that the entries themselves are notable does not guaranty the list itself being notable? Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if hypothetically NLIST was not met (which I believe it is), WP:LISTPURP suggests that there would still be other grounds to keep.
As prodder and nom, you have not shown any evidence of having demonstrated WP:BEFORE due diligence. The plethora of Google results for searches like "stamp clubs in America" suggests that this was not done. It isn’t really the most GF behavior to simply, since the burden of proof generally lies with the “keep” side once process has begun, make a prod or AfD nomination without actually determining if there’s a prima facie case for a notability or verifiability challenge.
Sorry for the sharpness, but sometimes it’s necessary.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete I'm just not seeing this. The NY society's building is historic, but when you look at sources about these places, even the few with articles really don't seem notable. And anyway, what are the sources for this list? I'm looking at the listing from Linn's Stamp News, and it's far more complete and is up-to-date; it's also clear that most of the listings would never garner an article. I don't see the point of duplicating a not-very-useful subset of thei info (just the names), and once we go past that, we're in WP:NOTDIRECTORY territory. Mangoe (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BEFORE - while stamp collecting is not the huge hobby it was a couple of decades ago, there is a huge literature on such clubs. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. "There is a huge literature on such clubs"....it would help, of course, if examples were provided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BoOzy' OS and the Cristal Gem[edit]

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

This appears to fail WP:NFILM. This was a short film which was submitted to a 2013 Dailymotion contest connected with Annecy ("+ de courts"), but which did not win the judging ([3]). I can't find any mention of it in the archived Annecy web site, nor can I find any substantial coverage online, just a lot of entries in film databases and an unusual amount of media on Commons (for now, at least: c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by REDƎYE). Omphalographer (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Can't find any substantial coverage in secondary sources outside of a blog or two. Nowhere good to redirect to, it isn't mentioned in Annecy International Animation Film Festival and there's no article for the director. Odd that a French film has articles in 30 languages but not French. hinnk (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, it was in French Wikipedia but they deleted it years ago as non-notable. hinnk (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find many secondary sources on Google : a critic review in Romania, another in London (2023), an interview in Paris (2014), another in India (2023), etc. IMDB shows 1700 votes, 8 awards and 1 nomination. This seems to me to be very ample in terms of notoriety for a short film ^^ (note : I remember the AFD in FR in 2014 : at that time, there was not enough sources (only 1 interview I think) but with today awards and coverage, I think the article should be recreated in FR) --Supersonic888 (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not 8 but 10 wins, and not 1 but 4 nominations ^^ I just added "Critical response" and "accolades" sections with sources on the article. --Supersonic888 (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Interviews are primary sources that don't help meet the general notability guideline, those two reviews are both from sites that accept payment for reviews ([4][5][6]), and the World Film Carnival Singapore site you added to the article was running malware that immediately redirected me without even showing a review. Do you understand my concern when someone says a subject is very ample in terms of notoriety, with this as the evidence? hinnk (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm admittedly not an expert on the film industry, but most of those awards appear to be from monthly online competitions, not notable film festivals. For example, the "Rome International Movie Awards" is a blog which issues dozens of awards to amateur films every month. Omphalographer (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not an expert on the film industry either but it seems they paid for participating in festivals, not for reviews or awards. I didn't have any problem for visiting the World Film Carnival site (no malware for me) ^^
    The fact that it is an amateur film (if it is one? I don't know) does not seem to me to be a criterion for deletion: we are talking about notoriety and I believe that this point is respected, internationally (I add that on Commons there are photos showing the director with trophies at these festivals in Asia, which also shows international distribution).
    If we look at Category:2013 animated short films and IMDB (when available):
    • Aruvu Rezuru: Kikaijikake no Yōseitachi = 23 votes
    • Backward Run = 77 votes, 1 win & 3 nominations
    • The Blue Umbrella (2013 film) = 11000 votes, 1 nomination, 17 critics (Pixar)
    • A Boy and His Atom = 454 votes, 1 critic
    • The Chaperone 3D = 90 votes, 7 wins & 4 nominations, 1 critic
    • Death Billiards = 2100 votes, 2 critics
    • The End of Pinky = 51 votes, 2 nominations, 3 critics
    • Game Over (2013 film) = 0 vote
    • Get a Horse! = 5600 votes, 2 wins & 2 nominations, 20 critics (Mickey)
    • Gloria Victoria = 137 votes, 1 win & 7 nominations, 5 critics
    • Hollow Land = 58 votes, 8 wins & 3 nominations, 1 critic
    • Impromptu (2013 film) = 28 votes, 1 nomination, 1 critic
    • Kick-Heart = 1000 votes, 1 wins & 3 nominations, 9 critics
    • Mary & Myself = 16 votes, 1 nomination
    • The Missing Scarf = 468 votes, 15 wins & 5 nominations, 4 critics
    • Missing U (film) = 26 votes
    • Mr Hublot = 5200 votes, 6 wins & 2 nominations, 14 critics
    • Party Central = 3700 votes (Disney Pixar)
    • The River's Lazy Flow = 11 votes, 1 win & 1 nomination
    • The Scarecrow (2013 film) = 248 votes, 5 wins
    • The Smurfs: The Legend of Smurfy Hollow = 986 votes, 1 nomination, 13 critics (The Smurfs)
    • Subconscious Password = 198 votes, 3 wins & 5 nominations, 4 critics
    • Toy Story of Terror! = 18000 votes, 6 wins & 10 nominations, 31 critics (Disney Pixar)
    This is to show that with 1700 votes it has more votes than most other films, even more than The Smurfs. Only 6 blockbuster films have more votes (Disney Pixar, Mickey, etc).
    To me, all this is significant in terms of notoriety even though one could still argue that some votes could be rigged. Supersonic888 (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User votes on IMDb are not in any way, shape, or form a measure of notability (nor "notoriety"). Omphalographer (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, and that's not what I'm basing it on here (I just point this out, in addition to my remarks), but it's an interesting indicator ^^ Supersonic888 (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sources are fine with me and the notoriety seems sufficient to me, with good worldwide coverage. However, some festivals mentioned are a bit light (Morocco Fest and Oregon Film Festival: there is only one primary source). The article seems acceptable to me on Wikipedia in French as well --CineDany (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Convinced by the arguments, sources ok for me. The only point that would make me hesitate would be the film’s absence from major review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. --SuperKFuu (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not impressed by the quality of the sources; this seems to fail the notability guidelines. There's a concerted effort by the creators to prop up the work across Wikimedia projects but the coverage just isn't there. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have several less experienced editors participating here and I urge them to review Wikipedia:Notability (films) which is Wikipedia's guideline on how to judge notability regarding films and it doesn't include consideration by IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes. The nominator pointed out this page but I don't think some editors here are familiar with it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Based on the references that have been added, I put together a quick source assessment to evaluate where we are now. It seems to me like WP:GNG has still not been reached. hinnk (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table: prepared by User:hinnk
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
IMDb Yes No WP:IMDB ? ✘ No
C2S Network No Press kit No Yes ✘ No
Dailymotion contest Yes ? No Just the title listed as a contest winner, although "More infos" section lists a different winner ✘ No
AllMovie Yes ~ WP:ALLMUSIC, AllMovie ratings seem unreliable since they're included even on upcoming/lost films No Mostly facts imported from Wikidata, otherwise just the numerical rating ✘ No
World Film Carnival Singapore ? ? ? Dead link, failed verification, Internet Archive page is also empty ? Unknown
Monkey Bread Tree ~ No Offers coverage as a paid service Yes ✘ No
fiffest ~ No Offers coverage as a paid service Yes ✘ No
Paris à contre-jour No Interview ? ? Dead link, failed verification ✘ No
Oniros Film Awards Yes ? No Just the title listed ✘ No
Sea & Beach Film Festival Yes ? No Just the title listed ✘ No
Druk International Film Festival Yes ? No Just the title listed ✘ No
World Film Carnival Singapore Yes ? No Just the title listed ✘ No
Cult Critic Movie Awards Yes ? No Just the title listed ✘ No
Rome International Movie Awards Yes ? No Just the title listed ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Delete: The film is not notable per our standards. Little to no coverage in .fr sources, this is the best [7], it's basically a listing akin to the imdb. The awards won are not notable (none from notable film festivals), nor can I find confirmation of the Annecy win (the source used, Dailymotion, is not reliable). Annecy is a big deal in France, and the fact that zero media there have covered it is proof of non-notability. Here's the search [8] in Gnews, looking for sources from France: listings for kombucha drinks and other kinds of nonsense, completely unrelated ot this film. Oaktree b (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here's the French wiki deletion discussion from 2015: [9]... The sources found were the films sponsors, none of which were in French either. Oaktree b (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files[edit]

File:AmazingSpider-ManAnnual22.png[edit]

File:AmazingSpider-ManAnnual22.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DrBat (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is already non-free media representing this character in this costume in this article. No need for another. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Speedball and Hummingbird from New Warriros Vol 2 Issue 12.png[edit]

File:Speedball and Hummingbird from New Warriros Vol 2 Issue 12.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MarioHerald (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Plenty of non-free media on this page already. No need for more. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cake rarities.jpg[edit]

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

Virtually identical to standard cover. Not needd. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Firelei Báez[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Contains only two non-free files and not even the main article Firelei Báez. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indian music series[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coke Studio (franchise)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Probably unnecessary disambiguation. This is missing a parent article about the franchise as a whole, or the original Brazilian series. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:IK Sirius Fotboll seasons[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Single-article uncategorized category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Galician animated films[edit]

Nominator's rationale: In accordance with Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_3#Category:Galician_films. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Higher Walton F.C. players[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Uncategorized, single-article category for a defunct football club without a topic category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PAW Patrol (franchise)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Uncategorized duplicate category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Members of the League of Women Voters[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Simple membership in the League of Women Voters is non-defining. User:Namiba 15:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many siblings contain (just) activists, which is much more defining than membership. We might rename and purge this one as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on renaming and purging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

2025 United Kingdom general election[edit]

Redirect was originally set up as a redirect to Next United Kingdom general election at a time when it could have been held in either 2024 or 2025. Now that it has been announced that the next election will be held in 2024 and with the United Kingdom having five year terms, it is very unlikely there will be a 2025 election. Propose deleting. Broanetar (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gastrosexual[edit]

Not mentioned. Retarget to wikt:gastrosexual if there's no mention anywhere else. --MikutoH talk! 04:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history of Gastrosexuality?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Population 0[edit]

Does not appear at the target. Only mention I could find is on Wiktionary at wikt:frozen star. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment would this be a plausible synonym for Population Zero? --Lenticel (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm quite skeptical one that stuff since it does make some sense but barely anyone really does it. Okmrman (talk) 02:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "0" and "Zero" could be searched either way. Unless someone actually sees the logo of them they are unlikely to know which uses which term and even still they may assume we always use numbers or letters. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Appears to be a speculative term for a future star population, but couldn't find any published research on it. "Population 0" was mentioned once as a synonym for Population III stars, but this could stem from a misreading of this paper calling them "Zero-population stars". Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 19:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate there is also Aftermath: Population Zero so maybe Population Zero should be a DAB. I used to use "Population Zero" to get to Aftermath: Population Zero and suddenly found a different article there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak disambiguate per Crouch's findings (and also maybe this is gallows humor but the first thing I thought of was Extinction or especially Human extinction, so that should be added as well). Duckmather (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes Extinction and Human extinction should be included on the DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - There are enough potential targets that a DAB would be worthwhile. I don't find this an implausible search string either. Fieari (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Population Zero. The disambiguation arguments should really be at a RM for that article. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules[edit]

Miscellany[edit]

Deletion review[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:XfD_today&oldid=1222059439"