Jump to content

Wikipedia:XfD today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:XfD Today)

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


Speedy deletion candidates

[edit]

Articles

[edit]

Purge server cache

K Prakash Shetty (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 businessman fails WP:NBIO, WP:GNG, likely WP:PROMO. The sourcing is primarily WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS and/or unbylined articles from WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources. He ran unsuccessfully for India's upper house of parliament, which turned up results in the WP:BEFORE search, but consensus is that unsuccessful candidates do not qualify as notable based on routine campaign coverage. He also fails WP:ANYBIO #1, as the Rajyotsava Prashasti is given to several dozen people annually and is not likely to be the kind of award like a Nobel or Oscar that makes someone instantly notable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of pre-nominal letters (Sweden) (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 sign of Notability. ––kemel49(connect)(contri) 16:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is currently no consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bengaluru City Police (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)

Filled with primary sources and fluff. A few secondary sources go to dead links. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like the Karnataka Police, this may be a case of presumed notability where the article needs massive work but the subject is notable given this police force covers a city of 8M+ people. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 21:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rammstein Festival Tour 2017 (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:NTOUR, article relies on primary sources. मल्ल (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Redirect and also because no Redirect target article was identified here. Please always do with with Merge and Redirect arguments in the future.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirous Ahmadi (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)

2 google news hits and nothing in Google Books. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Being an immigration consultant hardly adds to notability. LibStar (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ottoman mosques in İzmir (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 links to 5 articles enough for a list? If so I think the mosques without articles should be cited Chidgk1 (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like this will likely close as Merge but is there a preference for a Merge target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton Wilborn (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 WP:SUSTAINED notability here. Amigao (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article that was previously soft-deleted at AFD due to limited participation, and was then WP:REFUNDed following a request by its creator, but has not actually seen any further improvement to actually address the reasons why it was deleted in the first place: it's still not properly referenced as passing Wikipedia inclusion criteria for this type of topic.
Things like this might be valid article topics if they were well-referenced, but are not "inherently" notable just because they exist -- but except for one "article" (really just a reprint of a press release) in Canadian Architect magazine, this is otherwise still referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as content self-published by the city and content self-published by the Ontario Association of Architects, with not a single new source having been added since the refund to strengthen its notability at all.
We already have articles about many of the individual buildings involved here, which can already cover off virtually any content we would actually need about this, but the "master plan" itself would need much better sourcing than this to become notable enough for its own standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Well, it never went anywhere... [1]. I can confirm the Superstack is being torn down (I have family in Sudbury, so hear about it from time to time), but this "master plan" was really only ever a big idea. Downtown still looks exactly the same as it did before the Plan happened, and nothing has happened since it was "dusted off" in the article above. If you want to add a few lines to the main Sudbury article, that's fine... Ten plus years on, this thing never happened, so I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD before, not eligible for Soft Deletion again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Pangal (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)

Contested BLAR so bringing it to AfD with a proposal for a consensus redirect to Deccani–Vijayanagar_wars#Qutb_Shahi-Vijayanagara_conflicts. I don't see sufficient WP:SIGCOV of this event in reliable, independent sources for a standalone page per WP:GNG. The sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS (paragraph or less in full-length books) of this battle. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Brown (pregnant man) (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 feel like this is a BLP1E. This person doesn't seem to have been notable before they got pregnant, and the only coverage is of their appearance on a magazine cover. Valereee (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shelter3: you voted twice --FMSky (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second was a response to you really. Not sure how I would've updated my first vote. Don't assume the worst! Shelter3 (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of this comment speaks to notability as defined by Wikipedia. There are thousands of people who are activists, social workers, or authors who are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia page. To overcome the WP:BLP1E issue, we need reliable sources with significant coverage in a context beyond the pregnancy. Astaire (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 17:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NOTDATABASE. EF5 16:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Austin City Council District 2 (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)

Individual city council districts like this aren't usually notable, perhaps a merge to the main article on the Austin City Council would be suitable, a discussion on the Austin City Council District 1 ended with consensus to merge. -Samoht27 (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Austin City Council District 10 (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)

Individual city council districts aren't usually notable. Feels WP:MILL. -Samoht27 (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Autons don't appear to have standalone notability from the parent series. The current sources used in the article, and the bulk of SIGCOV, are from unreliable sources like Looper and Doctor Who TV. The bulk of coverage I could find via searching was primarily from reviews, which do not indicate notability individual of their parent episodes, and unreliable sources like WhatCulture. Additionally, the House of Lords statement, while relevant, is only part of their wider statement on Terror of the Autons, which is what actually caused the discussion in the first place. The Autons were only discussed as an aspect of the episode that was scary, with other aspects of the episode being discussed in equal measure. This whole statement confers notability to Terror of the Autons, not the Autons themselves, as notability is not inherited from the parent subject here.

A search through News turned up one SyFy hit, but this boiled down to a brief plot summary with a declaration of "These guys are scary", which is nowhere near significant coverage. https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/chosen-one-of-the-day-autons-in-doctor-who A search through Books and Scholar yielded nothing, though admittedly the results were muddied by concepts of autonomy and people with the name of Auton, even with specifiers like "Doctor Who." The coverage here is minimal and very little SIGCOV exists, and what info on their development we have is better covered as part of a wider article. An AtD to the "Nestene" section of List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens would suffice, as the Nestenes are the creatures who created the Autons, and the Autons serve basically as their lackeys, and are closely related enough in-universe to where they should be covered together. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milaf Cola (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)

There is nothing to indicate that the subject is notable. This is a brazen advertisement for a 1 week-old (!) cola brand produced by the Saudi government. The sources are all garbage and they all read like sponsored content. Thenightaway (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL quarterbacks by teams beaten (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 pass WP:NLIST from my perspective, and comes across as WP:Fancruft/trivia. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Twenty20 (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)
2010 Caribbean Twenty20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010–11 Caribbean Twenty20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2011–12 Caribbean Twenty20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2012–13 Caribbean Twenty20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources for any of these articles; all of them fail WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, nominated the season articles. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lone Tree, Indiana (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)

Baker actually describes this as a post office spot which moved, which is a classic 4th class PO thing. No, it doesn't mean that everyone pulled up stakes and moved; it just means that the original postmaster stopped handling the mail, and someone somewhere else took over. As usual I'm finding scant evidence for an actual town. Mangoe (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Maldivian Engineers (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 notability of this association and no public information about it. Closest thing available was the "Association of Civil Engineers Maldives" Unilandofma(Talk to me!) 11:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2021–22 Women's T20 Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
Women's T20 Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage for a separate season article; should be merged back to the parent article. Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources for both articles; both fail WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nominated Women's T20 Cup also. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Boyd's Eurobin Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NHIST due to lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Relies on local accounts and primary materials, with no in-depth analysis, making it non-notable per WP:RS. Primarily of regional interest without broader historical significance. Nxcrypto Message 11:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Editors,
Thank you for reviewing the page for Boyd's Eurobin Hotel. I would like to provide additional context and justification for why this page should remain on Wikipedia. Below are several points addressing the concerns cited in the deletion proposal:
1. Historical Significance to the Region
Boyd's Eurobin Hotel is historically significant as one of the key social and logistical hubs in northeastern Victoria during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It served as:
A halfway stop for travellers between the important regional centres of Myrtleford and Bright, contributing to the region’s transportation and economic development during the coaching era.
A gathering place for political events, community meetings, and significant public addresses, as documented in multiple historical articles from the Ovens and Murray Advertiser.
While the hotel itself no longer exists, its historical role provides insights into the development of regional Victoria during a formative period, which aligns with the purpose of Wikipedia to preserve knowledge, particularly for places that have evolved significantly or no longer exist in their original form.
2. Reliable Sources and References
The article is based entirely on reliable, independent secondary sources, specifically reputable newspapers from the time such as:
The Ovens and Murray Advertiser, a well-regarded regional publication that extensively documented events, businesses, and social life in the area.
The Yackandandah Times and The Age, providing corroborating accounts of the hotel's role in the local economy and its broader community impact.
These are historical records, which, by their nature, provide the most comprehensive and legitimate sources of information about a hotel from the 19th century. Dismissing these sources as merely "local accounts" underestimates their value as the principal historical records of the time.
3. Importance of Preserving Regional History
The page contributes to the documentation of Victoria’s regional history, complementing related pages on Eurobin, St. Clement's Church Eurobin, and the Eurobin Presbyterian Church. Together, these articles create a cohesive narrative about a once-thriving hamlet. Removing this page would leave a significant gap in understanding Eurobin’s history.
Wikipedia is often the first and only resource for regional and niche history. Deleting this page would undermine the platform’s role as a repository for diverse historical content, especially for subjects that are less well-known but still meaningful to specific regions or communities.
4. Meets Wikipedia’s Notability Guidelines for History
The article satisfies WP:NHIST by:
Establishing the hotel’s role in regional historical events, such as being a venue for political campaigns, community gatherings, and a recovery site for injured travellers.
Providing multiple, independent sources that verify the hotel's importance in its historical context.
While the subject might not have broad national or global appeal, Wikipedia policies allow for regional notability. Boyd’s Eurobin Hotel represents a significant chapter in the development of northeastern Victoria, a region rich in history but underrepresented on the platform.
5. Broader Educational Value
The page serves as an example of how small, local institutions contributed to the larger social and economic fabric of Australia during the 19th century. It adds depth to the broader historical understanding of transportation, community hubs, and rural development in Victoria.
Conclusion
I respectfully request that the page be retained, as it:
Is thoroughly referenced with reliable secondary sources.
Provides significant historical value to the Eurobin area and northeastern Victoria.
Contributes to a richer understanding of Australia’s regional history.
I am happy to address any specific points of concern and welcome suggestions for improving the page further to meet Wikipedia’s standards.
Sincerely,
blackcatsx Blackcatsx (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, are any of the sources used available online and if so can you please link them? It's unclear if any of this news coverage is substantial coverage. One of the sources is "Found: A young boar pig" and another is just "Accident", so these seem to be local news briefs, not deeper substance. If the hotel is historically significant to warrant an article, I would expect retrospective histories to provide coverage, not only contemporary news articles. You say this region is "underrepresented on the platform", but it appears that's because it's underrepresented in history books, and WP:PRIMARY sources are insufficient for an article here. To be clear, being "a recovery site for injured travellers" or a venue for "community gatherings" is not a basis for notability, there are a billion such places. You say "venue for political campaigns" with plural, yet only a single event by a non-notable candidate is mentioned – There's a lot of candidates who go a lot of places but that doesn't make them notable! The owner being a secretary for a church either – not necessarily an "integral role" for even the community, much less the "region", as claimed – is irrelevant to the hotel's claim to notability, especially if only being your claim based on his archived letters rather than a historian saying so. "The property is often mentioned in the context of the town's historical significance" really couches the fact that the town generally is what's notable, not a hotel there – Eurobin#History would be a better place for this. "The establishment was a hub of activity, reflecting its importance within the Eurobin community" is not sourced. "A recurring theme in historical records" would be WP:Original research – you reviewed the records, not a historian in a published source. Besides that this section has just one source that doesn't support "recurring" or "articles", why would anyone now care that the hotel had an employee who did her job? "Its role as a community hub, coaching stop, and post office has left an indelible mark on the history of Eurobin." If it's so indelible, why aren't there any more modern sources that say so? "Today, Boyd's Eurobin Hotel exists only in historical records and memories." I think anyone with memories of it is dead now. Reywas92Talk 15:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The equivalent of a telephone book listing [15] is about all I found for sourcing. Based on the long explanation above, this could potentially be notable, but we need sourcing with links to the documents if possible. I just don't see notability at this time. Oaktree b (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kamand Amirsoleimani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, as no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources is available to establish notability. IMDb and MUBI are not reliable sources (WP:USERG). Nxcrypto Message 10:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sahara Elite League (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)

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources; Fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

East African Premier League (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)

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources; Fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shajaan Muaz Shaheem (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)

Subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, lacks more reliable sources. I don't think greatbusinessexchange.co.uk and open.endole.co.uk are reliable sources. Plus, being a wife of an MP doesn't make the person notable. The article has only one sentence. Also, Secretary General of the organization is just a normal job and isn't a notable position. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 10:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I updated most of the cites which was cleared out from the article while someone else edited it and also found resources on Mary Robinson climate justice award and one young world too, but as its not my targeted development I haven't put any of this and just cited and it was deleted, concentrating mostly on the attacks concerning the subject during her pregnancy which related to the parliamentarian and his tenure as that develops. NormadicEditor (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://avas.mv/108984 https://ras.mv/post/13249https://dhen.mv/94568https://dhauru.com/post/news/1702https://feshun.mv/128075https://adhadhu.com/article/12638https://dhen.mv/33092https://ras.mv/post/17564https://sangu.mv/33077/https://www.furathama.com/2698/https://www.furathama.com/2698/https://feshun.mv/131777https://cnm.mv/news/19111https://mihaaru.com/news/81675https://mihaaru.com/news/81675https://staging.mihaaru.com/news/99461https://adhadhu.com/article/12638https://avas.mv/101312https://avas.mv/101312https://dhauru.com/post/news/1702https://dhiyares.com/30822https://www.furathama.com/2698/https://dhauru.com/post/news/1681https://sun.mv/158306https://sun.mv/158306https://mihaaru.com/news/81675https://www.psmnews.mv/87258https://sun.mv/158320https://cnm.mv/news/34477https://cnm.mv/news/34477https://ramazan.mihaaru.com/ramazan/99436https://en.sun.mv/67112https://english.sun.mv/69969https://en.thepress.mv/13387
So this article was actually being developed due to these, I understand the positions mentioned doesn't make the person notable,( I didn't have much information on the individual than those three positions to describe the lead) but the saga surrounding these cites was the main notability of the article, because this subjected to life threatening circumstances also due to it immense coverage and by news platforms. NormadicEditor (talk) 11:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All those citations are about the couple's marriage, "MP Haitham has married", and the couple receiving a attack. That doesn't mean the wife is notable. Notability is on what the person has done. Eg: A notable job, a profession, occupation etc.. The article could be made a redirect to her husband's article "Ahmed Haitham" instead and make a "Personal life" section. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that’s exactly what I was trying to express but wasn’t sure how to phrase it. I even considered whether Wikipedia has a personal template on another’s data page or something similar. The subject has notable positions but non was on the news articles but mostly on edu websites and academia which doesn't qualify for the wiki guidelines and the feline welfare part I concentrated due to the huge media coverage surrounding the organisation and its notable work for stray cats, Could you also help me with creating a redirect article? I’m not very familiar with the process. Thanks again for all your help! :) NormadicEditor (talk) 12:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I finally figured out how the redirect works! Wikipedia has been a bit tricky for me (clearly, I need to ditch my jour-no habits). Thanks for teaching me something new today , you’re a true Wikipedia mentor! Now, what should we do with the delete template? NormadicEditor (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
58 Seconds (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:NFILM; there's nothing from a cursory search to also substantiate notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keely Shaye Smith (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)

Notable mainly for being Pierce Brosnan's wife. However, notability is not inherited. All reliable references to her exist because she is Pierce Brosnan's wife.

Fails notability guideline WP:JOURNALIST --LK (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Wikipedia page for IIMUN (India's International Movement to Unite Nations) does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria as outlined in the General Notability Guidelines (GNG). While the organization claims widespread activity and recognition, the sources cited are primarily self-published or lack significant, reliable secondary coverage in independent publications. The majority of the references either originate from IIMUN itself, social media posts, or promotional material, which are insufficient to establish notability. Furthermore, the achievements mentioned, such as organizing large-scale conferences and initiatives like "Find a Bed," fail to receive substantial and consistent coverage from reputable third-party sources over a significant period. Without verifiable, independent, and non-trivial coverage, the subject cannot be deemed notable under Wikipedia's policies. Therefore, the article does not merit inclusion and should be considered for deletion. Likehumansdo (talk) 09:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Der Herr wird dich mit seiner Güte segnen (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:NSONG. Possibly could redirect to Helmut Schlegel. Polyamorph (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article is largely based on 4 sources about her being "awarded the US Presidential Lifetime Achievers Award (Presidential Volunteer Service Award) (PVSA) by American President Joe Biden." This is apparently only reported in Nigerian sources, not in any official source, and she isn't listed on the official list[16]. The award is apparently only intended for "U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents", so not for a Nigerian in France. If the sources have this basic fact, the premisse for the articles, wrong, then they aren't reliable sources to start with but just repeating something spoonfed by the subject or someone trying to promote them. Fram (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete I've just done a deep dive into this. The President's Volunteer Service Award has various grades, and is given to numerous people every year, and is not generally notable. Only at the highest level, people receiving the the President's Call to Service Award (also called the "President's Lifetime Achievement Award"), may be notable for receiving the award. But even that is doubtful, as recipients are usually notable already in their own right. In any case, it's pretty clear that Martina Ononiwu did not receive the President's Call to Service Award, as there are no US-based notable sources testifying to this. A search for the name "Martina Ononiwu" is the news sources yields nothing except Nigerian news sources stating that she was given the President's Lifetime Achievement Award. It is highly unlikely that a person would be honored with the President's Lifetime Achievement Award, without leaving any sort of trace in the news sources. --LK (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Appears to be a HOAX based on the fact that USA sources mention nothing about the awards. I don't see notability otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : The article fails to meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline WP:GNG as it solely focuses on a single event without providing significant coverage of the topic. The subject's notability is questionable, given the award by the United States, despite being based in France with Nigerian origins. There is no international media coverage, with most coverage coming from Nigerian local and national dailies. This lack of international coverage and reliance on local publications gives the impression that the article may be sponsored or promotional in nature, further undermining its notability.Royalesignature (talk). 17:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this [[17]] does not list her, nor this [[18]], so this at least appears to be false. Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noventi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. The notability requirements for companies is much higher now. Article seems to be created by COI user. Imcdc Contact 09:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Dhabi T20 Trophy (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)

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources; Fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 09:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Share Insurance (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)

Actually not meeting NCORP; I did we before however it did not help. NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armed Forces Insurance (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 did wp before, but was not able to locate reliable sources meeting NCORP. Ready to withdraw the nomination if the reliable sources are found and added NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

R&R Insurance Services (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 pass NCORP criteria NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 08:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Mangione (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 fail to see the notability of the father of the shooter in the Brian Thompson killing. Being the father alone does not grant such notability, and the enterprises Louis Mangione is head of were also created the same time and day this article was, by the same user. The known for is also a bit egregious, "known for being the heir to the Mangione family fortune". I don't think much of anyone before two days ago even knew the Mangione family fortune existed. union! 08:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is irrelevant who created the article, why, or when. What matters is whether the subject is notable and whether there are reliable sources attesting to that. Based on that argument, you could have also nominated Nicholas Mangione for deletion, but you opted not to. Prior to recent events, Louis Mangione was mentioned by the Baltimore Sun here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here and by the Washington Post here, here, here, here, here, and here. He served as Vice President of Mangione Family Enterprises for decades and is now the head of the Mangione family fortune. All of that demonstrates his notability in the local business community. His son's recent actions simply shine further coverage on the family, which has been covered amply by the Baltimore and Washington, D.C. press for decades. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 09:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bohemian Baltimore.-🐦DrWho42👻 10:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why delete information? 2600:1702:540:6BF0:4403:38E5:2AA8:F46C (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because WP:NOTEVERYTHING Geschichte (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I went through every single one of Bohemian Baltimore's sources, and not a one of them is about Mangione; they are all about real-estate controversies loosely involving a Mangione property, with one or two brief quotes from Mangione sprinkled in. As for the references in the article, references 2 and 8 are the only ones I'd consider SIGCOV, and they are only talking about this individual in the context of the shooting. The article is a hybrid WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERITED violation. Clearly this individual is not notable beyond the events of the past week. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WeirdNAnnoyed - Wikipedia:Notability says that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: So he's a buisnessman with a son that says he did bad things, not proven in court yet. If this was brought up to AfD six months ago, we'd delete it. Same reasoning applies, his business enterprise is not notable, he's only being talked about because of his son. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the analysis by WeirdNAnnoyed and my own at the sources, which do not include significant coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentIt is irrelevant who created the article, why, or when. I'd say when the article was created is critical here. When other editors invoke "the sum total of human knowledge" in reference to this project and I poke holes in their arguments large enough to drive a 747 through, there's a reason why it's met with denial and suppression. There's far more to "the sum total of human knowledge" than parroting the agenda of the legacy media and writing about little else. If BB's laundry list of sources going back decades really meant anything, then I shouldn't be looking at an article that's only about 12 hours old. Wikipedia repeatedly shows its lack of credibility by newly creating biographies as a reaction to the subject's death, when the real world saw the person as notable decades ago. In addition to the WP:WHATEVER invoked by WeirdNAnnoyed above, there's also WP:COATRACK. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WeirdNAnnoyed. I also did my own research on Newspapers.com to see if there were any articles from The Baltimore Sun about Mangione himself, as there were about his father, and could only find articles about his proposed real-estate developments, in which he is mentioned one or two times and not as the primary subject. Y2hyaXM (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. The only reason the family or family friend has requested deletion is because they’re worried about their reputation. The public should know about anyone running a “family enterprise” …especially when their ultra-privileged offspring murders a man who came from a rural, working-class family and worked for over 20 years to make CEO with a bachelors degree from a state school. If that isn’t ironic enough, the CEO made far less money than his own parents. There is a nation-wide conversation about wealth right now, and the Mangione’s shouldn't get to opt out. 2600:1008:B218:2C3F:F0FA:33BB:D96D:23E5 (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: Mangiones 2600:1008:B218:2C3F:F0FA:33BB:D96D:23E5 (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That man wasn't known a week ago, and appears to have a rather ho-hum business career, that's not quite notable for here. Oaktree b (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it funny how here I'm accused of being related to the Mangiones. I have absolutely no relation to him, nor do I know any of his family. He is simply not relevant enough to be on the site, as users WeirdNAnnoyed and RadioKAOS have articulated far better than I can. union! 05:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Well, he just hired a posh, well-known NY attorney to represent his son who murdered someone. I say he’s about to be more notable than he was before. Perhaps we should give it a few weeks. 108.160.192.62 (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Bohemian Baltimore. He clearly has has significant coverage. However, there is precedent from 2007 that this article could still be deleted to protect individuals only tangentially connected with a major crime; the subject made a direct appeal to Jimbo Wales, and then not only was the article deleted and salted, but the two AfDS were memory holed. Bearian (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Oaktree b. This likely fails notability. Especially as most, if not all notability, is because of Luigi - not Louis or his career. Synorem (talk) 11:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. EF5 15:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, several reliable sources cover Louis. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bohemian Baltimore, he's notable for reasons other than his son killing some big CEO. KmartEmployeeTor (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Idek mann (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was on the fence about this one, but as time goes on there are more sources being added that support his relevancy outside of his son.Thief-River-Faller (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Yes, there are reliable sources, and what they reliably show is that he's a reasonably successful business person of no particular note except for that son of his, whose notoriety he does not inherit. And yes, the timing does matter, because two decades of lack of interest in him here is already evidence for his lack of notability. Look if the Sun or someone were to put up a profile of him that would be a stronger argument, but when you compare his article to his father's, the paucity here is really very obvious. Mangoe (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Bohemian Baltimore OsageOrange (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is a lot of voting going on here (both ways) but little actual consideration of the sources. Bohemian Baltimore gave just two sources: The Baltimore Sun (which irritatingly presents different content in Europe to what Americans see, requiring a bit of trickery to review) and the Washington Post. Multiple articles from a single source count as one towards GNG, but that is moot because, as has already been pointed out by WeirdNAnnoyed, none of these sources count towards GNG, because none have significant coverage on Mangione. I'll take just one example: The idea is to preserve the golf courses and develop a mixed-use community around it with as much green space as possible," said Louis Mangione, "[etc.]"[19]. WP:SIGCOV requires that coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail The topic here is Mangione, and this coverage does not address him as the topic at all. Sources are required to give us something to write the page from. There is literally nothing there that we can say about Mangione. That source provides us nothing at all. It is not SIGCOV. And no, we can't use his spoken words because those are primary and not independent. Bohemian Baltimore quotes the guidance that the mention does not need to be the main topic of the source material and that is true, but it must still be significant. There is nothing we can say about Mangione from these sources. They do not meet GNG. None of them. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Run of the mill business person, does not meet WP:GNG, notablity is not inherited. Orange sticker (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sirfurboy’s reasoning. While Louis Mangione has popped up in many Baltimore/DC newspaper articles over the years, the articles typically only provide the bare minimum amount of information about Mangione needed for the reader to understand his relevancy to the main article topic. These are trivial mentions, not significant coverage. The only meaningfully in-depth coverage about Mangione comes from articles about his son and father (who does actually have some significant coverage pre-dating the shooting). I don’t believe that a large number of trivial mentions and some inherited notability is enough to meet GNG. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per @Bohemian Baltimore AverageWikiContributor (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I put this as a reply. AverageWikiContributor (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OOPS* Can someone delete this? I don't know how; AverageWikiContributor (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your duplicate per your request and left this one in place as requested here [20]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. But at this point, I'm leaning Delete. I think those argue for Deletion have made the argument that aside from his son's alleged crimes, he is a run-of-the-mill businessman. There are only a few sources used in the article but a source assessment and whether or not they provide SIGCOV would be useful right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Universe 2015 (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:EVENT or WP:GNG. Furthermore, this Teen Universe competition does not have its own standalone article, suggesting limited notability for the event series as a whole. - The9Man Talk 08:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:GNG, the fact that no other article for this event except this one raises some eyebrows. Madeline1805 (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Express Media Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of WP:NOTABILITY (if it still exists). I've just fixed about half a dozen incoming links intended for the Pakistani organisation of the same name. I suggest moving the Pakistani org to this name, and creating a redirect from Express Media Group (Australia) to the 4WD article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I've just discovered that Express Media Group (Pakistan) is actually just a redirect, not an article. So I suggest just making Express Media Group a redirect to the same article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hougang knife attack (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)

Classic case of WP:NOTNEWS—it's a tragedy for sure but there's been zero demonstration of any lasting significance... KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 07:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I thought that this made the headlines quite a lot and considering it also was reported in Malaysian and Vietnamese newspapers and not just from the local one. Plus, I also felt that in view of Singapore's low crime rate, it is not common to have such spree stabbings happen in the public where more than one victim is stabbed. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And to sideline for Comment, I might need to clarify how some shocking cases can be kept in Wikipedia when they just happen, like the River Valley High School attack and mass shootings like the Charleston Church shooting, but others of such standard need to be deleted and later recreated on Wikipedia? What standards do I need to follow to ensure it can be kept? (I am pretty sure the coverage is not a problem here.) NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 09:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every incident/article has to be assessed on its own merits. You are right that there's lots of coverage for this murder but it remains to be seen how enduring the coverage will be. I strongly urge you to better exercise your discretion (or consult others if you really can't tell). Please refrain from rushing to create an article for every single murder in the country as soon as it occurs—it's just not necessary. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 03:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's remember what the purpose of Wikipedia is and why we are writing all these articles. It would be better not to rush into writing an article as soon as the incident happens. The RVHS attack is a unique case as it happened inside a school, and from this detail alone, we can see right from the beginning that the case will have lasting significance. To put it into perspective, 5 to 10 years down the road most people will still remember the RVHS attack. At the moment I do not see the same happening for this Hougang attack. While it is getting significant coverage right now, after time has passed I do not expect many people with no connection to the case to remember it. However, this could change in the future if there are new developments. Blissfulclarity (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to redirect to keep existing article and have a summarised version of the incident in the List of major crimes in Singapore (2020–present) article to preserve history in the event this incident sparks any reforms in the future. ~ JASWE (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I don't see a consensus here yet and I think this discussion could use a bit more time. What I'm not seeing here is a source assessment which would useful in determining whether or not this incident has the notability for a standalone article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:V; after searching extensively, I found no reliable sources verifying the existence of 'Kalin' in the Rigveda or Hindu mythology. Likely WP:OR. Nxcrypto Message 07:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Achwa 3 Hydroelectric Power Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not a real thing. At best this is WP:TOOSOON it was planned to open in 2022 and construction has not even started. Google search results do not establish notability. It cannot be considered a place since there is nothing there, verified with google maps. Czarking0 (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17th SAARC summit (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)

Not notable enough for a separate article, can be redirected to List of SAARC summits. Unilandofma (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory J. Blotnick (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's unclear to me why this man's fraud conviction makes him notable. There were many people who committed PPP fraud and while large, his is not the largest or most well reported. I see a smattering of reporting, of the routine kind of reporting you usually see that is rewritten SEC or DOJ press releases.

Furthermore, I don't see how he is notable for his finance activities prior to his conviction.

This article seems to promote the man in a twisted kind of way. I am concerned about the potential COI nature of this articles creation as well, because the Wikidata item for this page/person, Gregory Blotnick (Q131440997) is being actively edited by wikidata:User:Gregory J. Blotnick so shortly after creation. William Graham talk 05:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The subject of the article is not notable enough to warrant an article. WP:JUDGE notes that local elected officials are not presumed to be notable merely by their status. WP:SUSTAINED notes that notable topics must "have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time"; the sources in this article indicate that the subject of the article is only known for one event (chastising police in reference 6 by Yasmeen) and the rest of the sources are interviews or entries in databases like the state bar. WP:BLP1E applies here as Fleischer is only known for one event. Artwhitemaster (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Law. Artwhitemaster (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 06:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the notable thing about this guy is that he's on the streaming sites and getting attention for his videos. ABC News recently did a piece on him[21]. He got other coverage in either June or October (website gives both) in the Atlanta Black Star[22]. There's very little secondary stuff out there about him that I could identify. Oblivy (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The videos are just live-streams and video clips from his court duties, which I would say are primary sources. All the news articles about him are from selected incidents of his "best moments" calling out dubious legal evidence, like the incident that generated all that media coverage in October, which feels like a WP:BLP1E moment where he has his 15 minutes of fame, generates some secondary sources, and remains low-profile. Artwhitemaster (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, I'm not saying he's wikipedia notable just that he has some notability and it's not merely being a humble judge as the nomination suggests. The sourcing is an issue. Oblivy (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's a pretty popular judge on YouTube where several channels cover his court proceedings. He also has his own channel where he live streams his court room. In this interview with him he talks about, among other things, his part in bail reform and other judicial reform in Texas (it's linked as a reference already, but only for bits of his personal life). Towards the end, the interview also touches on that it's pretty unique for a judge to live stream court. He responds that he does it for transparency and educational purposes to let people see how the system works and what the consequences could be, and that teachers have reached out to him regarding using his streams in classrooms. Xxc3nsoredxx (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like the fact that several channels simply clip and repost his courtroom stream doesn't really do much in terms of notability, since I would consider them primary sources that aren't about him. Should every judge on Court Cam have their own wiki page? Him having his own YouTube channel also doesn't matter since the source is not independent from the subject - not even mentioning that it's not a source for the article. As for the interview, IMO his opinions on judicial reform have no bearing on whether or not to delete the article. Artwhitemaster (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I thought he met the general notability criteria rather than the criteria under judge. But I agree that it's not amazing sourcing. SMasonGarrison 13:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2023 NBA In-Season Tournament championship game (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 tournament final that is lacking in serious coverage of the game itself. Could be covered sufficiently at 2023 NBA In-Season Tournament. In it's current form, the article really isn't more than a simple summary of the game. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings and delete‎. This is a bundled close for the following AfDs:

Since each page was nominated separately, there is a certain dispersion of views among the different AfDs. But I think I speak for all--and this view was expressed in several of these AfDs--when I say that ideally, all should be handled consistently. All these AFDs have been relisted twice, which garnered a grand total of one(!) additional !vote in aggregate - nothing else in twelve days on any of them. So I see no point in keeping these AfDs open any longer.

Several participants in many of the AfDs !voted to merge the content to Code_page#DOS_code_pages, which currently only indexes the various code pages, without including any of the character tables. This approach might work for one or two such tables. But merging the dozens of different code pages, each with a 128 or 256 character table, into a single page will result in a ridiculously large and unwieldy article, which would likely head straight to a discussion about splitting it, bringing us right back to where we started.

I see broad support for a transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings, where the information would fit in nicely with the various appendices. This isn't the first time this is being done. We faced a similar situation in 2020. So rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll follow the same approach taken by the now-retired closing admin there, and invite editors, ideally those with the wikibooks transwiki import permission, to carry out the move within the next 30 days (or longer if required), at the end of which I or any admin will delete the pages here. Please ping me when you're done, or if extra time is needed.

If there are similar pages that I missed, or ones that haven't been nominated, feel free to boldly carry out the transwiki move, linking to this AfD in your edit summary when tagging the page for deletion. Owen× 18:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 853 (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: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki, too obscure. Alexlatham96 (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings and delete‎. This is a bundled close for the following AfDs:

Since each page was nominated separately, there is a certain dispersion of views among the different AfDs. But I think I speak for all--and this view was expressed in several of these AfDs--when I say that ideally, all should be handled consistently. All these AFDs have been relisted twice, which garnered a grand total of one(!) additional !vote in aggregate - nothing else in twelve days on any of them. So I see no point in keeping these AfDs open any longer.

Several participants in many of the AfDs !voted to merge the content to Code_page#DOS_code_pages, which currently only indexes the various code pages, without including any of the character tables. This approach might work for one or two such tables. But merging the dozens of different code pages, each with a 128 or 256 character table, into a single page will result in a ridiculously large and unwieldy article, which would likely head straight to a discussion about splitting it, bringing us right back to where we started.

I see broad support for a transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings, where the information would fit in nicely with the various appendices. This isn't the first time this is being done. We faced a similar situation in 2020. So rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll follow the same approach taken by the now-retired closing admin there, and invite editors, ideally those with the wikibooks transwiki import permission, to carry out the move within the next 30 days (or longer if required), at the end of which I or any admin will delete the pages here. Please ping me when you're done, or if extra time is needed.

If there are similar pages that I missed, or ones that haven't been nominated, feel free to boldly carry out the transwiki move, linking to this AfD in your edit summary when tagging the page for deletion. Owen× 18:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 860 (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: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout, beyond a couple mentions in some books. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has enough sources, and is a well-established code page. Transwiki or Merge, because this is a search term, but not notable enough to have its own article. Alexlatham96 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have done nothing to explain how this article has adequate sourcing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One new source showing date of creation: here.Alexlatham96 (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not sufficient, since it's a trivial mention according to WP: SIGCOV. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings and delete‎. This is a bundled close for the following AfDs:

Since each page was nominated separately, there is a certain dispersion of views among the different AfDs. But I think I speak for all--and this view was expressed in several of these AfDs--when I say that ideally, all should be handled consistently. All these AFDs have been relisted twice, which garnered a grand total of one(!) additional !vote in aggregate - nothing else in twelve days on any of them. So I see no point in keeping these AfDs open any longer.

Several participants in many of the AfDs !voted to merge the content to Code_page#DOS_code_pages, which currently only indexes the various code pages, without including any of the character tables. This approach might work for one or two such tables. But merging the dozens of different code pages, each with a 128 or 256 character table, into a single page will result in a ridiculously large and unwieldy article, which would likely head straight to a discussion about splitting it, bringing us right back to where we started.

I see broad support for a transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings, where the information would fit in nicely with the various appendices. This isn't the first time this is being done. We faced a similar situation in 2020. So rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll follow the same approach taken by the now-retired closing admin there, and invite editors, ideally those with the wikibooks transwiki import permission, to carry out the move within the next 30 days (or longer if required), at the end of which I or any admin will delete the pages here. Please ping me when you're done, or if extra time is needed.

If there are similar pages that I missed, or ones that haven't been nominated, feel free to boldly carry out the transwiki move, linking to this AfD in your edit summary when tagging the page for deletion. Owen× 18:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 859 (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: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings and delete‎. This is a bundled close for the following AfDs:

Since each page was nominated separately, there is a certain dispersion of views among the different AfDs. But I think I speak for all--and this view was expressed in several of these AfDs--when I say that ideally, all should be handled consistently. All these AFDs have been relisted twice, which garnered a grand total of one(!) additional !vote in aggregate - nothing else in twelve days on any of them. So I see no point in keeping these AfDs open any longer.

Several participants in many of the AfDs !voted to merge the content to Code_page#DOS_code_pages, which currently only indexes the various code pages, without including any of the character tables. This approach might work for one or two such tables. But merging the dozens of different code pages, each with a 128 or 256 character table, into a single page will result in a ridiculously large and unwieldy article, which would likely head straight to a discussion about splitting it, bringing us right back to where we started.

I see broad support for a transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings, where the information would fit in nicely with the various appendices. This isn't the first time this is being done. We faced a similar situation in 2020. So rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll follow the same approach taken by the now-retired closing admin there, and invite editors, ideally those with the wikibooks transwiki import permission, to carry out the move within the next 30 days (or longer if required), at the end of which I or any admin will delete the pages here. Please ping me when you're done, or if extra time is needed.

If there are similar pages that I missed, or ones that haven't been nominated, feel free to boldly carry out the transwiki move, linking to this AfD in your edit summary when tagging the page for deletion. Owen× 18:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 857 (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: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has enough sources, and is a well-established code page. Transwiki or Merge, because this is a search term, but not notable enough to have its own article. Alexlatham96 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have done nothing to explain how this article has adequate sourcing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One new source showing date of creation: here.Alexlatham96 (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not sufficient, since it's a trivial mention according to WP: SIGCOV. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings and delete‎. This is a bundled close for the following AfDs:

Since each page was nominated separately, there is a certain dispersion of views among the different AfDs. But I think I speak for all--and this view was expressed in several of these AfDs--when I say that ideally, all should be handled consistently. All these AFDs have been relisted twice, which garnered a grand total of one(!) additional !vote in aggregate - nothing else in twelve days on any of them. So I see no point in keeping these AfDs open any longer.

Several participants in many of the AfDs !voted to merge the content to Code_page#DOS_code_pages, which currently only indexes the various code pages, without including any of the character tables. This approach might work for one or two such tables. But merging the dozens of different code pages, each with a 128 or 256 character table, into a single page will result in a ridiculously large and unwieldy article, which would likely head straight to a discussion about splitting it, bringing us right back to where we started.

I see broad support for a transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings, where the information would fit in nicely with the various appendices. This isn't the first time this is being done. We faced a similar situation in 2020. So rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll follow the same approach taken by the now-retired closing admin there, and invite editors, ideally those with the wikibooks transwiki import permission, to carry out the move within the next 30 days (or longer if required), at the end of which I or any admin will delete the pages here. Please ping me when you're done, or if extra time is needed.

If there are similar pages that I missed, or ones that haven't been nominated, feel free to boldly carry out the transwiki move, linking to this AfD in your edit summary when tagging the page for deletion. Owen× 18:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 856 (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: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has enough sources, and is a well-established code page. I now have no decision about this one. Transwiki, no sources. Alexlatham96 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have done nothing to explain how this article has adequate sourcing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings and delete‎. This is a bundled close for the following AfDs:

Since each page was nominated separately, there is a certain dispersion of views among the different AfDs. But I think I speak for all--and this view was expressed in several of these AfDs--when I say that ideally, all should be handled consistently. All these AFDs have been relisted twice, which garnered a grand total of one(!) additional !vote in aggregate - nothing else in twelve days on any of them. So I see no point in keeping these AfDs open any longer.

Several participants in many of the AfDs !voted to merge the content to Code_page#DOS_code_pages, which currently only indexes the various code pages, without including any of the character tables. This approach might work for one or two such tables. But merging the dozens of different code pages, each with a 128 or 256 character table, into a single page will result in a ridiculously large and unwieldy article, which would likely head straight to a discussion about splitting it, bringing us right back to where we started.

I see broad support for a transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings, where the information would fit in nicely with the various appendices. This isn't the first time this is being done. We faced a similar situation in 2020. So rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll follow the same approach taken by the now-retired closing admin there, and invite editors, ideally those with the wikibooks transwiki import permission, to carry out the move within the next 30 days (or longer if required), at the end of which I or any admin will delete the pages here. Please ping me when you're done, or if extra time is needed.

If there are similar pages that I missed, or ones that haven't been nominated, feel free to boldly carry out the transwiki move, linking to this AfD in your edit summary when tagging the page for deletion. Owen× 18:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 1169 (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: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki No sources. Alexlatham96 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings and delete‎. This is a bundled close for the following AfDs:

Since each page was nominated separately, there is a certain dispersion of views among the different AfDs. But I think I speak for all--and this view was expressed in several of these AfDs--when I say that ideally, all should be handled consistently. All these AFDs have been relisted twice, which garnered a grand total of one(!) additional !vote in aggregate - nothing else in twelve days on any of them. So I see no point in keeping these AfDs open any longer.

Several participants in many of the AfDs !voted to merge the content to Code_page#DOS_code_pages, which currently only indexes the various code pages, without including any of the character tables. This approach might work for one or two such tables. But merging the dozens of different code pages, each with a 128 or 256 character table, into a single page will result in a ridiculously large and unwieldy article, which would likely head straight to a discussion about splitting it, bringing us right back to where we started.

I see broad support for a transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings, where the information would fit in nicely with the various appendices. This isn't the first time this is being done. We faced a similar situation in 2020. So rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll follow the same approach taken by the now-retired closing admin there, and invite editors, ideally those with the wikibooks transwiki import permission, to carry out the move within the next 30 days (or longer if required), at the end of which I or any admin will delete the pages here. Please ping me when you're done, or if extra time is needed.

If there are similar pages that I missed, or ones that haven't been nominated, feel free to boldly carry out the transwiki move, linking to this AfD in your edit summary when tagging the page for deletion. Owen× 18:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 855 (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: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout, besides maybe one trivial mention in a book. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has enough sources, and is a well-established code page. Transwiki or Merge, because this is a search term, but not notable enough to have its own article. Alexlatham96 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have done nothing to explain how this article has adequate sourcing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One new source showing date of creation: here.Alexlatham96 (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like a trivial mention, which doesn't meet WP: SIGCOV. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings and delete‎. This is a bundled close for the following AfDs:

Since each page was nominated separately, there is a certain dispersion of views among the different AfDs. But I think I speak for all--and this view was expressed in several of these AfDs--when I say that ideally, all should be handled consistently. All these AFDs have been relisted twice, which garnered a grand total of one(!) additional !vote in aggregate - nothing else in twelve days on any of them. So I see no point in keeping these AfDs open any longer.

Several participants in many of the AfDs !voted to merge the content to Code_page#DOS_code_pages, which currently only indexes the various code pages, without including any of the character tables. This approach might work for one or two such tables. But merging the dozens of different code pages, each with a 128 or 256 character table, into a single page will result in a ridiculously large and unwieldy article, which would likely head straight to a discussion about splitting it, bringing us right back to where we started.

I see broad support for a transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings, where the information would fit in nicely with the various appendices. This isn't the first time this is being done. We faced a similar situation in 2020. So rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll follow the same approach taken by the now-retired closing admin there, and invite editors, ideally those with the wikibooks transwiki import permission, to carry out the move within the next 30 days (or longer if required), at the end of which I or any admin will delete the pages here. Please ping me when you're done, or if extra time is needed.

If there are similar pages that I missed, or ones that haven't been nominated, feel free to boldly carry out the transwiki move, linking to this AfD in your edit summary when tagging the page for deletion. Owen× 18:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 852 (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: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has enough sources, and is a well-established code page. Transwiki or Merge, because this is a search term, but does not appear to be notable enough to have its own article. Alexlatham96 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have done nothing to explain how this article has adequate sourcing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found 2 sources showing date of creation: here and here. Do these solve the problem?Alexlatham96 (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't. We generally don't consider blogs to be authoritative sources, and the other page looks like a bunch of documentation that defines the contents of code pages but provides little information beyond that. Neither source establishes notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings and delete‎. This is a bundled close for the following AfDs:

Since each page was nominated separately, there is a certain dispersion of views among the different AfDs. But I think I speak for all--and this view was expressed in several of these AfDs--when I say that ideally, all should be handled consistently. All these AFDs have been relisted twice, which garnered a grand total of one(!) additional !vote in aggregate - nothing else in twelve days on any of them. So I see no point in keeping these AfDs open any longer.

Several participants in many of the AfDs !voted to merge the content to Code_page#DOS_code_pages, which currently only indexes the various code pages, without including any of the character tables. This approach might work for one or two such tables. But merging the dozens of different code pages, each with a 128 or 256 character table, into a single page will result in a ridiculously large and unwieldy article, which would likely head straight to a discussion about splitting it, bringing us right back to where we started.

I see broad support for a transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings, where the information would fit in nicely with the various appendices. This isn't the first time this is being done. We faced a similar situation in 2020. So rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll follow the same approach taken by the now-retired closing admin there, and invite editors, ideally those with the wikibooks transwiki import permission, to carry out the move within the next 30 days (or longer if required), at the end of which I or any admin will delete the pages here. Please ping me when you're done, or if extra time is needed.

If there are similar pages that I missed, or ones that haven't been nominated, feel free to boldly carry out the transwiki move, linking to this AfD in your edit summary when tagging the page for deletion. Owen× 18:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 851 (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: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout, including the six currently in the article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki Alexlatham96 (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings and delete‎. This is a bundled close for the following AfDs:

Since each page was nominated separately, there is a certain dispersion of views among the different AfDs. But I think I speak for all--and this view was expressed in several of these AfDs--when I say that ideally, all should be handled consistently. All these AFDs have been relisted twice, which garnered a grand total of one(!) additional !vote in aggregate - nothing else in twelve days on any of them. So I see no point in keeping these AfDs open any longer.

Several participants in many of the AfDs !voted to merge the content to Code_page#DOS_code_pages, which currently only indexes the various code pages, without including any of the character tables. This approach might work for one or two such tables. But merging the dozens of different code pages, each with a 128 or 256 character table, into a single page will result in a ridiculously large and unwieldy article, which would likely head straight to a discussion about splitting it, bringing us right back to where we started.

I see broad support for a transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings, where the information would fit in nicely with the various appendices. This isn't the first time this is being done. We faced a similar situation in 2020. So rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll follow the same approach taken by the now-retired closing admin there, and invite editors, ideally those with the wikibooks transwiki import permission, to carry out the move within the next 30 days (or longer if required), at the end of which I or any admin will delete the pages here. Please ping me when you're done, or if extra time is needed.

If there are similar pages that I missed, or ones that haven't been nominated, feel free to boldly carry out the transwiki move, linking to this AfD in your edit summary when tagging the page for deletion. Owen× 18:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 720 (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: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout, including the six currently in the article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Twinkle could not notify the article creator because they're indefinitely banned. If there's any users I should notify about this AfD, please let me know. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings and delete‎. This is a bundled close for the following AfDs:

Since each page was nominated separately, there is a certain dispersion of views among the different AfDs. But I think I speak for all--and this view was expressed in several of these AfDs--when I say that ideally, all should be handled consistently. All these AFDs have been relisted twice, which garnered a grand total of one(!) additional !vote in aggregate - nothing else in twelve days on any of them. So I see no point in keeping these AfDs open any longer.

Several participants in many of the AfDs !voted to merge the content to Code_page#DOS_code_pages, which currently only indexes the various code pages, without including any of the character tables. This approach might work for one or two such tables. But merging the dozens of different code pages, each with a 128 or 256 character table, into a single page will result in a ridiculously large and unwieldy article, which would likely head straight to a discussion about splitting it, bringing us right back to where we started.

I see broad support for a transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings, where the information would fit in nicely with the various appendices. This isn't the first time this is being done. We faced a similar situation in 2020. So rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll follow the same approach taken by the now-retired closing admin there, and invite editors, ideally those with the wikibooks transwiki import permission, to carry out the move within the next 30 days (or longer if required), at the end of which I or any admin will delete the pages here. Please ping me when you're done, or if extra time is needed.

If there are similar pages that I missed, or ones that haven't been nominated, feel free to boldly carry out the transwiki move, linking to this AfD in your edit summary when tagging the page for deletion. Owen× 18:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 708 (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: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings and delete‎. This is a bundled close for the following AfDs:

Since each page was nominated separately, there is a certain dispersion of views among the different AfDs. But I think I speak for all--and this view was expressed in several of these AfDs--when I say that ideally, all should be handled consistently. All these AFDs have been relisted twice, which garnered a grand total of one(!) additional !vote in aggregate - nothing else in twelve days on any of them. So I see no point in keeping these AfDs open any longer.

Several participants in many of the AfDs !voted to merge the content to Code_page#DOS_code_pages, which currently only indexes the various code pages, without including any of the character tables. This approach might work for one or two such tables. But merging the dozens of different code pages, each with a 128 or 256 character table, into a single page will result in a ridiculously large and unwieldy article, which would likely head straight to a discussion about splitting it, bringing us right back to where we started.

I see broad support for a transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings, where the information would fit in nicely with the various appendices. This isn't the first time this is being done. We faced a similar situation in 2020. So rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll follow the same approach taken by the now-retired closing admin there, and invite editors, ideally those with the wikibooks transwiki import permission, to carry out the move within the next 30 days (or longer if required), at the end of which I or any admin will delete the pages here. Please ping me when you're done, or if extra time is needed.

If there are similar pages that I missed, or ones that haven't been nominated, feel free to boldly carry out the transwiki move, linking to this AfD in your edit summary when tagging the page for deletion. Owen× 18:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 668 (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: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings and delete‎. This is a bundled close for the following AfDs:

Since each page was nominated separately, there is a certain dispersion of views among the different AfDs. But I think I speak for all--and this view was expressed in several of these AfDs--when I say that ideally, all should be handled consistently. All these AFDs have been relisted twice, which garnered a grand total of one(!) additional !vote in aggregate - nothing else in twelve days on any of them. So I see no point in keeping these AfDs open any longer.

Several participants in many of the AfDs !voted to merge the content to Code_page#DOS_code_pages, which currently only indexes the various code pages, without including any of the character tables. This approach might work for one or two such tables. But merging the dozens of different code pages, each with a 128 or 256 character table, into a single page will result in a ridiculously large and unwieldy article, which would likely head straight to a discussion about splitting it, bringing us right back to where we started.

I see broad support for a transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings, where the information would fit in nicely with the various appendices. This isn't the first time this is being done. We faced a similar situation in 2020. So rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll follow the same approach taken by the now-retired closing admin there, and invite editors, ideally those with the wikibooks transwiki import permission, to carry out the move within the next 30 days (or longer if required), at the end of which I or any admin will delete the pages here. Please ping me when you're done, or if extra time is needed.

If there are similar pages that I missed, or ones that haven't been nominated, feel free to boldly carry out the transwiki move, linking to this AfD in your edit summary when tagging the page for deletion. Owen× 18:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 778 (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: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki this and the related LST 1590-4. Alexlatham96 (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings and delete‎. This is a bundled close for the following AfDs:

Since each page was nominated separately, there is a certain dispersion of views among the different AfDs. But I think I speak for all--and this view was expressed in several of these AfDs--when I say that ideally, all should be handled consistently. All these AFDs have been relisted twice, which garnered a grand total of one(!) additional !vote in aggregate - nothing else in twelve days on any of them. So I see no point in keeping these AfDs open any longer.

Several participants in many of the AfDs !voted to merge the content to Code_page#DOS_code_pages, which currently only indexes the various code pages, without including any of the character tables. This approach might work for one or two such tables. But merging the dozens of different code pages, each with a 128 or 256 character table, into a single page will result in a ridiculously large and unwieldy article, which would likely head straight to a discussion about splitting it, bringing us right back to where we started.

I see broad support for a transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings, where the information would fit in nicely with the various appendices. This isn't the first time this is being done. We faced a similar situation in 2020. So rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll follow the same approach taken by the now-retired closing admin there, and invite editors, ideally those with the wikibooks transwiki import permission, to carry out the move within the next 30 days (or longer if required), at the end of which I or any admin will delete the pages here. Please ping me when you're done, or if extra time is needed.

If there are similar pages that I missed, or ones that haven't been nominated, feel free to boldly carry out the transwiki move, linking to this AfD in your edit summary when tagging the page for deletion. Owen× 18:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 775 (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: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. Most of the sources describe what the code page layout is but don't provide any information beyond that. The remaining source(s) don't look reliable or don't give us significant information about the code page with which we could use to build an article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has enough sources, and is a well-established code page. Transwiki or Merge, because this is a search term, but does not appear to be notable enough to have its own article. Alexlatham96 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have done nothing to explain how this article has adequate sourcing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings and delete‎. This is a bundled close for the following AfDs:

Since each page was nominated separately, there is a certain dispersion of views among the different AfDs. But I think I speak for all--and this view was expressed in several of these AfDs--when I say that ideally, all should be handled consistently. All these AFDs have been relisted twice, which garnered a grand total of one(!) additional !vote in aggregate - nothing else in twelve days on any of them. So I see no point in keeping these AfDs open any longer.

Several participants in many of the AfDs !voted to merge the content to Code_page#DOS_code_pages, which currently only indexes the various code pages, without including any of the character tables. This approach might work for one or two such tables. But merging the dozens of different code pages, each with a 128 or 256 character table, into a single page will result in a ridiculously large and unwieldy article, which would likely head straight to a discussion about splitting it, bringing us right back to where we started.

I see broad support for a transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings, where the information would fit in nicely with the various appendices. This isn't the first time this is being done. We faced a similar situation in 2020. So rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll follow the same approach taken by the now-retired closing admin there, and invite editors, ideally those with the wikibooks transwiki import permission, to carry out the move within the next 30 days (or longer if required), at the end of which I or any admin will delete the pages here. Please ping me when you're done, or if extra time is needed.

If there are similar pages that I missed, or ones that haven't been nominated, feel free to boldly carry out the transwiki move, linking to this AfD in your edit summary when tagging the page for deletion. Owen× 18:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 777 (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: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki Alexlatham96 (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings and delete‎. This is a bundled close for the following AfDs:

Since each page was nominated separately, there is a certain dispersion of views among the different AfDs. But I think I speak for all--and this view was expressed in several of these AfDs--when I say that ideally, all should be handled consistently. All these AFDs have been relisted twice, which garnered a grand total of one(!) additional !vote in aggregate - nothing else in twelve days on any of them. So I see no point in keeping these AfDs open any longer.

Several participants in many of the AfDs !voted to merge the content to Code_page#DOS_code_pages, which currently only indexes the various code pages, without including any of the character tables. This approach might work for one or two such tables. But merging the dozens of different code pages, each with a 128 or 256 character table, into a single page will result in a ridiculously large and unwieldy article, which would likely head straight to a discussion about splitting it, bringing us right back to where we started.

I see broad support for a transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings, where the information would fit in nicely with the various appendices. This isn't the first time this is being done. We faced a similar situation in 2020. So rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll follow the same approach taken by the now-retired closing admin there, and invite editors, ideally those with the wikibooks transwiki import permission, to carry out the move within the next 30 days (or longer if required), at the end of which I or any admin will delete the pages here. Please ping me when you're done, or if extra time is needed.

If there are similar pages that I missed, or ones that haven't been nominated, feel free to boldly carry out the transwiki move, linking to this AfD in your edit summary when tagging the page for deletion. Owen× 18:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 776 (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: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki Alexlatham96 (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings and delete‎. This is a bundled close for the following AfDs:

Since each page was nominated separately, there is a certain dispersion of views among the different AfDs. But I think I speak for all--and this view was expressed in several of these AfDs--when I say that ideally, all should be handled consistently. All these AFDs have been relisted twice, which garnered a grand total of one(!) additional !vote in aggregate - nothing else in twelve days on any of them. So I see no point in keeping these AfDs open any longer.

Several participants in many of the AfDs !voted to merge the content to Code_page#DOS_code_pages, which currently only indexes the various code pages, without including any of the character tables. This approach might work for one or two such tables. But merging the dozens of different code pages, each with a 128 or 256 character table, into a single page will result in a ridiculously large and unwieldy article, which would likely head straight to a discussion about splitting it, bringing us right back to where we started.

I see broad support for a transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings, where the information would fit in nicely with the various appendices. This isn't the first time this is being done. We faced a similar situation in 2020. So rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll follow the same approach taken by the now-retired closing admin there, and invite editors, ideally those with the wikibooks transwiki import permission, to carry out the move within the next 30 days (or longer if required), at the end of which I or any admin will delete the pages here. Please ping me when you're done, or if extra time is needed.

If there are similar pages that I missed, or ones that haven't been nominated, feel free to boldly carry out the transwiki move, linking to this AfD in your edit summary when tagging the page for deletion. Owen× 18:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 773 (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: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki Alexlatham96 (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings and delete‎. This is a bundled close for the following AfDs:

Since each page was nominated separately, there is a certain dispersion of views among the different AfDs. But I think I speak for all--and this view was expressed in several of these AfDs--when I say that ideally, all should be handled consistently. All these AFDs have been relisted twice, which garnered a grand total of one(!) additional !vote in aggregate - nothing else in twelve days on any of them. So I see no point in keeping these AfDs open any longer.

Several participants in many of the AfDs !voted to merge the content to Code_page#DOS_code_pages, which currently only indexes the various code pages, without including any of the character tables. This approach might work for one or two such tables. But merging the dozens of different code pages, each with a 128 or 256 character table, into a single page will result in a ridiculously large and unwieldy article, which would likely head straight to a discussion about splitting it, bringing us right back to where we started.

I see broad support for a transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings, where the information would fit in nicely with the various appendices. This isn't the first time this is being done. We faced a similar situation in 2020. So rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll follow the same approach taken by the now-retired closing admin there, and invite editors, ideally those with the wikibooks transwiki import permission, to carry out the move within the next 30 days (or longer if required), at the end of which I or any admin will delete the pages here. Please ping me when you're done, or if extra time is needed.

If there are similar pages that I missed, or ones that haven't been nominated, feel free to boldly carry out the transwiki move, linking to this AfD in your edit summary when tagging the page for deletion. Owen× 18:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 770 (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: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. The creator of the article added one source that provides a trivial mention of the subject, then dePRODed the article. Without sufficient sourcing improvements, this article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should be merged with other articles. Not deleted outright. GalaxyDoge72 (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above.Davemc0 (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Transwiki
  • More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
...how about both?
Would make sense, at least, to me, to have all of these pages merged into one big "DOS Code pages" article, but also include them in the wikibooks article aswell. Madeline1805 (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Deterministic simulation testing (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 term seems to only be used by a fairly small group of companies, I'm not sure the methodology is currently notable enough to warrant an article. WP:BEFORE search turns up a fair amount of results, but they mostly seem to be primary sources or unreliable blogs. I think we need more reliable secondary sources covering this topic before it can be an article.

Considering the article in its current state, I don't think it provides much value as a stub. Every current reference is only indirectly relevant, none speaks directly to the topic or includes the phrase "deterministic simulation testing". There are 2 external links, and only one uses the phrase. StereoFolic (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The Delete "vote" is from a blocked editor so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The article fails to establish general notability as per WP:GNG and requires improvement in formatting. Furthermore, the content appears to be more suitable for a blog or website rather than a Wikipedia article, as it can be commonly found on such platforms. As such, it does not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion seeDev ClassThanks for your contributions to the sum of all knowledge. Royalesignature (talk). 02:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that last sentence kinda gave off a bit of snark, at the very least to me.
    This article would make sense to merge into a greater article, but I'm not sure which, so I'll hold my vote until then. Madeline1805 (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mangral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is entirely unsourced and poorly written. The underlying purpose of the article seems to be to glorify the community rather than write an encyclopaedic article. The books detailed at the bottom of the article don't seem particularly reliable either and no page numbers are provided. Ixudi (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4. Hope other editors also chip in because it's a lengthy article that somehow ended up without any References....Ngrewal1 (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there support for draftifying this article rather than simply deleting it?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why outsiders having zero knowledge about the tribe and it's people are so worried about "references" when those are already mentioned, not to mention someone entionedua reference classifying us s Dogras (whofare also Rajputs) rom a book published in 2008 kek RajaAtiqMangral (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No idea why outsiders having zero knowledge about the tribe and it's people are so worried about "references" when those are already mentioned, not to mention someone gave a reference classifying us as Dogras (who are also Rajputs mind you) from a book published in 2008 kek* RajaAtiqMangral (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No comments on draftifying; anyone?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, I see no consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arms trade (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)

Before people go nuts about this, I am AfDing the disambiguation page at this location and not the concept of "arms trade". It seems like the clear and obvious primary topic for a redirect is arms industry as arms trafficking/weapon smuggling is usually called... well, that. Alternatively, if the page is independently notable, WP:REDLINK applies and it should be opened up to article creation. Either way, a DAB page does not belong here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 00:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Progressives (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 inherent notability, has little notice from independent sources. No electoral success and has been de-registered by the Australian Electoral Commission for 2 years Flat Out (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Dearth of reliable sources, political parties are not inherently notable. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly Rescope, though you could argue WP:TNT in this case, I think that if the article has been nominated three times, but never got deleted, that speaks to me that this article doesn't meet quality guidelines. Madeline1805 (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files

[edit]
File:Baldi.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AuroraANovaUma (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unnecessary non-free image that solely exists for a decorative purpose, rather than illustrating something that has substantial critical commentary. Furthermore, there is already an image of the character in the form of the gameplay screenshot, so the argument of the image existing to allow for identification of the character is invalid. Fails WP:NFCC. I've tried to remove it several times already, but I figured I should take it here before it turns into an edit war. λ NegativeMP1 16:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As I uploaded both, I can safely say that the screenshot is definitely the better choice to use; especially given that I chose one that identifies the same character at a size reasonable enough that he is still recognizable. The game setting should also be documented. I am amazed how the game and the character have went unidentified on the game's article on this site for so long when they very much should be. Delete the promo art of Baldi, keep the screenshot of the game
AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit]

Category:Suicides by occupation

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Everything in this category and its subcategories are trivial intersections. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, these are not trivial intersections. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which aren’t? How are they any different from model or sportspeople suicides? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose this intersection would only ever be trivial if there couldn't possibly be a correlation between the two separate categories or any interest in a list of people who are part of the two categories. Of course this isn't the case here. Here are just three of thousands of sources that deal with the correlation between occupation and suicides: [23], [24], [25]. PetScan isn't by a long shot user-friendly and widespread enough that category overlaps should be abolished. Rkieferbaum (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are trivial intersections for our purposes. Is there any individual category you think to be defining? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aarne-Thompson Grouping

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: not a proper name. --Altenmann >talk 17:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People pardoned by John Adams

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Each of the categories nominated has only one or two entries. pbp 16:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I like it the way it is bc (1) it makes the parent cat of presidential pardons tidier and navigable, and (2) it makes the presidents' cats more informative bc pardons is one of their constitutionally defined duties/privileges (along w naming judges etc). But whatever the community wants is cool, no big deal either way. jengod (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Meigs family

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Purge and possibly delete. A lot of the contents of this category seem to just share a common name rather than being closely related to Jonathan Meigs and Elizabeth Hamlin Meigs. SMasonGarrison 14:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually read the articles and go through the references you they are the same family. There are many other family categories that are similar, not sure what the angle is here? Nayyn (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you go through the history of these individuals they are of the same family and the locations are named after members of the same family. There are many other similar family categories such as this. I'm not sure what the angle is to delete or rename? If the category is not prominent enough, then why not AdD all of the members of the family for which it relates. Nayyn (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My angel here is that this category includes everything with the word "Meigs" in it. SMasonGarrison 16:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pornographic actors who died by suicide

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between specific acting genre and cause of death. SMasonGarrison 14:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Serves these purposes for Category:Suicides by occupation
If Sucides by occupation is a relevant category than these subcategories are too. @Smasongarrison what about deleting that parent category then?
Nayyn (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please review Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I think you would do well to make a case that this intersection is defining. SMasonGarrison 14:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Models who died by suicide

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between cause of death and occupation SMasonGarrison 14:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Serves these purposes for Category:Suicides by occupation
If Sucides by occupation is a relevant category than these subcategories are too. Nayyn (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But Suicides by occupation isn't for diffusion purposes. It's to keep the categories where the intersection between cause of death and occupation is defining. I strongly encourage you to make a substantive argument about why this specific category is defining. SMasonGarrison 16:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sportspeople who died by suicide

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category (under a slightly less nice name) was deleted in 2021, along with its subcategories, and recreated this year without discussion. I do not think there is anything new to overcome the 2021 consensus that this is a trivial intersection. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is your feeling, then why not move to nominate all of the categories in Category:Suicides by occupation ?
If you do not consider these categories worthy then there should not be a container category for them. As there is a container category, it is natural that people who find these categories useful / meaningful will continue to create them. Nayyn (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The category is neutral, verifiable and defining. If you are unwilling to have a conversation about Category:Suicides by occupation then it does not constitute a trivial category. Nayyn (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Serves these purposes for Category:Suicides by occupation
If Sucides by occupation is a relevant category than these subcategories are too.
Nayyn (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Otherstuffexists is not a good argument. You're better off demonstrating that this specific intersection is defining. Saying it's defining without explaining why isn't helpful/convincing. SMasonGarrison 16:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is not a trivial intersection. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Murdered sportspeople

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category was deleted in 2021, along with its subcategories, and recreated this year without discussion. I do not think there is anything new to overcome the 2021 consensus that this is a trivial intersection. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same here @PARAKANYAA if this category is not meaningful or worthy of wikipedia, you should nominate Category:Murder victims by occupation or else these sub-categories will continue to be populated.
Wikipedia has evolved since 2021 and if the reason to delete is simply because several years there was a conversation about it, the fact the categories are being created anew means they have utility on the site.
Suggest for deletion the parent categories if they are not meaningful to the site. Nayyn (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This specific intersection is non-defining. SMasonGarrison 14:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is "non-defining" then would it not apply to all in Category:Murder victims by occupation @Smasongarrison? Nayyn (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Otherstuffexists is not a good argument. You're better off demonstrating that this intersection is defining. SMasonGarrison 14:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is not a trivial intersection. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NA-Class articles

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The pages in this category and all its subcategories seem to be largely automatically and incorrectly tagged, and I doubt we need it (whether named "articles" or "pages"). Something like Talk:Lists of animated feature films is now automatically a NA-class article of high importance, when in reality it should be an unassessed class article of high importance. Something like Talk:"Bob" is automatically put into "NA-class" when it should be in "Redirect class". The whole NA-class tree seems to be a giant mistake with many tens of thousands of pages. Fram (talk) 08:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Book leaks

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:NONDEF. There aren't any articles specifically about leaks in this category, unlike the parent category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 07:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomSMasonGarrison 14:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NBA Cup–winning players

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Incorrect English. It should be Cup-winning. We would always use a hyphen for compound words, while an ndash is used to separate phrases. Plus even if it were separate phrases an ndash would require spaces on either side. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Audiovisual introductions

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated single-article categories, unhelpful for navigation. A second merge target isn't really necessary, two articles are already in Category:Precursors of film and for the other articles it is quite a stretch to say that they are about audiovisual technology. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish white nationalists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I don't believe this is a defining characteristic. Searching for the term brings up the category and news articles about white nationalism and anti-semitism, not Jews who support white nationalism. There are BLP concerns too with the living people included in the category. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

[edit]

PITNOL

[edit]

As below, no evidence that this song is referred to by either of these initialisms. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:E9BC:B9ED:405A:596B (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EWtRtW

[edit]

No evidence that this song is referred to by either of these initialisms. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:E9BC:B9ED:405A:596B (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2029 Women's Cricket World Cup

[edit]

No relevant information at the target, except that the tournament expands from 8 teams to 10 in 2029. The redirect, based on the target at the moment, is misleading and WP:TOOSOON based on the expectation of finding relevant information when searching for this title. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Katrina (lists)

[edit]

Possibly redundant with the "lists", at least should be retargeted A1Cafel (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forcible confinement

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Title is not exclusive to the target, and was previously deleted at RfD in 2019 for the same reason when it targeted kidnapping. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Failed star

[edit]

0: It's rude to the brown dwarves using wikipedia 1: This phrase is never mentioned anywhere in the text of the article, 2: I'm not too convinced if this is even a plausible redirect because this only had 4 pageviews in the last 30 days as compared to the 19,442 of the target and 3: as @Steel1943 mentioned in https://wiki.eso.workers.dev/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_9#Failed_wannabe_star this might be potentially confusing with other stuff like a celebrity that was really popular for a short while but eventually fell thanks to time User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 11:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Hmm, maybe disambiguate between brown dwarf and Jupiter (which is often referred to as a failed star, and even briefly mentioned there)? It's a bit of a stretch though, and the celebrity angle is plausible, but what would even be an appropriate target for that? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Katrina (contents)

[edit]

Redundant redirect, I don't think adding "contents" as redirect is useful A1Cafel (talk) 11:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "article" hidden in contexts was a TOC of articles related to Katrina User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 12:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of North Yemen

[edit]

Ill make it an article just like how Flag of South Yemen is an article Abo Yemen 11:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Normally, I'd say retarget to North Yemen (which is incorrectly marked as a dab page, more on that in a moment), which has a picture of the flag. It's short enough to accommodate information about the flag there, and if a spinout is warranted, that can happen without discussion here. However, I notice that the nominator has recently converted it from a dab page to an article (without removing the dab template or adding any sources). I don't know a thing about the history of the region and have no idea if this was reasonable or not. I'd encourage others that might to take a closer look. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you make it an article, I'd say delete. CheeseyHead (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moot. It being an article now, this is no longer an RfD matter but (if the condition doesn't improve) a WP:AFD or WP:SPEEDY or WP:PROD matter.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  09:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under which title is the article? Jay 💬 16:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or Delete or what SMcCandlish said (which was unclear to me)? Also notified of this discussion at the current and proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specialization in bees

[edit]

is there a chance of it being used to refer to some other type of specialization, like beekeeping? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. Like Mx. Granger, my first though was "scientific specialization in bees", which apparently is called Melittology. However, I'm fairly interested in biology, and Fieari had a totally different response. I think a WP:DAB is possible. Cremastra ‹ uc › 12:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My first assumption was also melittology, though I can also see the other ideas. Perhaps a DAB is possible? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ratarget to one of the suggestions, or disambiguate? Also notified of this discussion at the proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TikTok Rizz Party

[edit]

Not mentioned at the current target. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BlueSky

[edit]

Arguing that BlueSky should be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Bluesky (BlueSky → Blue Sky) given a lot of people think the S is capitalized. The Wikinav data at the current DAB page target shows that clearly the majority of users expect to navigate to the social media platform. Raladic (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is Bluesky the primary topic? Notified of this discussion at Bluesky as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracism

[edit]

Target section vanished.

67.209.128.24 (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: There is no consensus on this nomination for too long. Suggesting relisting. 67.209.128.31 (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's only been 24 hours. Discussions typically stand for 7 days before being relisted. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove section target, or possibly re-refine - I can't find the edit where the specific section marker "Conspiracism" was removed, but from scanning the article, I would bet that it was reworded to the "conspiracy ideation" phrasing that appears throughout the article, and thus the information is still all here. We could refine to the Conspiracy theory#Psychology or Conspiracy theory#Sociology sections, but the entire article does kinda talk about this, so my first choice would actually be to just remove the section target altogether and leave it just targeted at the article as a whole. Fieari (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YV (rapper)

[edit]

We only have a passing mention of him in the target, and this redirect misleads potential YV fans into thinking we have more about him than we actually do Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 06:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

R&B

[edit]
  • Retarget to Contemporary R&B.

As said on talk page, absolutely barely any articles say "Contemporary R&B" when referring to "Contemporary R&B" they just say "R&B". Having this re-direct stops lots of frustration of people redirecting to the Rhythm and Blues genre when it is a Contemporary R&B song. Please see here on how Contemporary R&B is mentioned, it's the modern day now and Contemporary R&B has gained far more notability and is now the WP:COMMONNAME and look at most Contemporary R&B article you'll notice most publications simply wrote "R&B" when citing Contemporary R&B.Eg HotNewHipHop,Billboard,The Guardian.This0k (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)} WP:SOCKSTRIKERed-tailed hawk (nest) 06:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – there are 10,000 links to this redirect so a retarget or conversion into a disambiguation page should be made very carefully. Nevertheless, I believe that a disambiguation page between these two genres is probably ideal. J947edits 23:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support A conversion into a disambiguation page, when done carefully, is fine with me.
    This0k (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC) (your nomination is your "vote" Liz Read! Talk! 04:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC))[reply]
This can't have one target. The nom's propose change will also frustrate people; also, their rationale seems partially based on WP:RECENTISM. I will draft a disambiguation page. Cremastra ‹ uc › 00:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There was support for disambiguation and the draft is ready, however we need an opinion on J947's concern on how the 10,000 incoming links play out with the redirect's conversion to a disambiguation page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep R&B stands for Rhythm and Blues. KOLANO12 3 19:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Square

[edit]

The current target is undoubtedly the overwhelming favourite for readers using this term, over New Square, West Bromwich, New Square, Almaty, New Square Publications, and Lincoln's_Inn#New_Square_Lawn. A slew of translations of this term into other languages are encyclopaedic things: Plaza Nueva, Praça Nova, Nytorv, and Plac Nowy.

Disambiguation in some form is required: the question is whether this disambiguation should be carried out at New Square or at New Square (disambiguation). I lean towards the former. J947edits 03:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finario

[edit]

Delete as ambiguous with Damian of Finario and Battista dei Giudici. These three minor details do not between them warrant a disambiguation page, and search results will do the job quicker and more simply than hatnotes. J947edits 02:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive content in YouTube

[edit]

There might be a few places this could redirect to, including YouTube and YouTube moderation. I've recently declined a speedy request on the basis that this is probably a useful redirect title, though I do want to hear other opinions on which way the best way forward. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Penthouse Suite

[edit]

Whilst obviously quite similar to penthouse apartment, I believe there's sufficient fuel to disambiguate this WP:DIFFCAPS-differentiated term – between "The Penthouse Suite" at the current target, the Lord T & Eloise song in the album Aristocrunk, the James Taylor Quartet album, and the radio station mentioned in passing at Hotel Baker. J947edits 02:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trade Fair Grounds

[edit]

This is ambiguous. Google Maps leads me to Zambia (the current target), Zimbabwe, and Malawi. Mentions on Wikipedia include Tanzania, Malta, India, and various German cities.

Disambiguate appears to be the safe bet in this instance, but there are a few complicating factors. While this is a common appendix to the name of a venue, in many cases it is a PTM. Additionally, this is a very frequent second name for a venue that we may or may not list as an alternative name on the relevant article. In general, this term varies between being a description and a genuine name for a place, meaning that a dab page that covers everything is near impossible. There are also trade show, Fairground, and the redirect Trade Fair Ground to be aware of. J947edits 02:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Simara (1945)

[edit]

"Simara" not mentioned anywhere at target, and the battle described at the target took place in 1944. There is a battle described at Corcuera#Modern history to which this may refer, but the term isn't used there either. Unless there is evidence this is a term in use, the fact this is disambiguated and the base name Battle of Simara does not currently exist suggests deletion may be best. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was part of Leyte Gulf and took place in October 1944, not 1945. Mdewman6 (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra ‹ uc › 01:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Qingyun

[edit]

No point in this redirect, her name is mentioned only twice here in a table. but she is also mentioned as a competitor/medalist in few other articles but none have enough content to anchor a redirect. Sports2021 (talk) 00:02, 10 December 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, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dionian(ism)

[edit]

Dionian is a translation of wikt:Dioning (heterosexual). It used to be mentioned in Uranian (sexuality), along with several terms coined by Karl. Apollonian and Dionysian could mention dionism, or Dionysus. If this means male homosexuality, then gay men? Or something similar to Achillean. See Terminology of homosexuality. --MikutoH talk! 02:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ecuador scuba diving

[edit]

no particular affinity with ecuador, from what i can gather. originally created as an ad cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

regional screwdrivers

[edit]

two different yet similar cases. "birmingham screwdriver" is an apparently obscure uk slang for hammer, as a reference to people from birmingham being muscleheads, while "irish screwdriver" seems to be... some brand of vodka? both terms are unmentioned in the target, and results mostly gave me miscellaneous companies and actual screwdrivers cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

should note that the second one is mentioned and elaborated on in law of the instrument cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Birmingham screwdriverlaw of the instrument, as that's where the expression is mentioned, and where the reader will best be able to understand what Birmingham screwdriver means.
Delete Irish screwdriver. The only results I find referring to the "irish screwdriver" as a hammer are an urban dictionary entry and a tumblr post (though the tumblr post does point to Green, Jonathon. Casell’s Dictionary of Slang - 2nd Edition. Weidenfeld & Nicholson. 2005 as a source for the expression meaning hammer). Other than those, other mentions of "irish hammer" on google are referring to a cocktail FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 04:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mian Page

[edit]

Vanishingly few page views per month(21) for a page that gets millions of views every week. There are a lot of people named "Mian Page", and Mediawiki already corrects for simple typos like this. Ca talk to me! 01:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Implausible. KOLANO12 3 20:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason why this should even exist in the first place. ThatIPEditor They / Them 21:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(comment: "and Mediawiki already corrects for simple typos like this" I tested this now, it doesn't.)
Weak delete Unlike what some others are saying, I can relatively plausibly see someone accidentally transposing the I and A keys together. However, this is literally the first page you see when you open up Wikipedia we're talking about here, so people manually going to the Main Page is irrelevant here. Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 05:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a person can just type the right words in themselves. BarntToust 14:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per pageviews (so per nom, I suppose). That the target receives a high number of views doesn't change anything. This also seems unambiguous as a search term. I don't know what someone searching this could be looking for other than the main page; I'm not seeing any people called "Mian Page" that we cover. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Raaab

[edit]

"Raaab" is maybe a plausible typo, but "Raaaaaab" seems wholly unnecessary. The question is at what point should we stop elongating "Raab". 1857a (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dicalsium Ruthenate: Ca2RuO4

[edit]

Page was created as a spelling mistake -- "calsium" instead of "calcium". It does not seem to make sense to keep this for a newly created page. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leo (kaiju)

[edit]

Same reason here: https://wiki.eso.workers.dev/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_November_8#Mothra_Leo 203.129.49.225 (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I've already stated this in the past discussion @203.129.49.225 has linked here, and I'll have to say this again...

    even if I did read those three films articles in my point of view or someone else's point of view, they'd be like "Who the hell is Leo?", and again, I'm not a Mothra expert, I'm only a Godzilla expert.

    If those who don't know what this IP is referring to, I'll mention this quote stated in a past discussion stated by @121.45.246.200 Mothra Leo is a fan name and its simply a rumor, besides if its a rebirth trilogy, the Mothra should be named "MOTHRA", not Leo, otherwise Toho should've changed the names of the trilogy to "Birth of Mothra Leo".
I'm just leaning for delete anyway. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules

[edit]

This editnotice has been blanked, which overrides the default BLP editnotice that should be displayed for living people. It should be deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editnotice duplicates the automatic BLP editnotice that is displayed now. It should be deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list of presidents to which this editnotice applies has been split from this article to List of presidents of Singapore, so this editnotice is no longer useful here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Template:Editnotices/Page/List of presidents of Singapore". — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editnotice blanked as "not needed" in 2021. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fine with me to delete, the original creation appears to be linked with this edit which removed this template. Frietjes (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editnotice has had just one edit, and it contains only a protection template, which does not appear to make sense as an editnotice. I think it may have been created in error and should be deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete it, or I will if you want. I'm not sure why I created it when I added ECP:. But in fact I did add an edit notice at the time. Doug Weller talk 17:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editnotice blanked with edit summary "rmv invalid gs". This page appears to no longer be needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editnotice is no longer applicable and can be deleted. Xenophidia was redirected in 2016 and then again in 2019 to Caenophidia. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editnotice blanked as "expired". No longer needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant template: all links are available at the parent article Only Murders in the Building. Provides no further ease of navigation. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards keep for this one. Meets the WP:NENAN threshold of five articles and enables navigation between, say, season 1 and season 4, which is not possible otherwise. --woodensuperman 09:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The template helps users to navigate throughout the various articles related to the series, and while not many articles exist as of yet, it is still useful to have.—Mjks28 (talk) 12:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What does this template provide in terms of further navigation that the parent article does not? -- Alex_21 TALK 20:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's always quite likely that the parent article will include all the links in a navbox, so this is not a reason to delete. Take a navbox for a band as an example. The parent article will likely include all band members and a full discography, matching the links in the navbox. However, it's when we get to the other non-parent articles that a nabox becomes a handy navigational tool. As I mention above this navbox facilitates moving between non-consecutive seasons that would not be possible directly otherwise, or from any of the seasons to the accolades article. Admittedly as this only just meets the threshold of WP:NENAN the benefit is limited, but there are far less useful navboxes out there, and at least all the links are on topic. --woodensuperman 09:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, long answer short, it doesn't actually provide anything further in terms of navigation, for four seasons and one awards article. -- Alex_21 TALK 10:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it does, it means you can navigate between non-consecutive seasons, and from season articles to the accolades article. --woodensuperman 10:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All of which can be completed by the parent article. I asked what the template provides that the article does not. -- Alex_21 TALK 10:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a pre-requisite for a navbox. Take any comparable parent article and navbox and you will most likely find the same links on each. What navigation does {{Vikings (2013 TV series)}} provide that Vikings (TV series) does not? What navigation does {{Robert Altman}} provide that Robert Altman does not? What navigation does {{Taylor Sheridan}} provide that Taylor Sheridan does not? What navigation does {{The CW programming}} provide that List of programs broadcast by The CW does not? The point isn't about navigating from the parent article, it's about navigating quickly between the other linked articles without needing to refer to the parent article. --woodensuperman 10:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The latter three are significant navigation templates. However, I absolutely agree with the Vikings template, it's as unnecessary as this one, I'll put that on my "to look into" list. (And before I get a NENAN to that suggestion - it's an essay, a good, but not set-in-stone rule, and remember: "not everything needs a navbox".) -- Alex_21 TALK 11:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most navboxes which meet the WP:NENAN threshold usually get kept, sometimes navboxes with even fewer articles are kept. I've certainly nominated film director navboxes with only 3-4 entries in the past that have ended up being kept. I don't think there would be any traction trying to delete the Vikings one or any with more than 6-7 entries. --woodensuperman 12:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it is the larger navboxes that are more problematic. {{Vikings (2013 TV series)}} is a clear and concise navbox with succint and relevant links, meeting all of the points at WP:NAVBOX. {{The CW programming}} is too large to provide a useful navigational function, a lot of the links are not particularly relevant to each other, and we are far better served by the list for context and the category for a directory of the programming. --woodensuperman 11:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany

[edit]

Deletion review

[edit]