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.
Fails WP:GNG. The subject made two appearances in the German fifth tier in 2007 but it appears they have made no professional appearances at all. A web search finds a few articles about an ice cream parlour they have been running after their retirement. But there's no WP:SIGCOV relating to their football career. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability, only sources are a database, a blog, and a local interview about the club, not an article about her. Fram (talk) 07:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MergetoUltraman or a to-be-created villains/characters article where individually NN fictional elements like this can be curated appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCRYSTAL. Nothing about the election has been declared yet, no WP:RS are currently talking about it. Should be recreated closer to the election, once actual sources start discussing it.
Keep - This is the second AfD on this topic. I previously nominated this article, and the consensus was to keep it. I continue to support the previous decision. For reference: Previous discussion.Hitro talk 22:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Next elections pass WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not sure what makes this one different. SportingFlyerT·C 23:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I waited for the 2 other AFDs from this month to close, just to be sure this was not a one-off of me misevaluating Crystal. But mainly -
If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2044 U.S. presidential election and 2048 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research.
I searched and found no sources talking about the election. I didn't find any consensus about next elections in any notability guidelines I could see. I found 5 (+2) AFDs that suggested deletion is the correct approach, and just 1 that didn't.
This topic also needs a talk page notification and/or a higher level consensus established somewhere (I don't know where), otherwise each AFD will end at a different inconsistent place. But until I see such higher level consensus, my read of both Crystal and prior consensus says it's pretty clear it should be a delete. Soni (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, there is already coverage of this election: [1][2] along with articles about new delineation. SportingFlyerT·C 23:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that Hindu article (published 5 days ago) is definitely talking directly about the elections.
I disagree on the livemint article, it's not coverage of the elections as much as just "BJP leader stated something about Hindu-Muslim divide in Congress". It's not significant, and they only mention it as a "in a few years".
I missed a couple other articles on my before check - [3][4] so I do agree there is significant enough coverage for the election. Soni (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too many of these future prediction pages. WP:TOOSOON. Way down in the future and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. RangersRus (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a date has been set for each of these, then they should each be moved to reflect that. Mangoe (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I guess I support keeping this article now. See above comment. Coverage is now significant enough. Soni (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: !vote balance at this time is leaning keep, although I will note that most of the connected AfDs noted above this relist have since been closed as consensus for deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 15:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In established democracies, the next election is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAl. Sourcing and existing information is sufficient. --Enos733 (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's just not enough here for an election that is almost two years off; the only substance is the date itself. Failing that, it should be moved to 2026 Assam Legislative Assembly election since this has a set date. Mangoe (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further discussion since the previous list has not cleared things up. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 21:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. More policy based input would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 04:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by SportingFlyer and Soni show that this meets item 1 of CRYSTAL – this election is notable and almost certain to take place. Toadspike[Talk] 04:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too much original research here and the title is inappropriate. Whilst there may be sources for notability I don't believe the current article is viable it's pretty much complete OR without any sourcing. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage is not sustained and significant enough to justify this article about the manslaughter of a teen. Zanahary (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm counting 10 reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV covering this event. I think some concerns regarding WP:NCRIME, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and WP:NTEMP are warranted, but the young age and the alleged exceptional viciousness of the alleged perpetrators do make the event more than a run-of-the-mill killing. Ultimately, since there's WP:NODEADLINE, I think that at this juncture it makes sense to keep and circle back if it turns out that the notability was temporary.
Delete: No coverage past the event in November, no lasting notability. Sad event, appears to be only a news item at this point. NOTNEWS. Oaktree b (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Unusual amount of international coverage on this one - being picked up by the BBC. My answer comes down to WP:PERP's description of coverage of notable victims and the focus of coverage being on the event or the individual. I feel on balance, the event is covered as news much more than the victim's role is covered as a subject of personal interest. BrigadierG (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As the incident has received nationwide coverage, I've found at least 15 reliable sources for the article. I'm in agreement with @Melmann, considering the young age of the victim and brutality of this crime this is beyond ordinary even for a murder. There's not so much coverage after November, but this will probably change in the future as the suspects are brought to justice and when they find the remaining perpetrator.
Delete, sadly. Murders and killing type articles go by WP:NEVENT, which this fails. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How so? This case in particular has received significant coverage in a wide variety of news outlets and the media. It's a story having been reported and impacted all over the world, not just in the U.S. Cheera L (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The non-routine coverage was for about a week. With events, WP:SUSTAINED coverage is a consideration, which this fails. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - User Melmanns rationale is the most convincing. The sourcing is within WP:SIGCOV at this time and several aspects of this this case already mentioned above makes this killing notable. I do believe WP:GNG applies as well. BabbaQ (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 08:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I definitely have 'some concerns regarding WP:NCRIME, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and WP:NTEMP". There is nothing in WP policies that makes an exception for the "viciousness" of a crime. Yes, newspapers and news TV did pick it up, undoubtedly because of how they profit off of sensationalism, but we shouldn't fall into the same swamp. I am strongly against this as WP:NCRIME. Lamona (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 04:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, the method of death is irrelevant. If there is no continued coverage it isn't currently notable. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced BLP asrtice. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:NMG. WP:BEFORE search turned up many people with the same name, but not this person. The MySpace link in the Infobox only leads to a collection of music tracks, with the rest of the page lacking content. Geoff | Who, me? 04:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find a news which is not a PR. Funding, launches, and announcements are all they have. Even the creator came only to create the page. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO because the WP:LOTSOFSOURCES are primary, including biographies and the like by related parties. No particular claim to notability is textually clear. JFHJr (㊟) 03:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No particular claim to notability is in regards to finding a more specific criterion than GNG. Where are the multiple independent (unrelated to the subject) reliable sources providing significant coverage? JFHJr (㊟) 03:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start by ignoring the WP:ITSUNREFERENCED claim by the nom, since that's one of the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. This is a difficult subject to research because this report indicates that there are two organizations with the same name and similar views, which makes finding sources more challenging than usual. Also, it's Swiss, so you really need to search under four different names (German, French, Italian, and English). This is time-consuming, so it's not surprising that people might do a cursory search, find nothing, and give up.
I think it might make more sense to treat this subject like a scholarly publisher than like a business or a social club. I would particularly consider WP:NMEDIA's "frequently cited by other reliable sources" as a possibility. As for sources, this Swiss-German article looks potentially useful, and I notice that the article at the French Wikipedia cites five sources (none of which are the org's website). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the five is plainly the subject's website in the French WP. I'll do my best to look into the others. I'm open to withdrawing my nomination if it's clear to me or to a consensus that the coverage is in-depth. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is unsourced. I don't see why this topic deserves an article as there are no sources on the Imperium series, only sources on the individual movies. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to the nom's implicit question is that Wikipedia:Notability, right at the top, says that we can merge up articles into a bigger subject. See also Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Should NBOOK cover series or just individual books?, which has almost 150 comments on a closely related subject. See statements like "Where a source contains coverage of one of the books in a series of books, this coverage is deemed to be coverage of the series of books, in addition to being coverage of that book" and "Articles on book series may be created in some cases where there are no series-level sources, drawing on the sourcing of the individual books." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not wrong I'm pretty sure he's saying that keep is the answer, even though what he's talking about is the Notability for books. MKat your service. 03:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist, last hope for some more participation. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NCORP. Not satisfied with the reliability of sources. I could not find anything else online either. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he company has significant notability within the jewelry industry, evidenced by extensive coverage in reputable sources such as industry publications and mainstream media. Additionally, the article provides verifiable information about the company's history, product offerings, and impact on the market that meets gng --Welcome to Pandora (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources you could find that establish notability? GMH Melbourne (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: if you are arguing to Keep this article, please share source that can be used to establish notability. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I have to agree wth Pandora. The sources seems to satisfy WP:GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BASIC. References are trivial mentions or don't mention subject. Can't find anything on Google/news about him. CFA💬 02:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep proved WP:GNG and WP:NPOL,He is a community leader, a politician who holds positions, As such, he belongs to the category of a Sayyid of major denominations have generally been held to be notable ~~ User:Spworld2 (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most definitely does not pass GNG. This is exactly the sort of BLP our policies are intended to prevent. It’s essentially a promotional profile for a party official based on passing mentions and his relationships with people who are actually notable in our terms. Mccapra (talk) 06:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a problem that could be solved through editing, rather than deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't seem like a promotional, with many relatives, it was reflected in the scholar's family, the person holding the posts of the largest legally functioning Islamic youth organization in India. and He is a member of the family circle of Prophet Muhammad in India(Sayyid ) Spworld2 (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It would help to get a review or analysis of existing sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is true that the present article is very poorly sourced (I am not sure about the datedness but willing to take the nominator's word for it). However, the content looks to me like it's all true and sourceable in principle. Indeed, it's clear that this is a notable topic: there were major changes to the structure of New York State's mathematics courses and exams in the last 25 years, and they received widespread coverage at the time. For example, here's one article about the 2007 change to Algebra-Geometry-Algebra 2 [5], here's an article about aligning math requirements to Common Core, and here's an article about one particular administration of an exam that spends several paragraphs discussing various changes to state policies over time, as in the article we're discussing. These various changes described in our article were mostly specific to New York State, making Mathematics education in the United States an unacceptable merge/redirect target, and I see no advantage to merging them into an article about Regents exams in general (better would be links out from that article to separate articles on the various subject areas it covers, when there is sufficient sourcing to permit that). --JBL (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this proposal/question; what content do you want to merge where, and rename what to what? --JBL (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The text needs citation and probably cleaning, but it's not beyond repair, and the topic is an encyclopedic one. Redirecting to the Regent Examinations would be a bad move, because math education is more general than just the Regent Exams in algebra and geometry (for example), and likewise, they have Regent Exams on topics other than mathematics. XOR'easter (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit that I'm a bit unsure about this article. There are a lot of citations in the article, but all of them are routine and/or match reports. There seems to be little or no WP:SIGCOV here. Anwegmann (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Decent coverage in local media, even though it is from a not very popular football center, the article seems sufficiently based. Svartner (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree. There seems to be a lot of match reports in the mix, though, and little of substance. That said, I'm still unsure about the article as a whole. Thanks for the vote. Anwegmann (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 02:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Years ago this term was circulated once on social media by right wing trolls, but there is no significant coverage of this non-notable term in any reliable sources. Ratnahastin(talk) 02:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Internet celebrity. Although, that seems to have a potential move afoot to rename it "Influencer". IMO, "Influencer" and "Adarsh Liberal" have a lot in common - they're both flash terminology of the moment, used to define any number of personalities. — Maile (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wouldn't merge, the term is too area specific to be known outside the area. Oaktree b (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The term gained some traction online [6] and [7]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable term from social media and memes. WP:DICDEF. RangersRus (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only reliable and accessible sourcing I could find by Google search was this link, which alone does not seem sufficient. Her name is apparently not even spelled correctly! Tkaras1 (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The article is predominantly reliant upon primary sources. It is also not clear as to whether the monastery relates to the structure, which fails the requirements of WP:NBUILDING or the religious order, which fails WP:NORG. Dan arndt (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 01:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biography of a politician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is that he was a county executive, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- it's a role where he would have to pass the second clause of NPOL ("local political figures"), where the inclusion test hinges on the depth and volume of reliable source coverage about him that can be shown to support an article with. But except for one obituary upon his death, this is otherwise referenced entirelytoprimary sources that are not support for notability, with no other reliable or GNG-building sources shown. As his career was several decades ago and thus might not Google well, I'd be perfectly happy to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived Arlington-area media coverage from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s than I've got can find enough to salvage it -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- based on his position as a county executive, I expected to give a delete opinion as that's the normal outcome for such roles. But a staff-written obituary in the Washington Post suggests he was considered notable beyond the typical holder of such a position. The other details (Plaza named for him) wouldn't generally be enough on their own, but together with the obit pushes above the bar for GNG keep. (would not pass WP:PROF on its own). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk) 19:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arlington County is literally suburbs of Washington DC, so the existence of a staff-written obituary in the Washington Post just suggests the exact same purely local notability that any county executive in any county could always show, and is not in and of itself enough to singlehandedly determine that he's more notable than the norm. So we would need to see a hell of a lot more than just that alone. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I thought of that, but the Washington Post is not a local newspaper in the same way that say that Arlington Sun-Gazzette is. It was written by their same obituary staff as their other obituaries. I think that a look at their current obituaries will show that obituaries in the paper are dedicated to people whom they believe have more than local notability. I don't see, for instance, other local officials or former high school sports coaches there, except in the paid death notices section. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk) 22:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 01:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG. The subject made five appearances in Kategoria e Parë, the Albanian second tier, then disappeared from professional football. [8] mentions a hospitalisation as a 17-year-old. It's not enough for WP:SIGCOV. Robby.is.on (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before you jump the gun and delete it which appears to be your specislisation, I suggest you give this plant the time to grow and for it to be properly documented. Thank you. Stockbroker369 (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a food, drink place LOL. This is a famous Domaine in Mauritius, close to Mahebourg. Stockbroker369 (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We'd maybe look at CORP notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources identified by Rosguill in the last AfD seem to be enough to keep the article (I'm not listing them here, they can be seen by clicking on the prior AfD in the box at the right). That editor's analysis is fine. Oaktree b (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would accept draftification as an WP:ATD since appropriate references have not been added since the previous AFD. - UtherSRG(talk) 12:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG, how about you add the sources yourself instead? Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a game of Mother, May I? Articles do not need to get sent back to the beginning just because someone didn't follow the directions perfectly. It would probably take you less time to copy and paste those sources over than has already been spent in this AFD.
There isn't actually a requirement in any policy or guideline to cite sources. Our rule is that a subject can qualify for a separate article if sources exist in the real world, even if none are cited in the article. As a long-term project, if you want to be able to delete or hide articles because they don't contain at least one source, then I suggest that you propose that. There was some effort to extended WP:BLPPROD rules to all articles earlier this year. The consensus went the other way, but perhaps if you read that discussion, you'd be able to find a path forward towards your goal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, but I see no reason to change my course. Good day. - UtherSRG(talk) 19:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 01:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Stockbroker369 This is an interesting article. It would be to your advantage if you could add a couple of more inline sources. Preferably in the first two paragraphs. Also images need to have the description on them like I just added. — Maile (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If coverage is "mainly" local, then it is "at least one non-local", which is all that AUD requires. This appears to be a community foundation, and my inclination is to merge it into MetroWest (=the geographical area it serves). We probably could find sources to demonstrate separate notability, especially since one of the already-cited sources is about "National Recognition For Rigorous Philanthropic Standards", but I think that merging it up will help people understand its purpose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. ltbdl (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 4, 8, 9, 20 and 24 are all RS that talks about her, the article seems to meet notability. Oaktree b (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source #4 is her brother talking, and the subject is only namedropped. Source #8 interviews her, and almost entirely consists of quotes from the subject. Source #9 ... inquirer.net is a reliable source, but that's a scanty article consisting of five sentences aside from quotes from the subject, and that barely scrapes by if at all. #20 looks like a good source. #24 is scanty routine sports coverage. I'm not digging deeper one way or another, but they're weak reeds to hang a keep. Ravenswing 02:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments She has never met WP:NMMA. The first source mentioned above is an article about her brother, she is mentioned in passing because she was on the same fight card. The next three are pre-fight articles about her first match in the promotion's Grand Prix tournament (which would be typical coverage for any fighter). The final reference is a report on that fight, which she lost. Even if you believe that coverage is significant, it is all about one event. Didn't check other references, so I'm not voting yet. Papaursa (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In addition to the sources already in the article, there is [[9]] and [[10]]. Not sure if it is enough to meet the notability guidelines though. Let'srun (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject does not meet criteria for WP:MMA. Passing mentions, quotes, interviews, event announcement and results are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 01:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some deceased people in this category also appear to be inappropriately labelled pretenders:
Agustín de Iturbide y Green: When he came of age, Iturbide, who had graduated from Georgetown University, renounced his claim to the throne and title and returned to Mexico. So as soon as he was legally capable, he renounced his claim.
María Josepha Sophia de Iturbide: [She inhered] the Habsburg claim on the throne. Maria Josepha was a very traditional Lady, and a devout Roman Catholic, and stayed as far away from politics as she could. Doesn't seem to have actively pursued her claim either; seems more like other people expect(ed) her to pursue it for purely genealogical reasons (but WP:NOTGENEALOGY).
Nominator's rationale:WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Populated by tangentially related films and not articles from the main topic. Gotitbro (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a rather small and narrow category with no real-life equivalent. We don't need a hyperspecific category for literally every job. Edit: Actually it should probably just be deleted, when you remove Chef from South Park, who is already under "Fictional chefs", there is nothing pertinent here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Yet another WP:NARROWCAT pointless category. This is such a narrow intersection (mythical + gender + royalty) that a category is not necessary. I don't believe it should be merged to "fictional" as myth and fiction are separate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nom is right that having categories with just 2 subcategories isn't very useful for navigation, but we should upmerge to all parents. NLeeuw (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fiction may overlap with mythology in some cases but the two are distinct concepts. Mythology can also contain embellished or rumored versions of real events. The Bible has mythological elements, but most would not agree it is a pure "work of fiction". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms economists[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:NARROWCAT, very detailed categorization by religion, occupation, and parallel kingdoms/dynasties in a relatively short period. The Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms lasted from 907 to 960. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure how helpful it is to have a socialists by occupation category. Mason (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, redundant category layer with only three subcategories. I also wonder whether we should keep two of the three subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most articles in here are works of media, which don't belong here anyway, while the one character that does can be merged to Category:Fictional domestic workers. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and recategorize per nom. The category does not contain what it says to contain. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:merge, the two categories cover nearly the same period. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - early modern age in Lithuania according to my knowledge starts a century before 1569 (if we take 1453 as the starting year of early modern age). Seems a bit much to make out those to be identical.--+JMJ+ (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Around 1500 is most often mentioned as the start of the early modern age and articles about the period between 1500 and 1569 can still be put in the early modern category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Marco. "1453" is a bit arbitrary, as it takes the fall of Constantinople as the measure of world history, instead of a rather minor event that was bound to happen to a Byzantine Empire in terminal decay for centuries. "1500" may also be arbitrary as a random round number, but at least it does not assign an arbitrary value of significance to any event, and it has been a commonly used convention in historiography. For Lithuania, of course, 1569 is much more significant, but given that we've already got 2 categories and it doesn't make sense to create separate categories for 1500 to 1568, and 1796 to 1799. NLeeuw (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I will note that Category:PAW Patrol is the originally-proposed merge target. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or reverse merge, too little content for two categories. Technical note, if it is going to be a downmerge then parent categories have to be added to the target manually. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Members of the League of Women Voters[edit]
Many siblings contain (just) activists, which is much more defining than membership. We might rename and purge this one as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on renaming and purging? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean towards merge. Given that it's not very defining by itself. Mason (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose given that both nominee and target are very large categories, and no navigational value seems to be served by throwing them together. NLeeuw (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Probably unnecessary disambiguation. This is missing a parent article about the franchise as a whole, or the original Brazilian series. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or reverse merge, it is unclear why these two categories exist next to each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category hardly has any entries, with Megalovania being more of a theme song than "sung by the voice actor", of which there is none. The current category members could be merged to parent categories if they aren't in them already. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Created by a user that seems to have a WP:COI for the redirect. It was moved from a user page to the Wikipedia page, then to the mainspace page where it now sits. reppoptalk 06:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: when you search "Bible Videos" in Wikipedia the first entry was the List of films of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article, the other article that would make sense under this redirect was BibleProject, but this is an organization, and yes they make Bible videos too but they are less popular than the Church makes and they separate them as "Old Testament" and "New Testament", and not "Bible Videos", in their YouTube channel description, they dont say they make "Bible Videos", but "free resources to help you experience the Bible". Furawi (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maximilian von Götzen-Iturbide states: Götzen does not pursue any claim to the throne...Despite Götzen not actively pursuing any claim himself, social media users claiming to be Mexican monarchists have posted their support of his claim. So some guys on the Internet want him to be a pretender, but he isn't.
Also WP:ORWP:NPOVWP:NOTGENEALOGY. The BLPs above and two other people in the template (and the category) appear to have been inappropriately included for purely genealogical reasons, even though they do not appear to have claimed or actively pursued their (theoretical genealogical) claim on the Mexican throne:
Agustín de Iturbide y Green: When he came of age, Iturbide, who had graduated from Georgetown University, renounced his claim to the throne and title and returned to Mexico. So as soon as he was legally capable, he renounced his claim.
María Josepha Sophia de Iturbide: [She inhered] the Habsburg claim on the throne. Maria Josepha was a very traditional Lady, and a devout Roman Catholic, and stayed as far away from politics as she could. Doesn't seem to have actively pursued her claim either; seems more like other people expect(ed) her to pursue it for purely genealogical reasons (but WP:NOTGENEALOGY).
That would leave this template with just 3 people, namely the 2 emperors (Agustín de Iturbide and Maximilian I of Mexico) and the son of the first emperor, Agustín Jerónimo de Iturbide y Huarte, who is the only historically verifiable active pretender to the Mexican throne from 1824 to 1864. The viablity of this template for navigation is thus in question.
This template hasn't been used since at latest 2018 (which is when the string docpng was added, a search for which basically turns up empty for something like this template). A gallery whether tag or template is a sufficient functional equivalent. Izno (talk) 03:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ancient template with no uses in article space but apparently intended for article space. May also not be not particularly relevant with the evolution of policy/guideline onwiki. Izno (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
