Deletion discussions
Deletion today Undeletion Deletion review Deletion log Request a copy of a deleted article
Articles
today all (sorted) closing log
Templates and modules
today all closing holding
Files
today all closing
Categories
today all category closing speedy working manual
Redirects
today all closing log
Miscellany
today all closing
Speedy deletion
candidates
Proposed deletion
all (sorted) BLPs
Policy Process Guide (Images) Administrator guidelines
v t e

WIKIDELETION

TODAY

14:21, Tuesday, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

WARNING! Due to the large size of AfD and the variable (but more modest) sizes of TfD, CfD, RfD, and WP:CP, this page is large! You have been warned.

Page out of date? PurgeIt!™

This page gives live feeds for today's new AfD, TfD, FfD, CfD, and WP:CP nominations. (For technical and/or other reasons, feeds for speedy deletion, MfD and PROD are unavailable.)

Some sections contain redlinks and/or are empty; this means there have been no new nominations yet today.

See also: Wikideletion Yesterday

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      November 17 (Sun)      November 16 (Sat)      November 15 (Fri)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

Chantal Fernandez (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 book she was the co-author of appears to be close to being notable, but given it's only one she does not quite pass NAUTHOR as there aren't any independent sources on her. If someone wants to flip the article around to being on the book (provided there are more sources for that) then that might be an option but I'm not sure there are. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Literature. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Keith Brown (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a partial hoax. It looks like there was a Keith Brown who played college football at Rhode Island but he never signed with an NFL team. He just had a tryout in 2006. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Working load limit (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)

Wikipedia is not a guide and not a dictionary. While this term is clearly popular on Wikipedia evidenced by pageviews, I was unable to find two sources to establish WP:GNG.

Sources I could find:

• [1] - anonymous author and appearance of a blog.
• [2] - blog.
• [3] - blog.
• [4] - potentially reliable for supporting factual claims but is not clearly a reliable source for establishing notability.
• The listed citation in the article refers to [5] which appears a primary source (although I do not have access to a copy). Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Jhala Ajja (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 was recreated under a different name shortly after being deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajja Jhala. The creator has used a different set of sources that still do not show evidence of notability. The page creator has wisely foregone the fantastical non-independent sources discussed in the previous AfD, but we still get nowhere close to WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:GNG. A brief analysis:

• A series of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS: History of Mewar has a single mention on page 174. Jhala Zalim Singh has a single name check on page 20. Mewar and the Mughal Emperors has a single paragraph mentioning Ajja. Maharana Sanga The Hindupat gives another single mention to Jhala Ajja.
• A series of colonial-era British sources (also trivial mentions) of questionable reliability per WP:RAJ: History of the Dhrangadhra State (1921) has two trivial mentions on page 69; Rajputana Gazetteer has single trivial mention on p. 128; The Mewar Residency, volume 2 (1908) offers a single reference.
• The WP:SELFPUBLISHED Medieval History of Rajasthan, which, even if reliable, gives a single mention to Ajja.

Bottom line: this appears to be an effort using WP:SYNTH to fabricate notability out of a series of passing mentions, many in sources of questionable reliablity. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, Gujarat, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)impo
• Delete. As I said in the previous discussion, the authors are of course interested in propping up their fanaticized family history. WP is not the place for this kind of promo. Also, this likely runs afoul of G4 at WP:CSD. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Greens vs. Blacks I tried; an admin declined the G4. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Might not pass GNG but passes the subject-specific notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN as a ruler of a state. 70.95.40.63 (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Is a hereditary prince of a subnational region a politician under WP:NPOL? Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  King and ruler are automatically notable on Wikipedia per WP:NPOL. 2001:EE0:1B23:B2C5:355B:3504:AFE0:49EB (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Admin note: This article has been tagged for G4 deletion twice, and for both times, 2 different admins (Nyttend and I) have reviewed the content here and the deleted article: they are 100% different. As such, please do not tag CSD G4 again. Thank you. – robertsky (talk) 12:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per the IP. We don't delete monarchs on notability grounds, as they're at least as notable as non-monarchial figures at similar levels. Even if he were subject to a higher monarch, he would have been at a level comparable to the chief minister of a small state in the current Republic of India, and the fact that he inherited his role is irrelevant. Also, the cited WP:RAJ discusses caste issues; this is unrelated to caste, and citing a userspace essay is unhelpful. Don't impose a userspace essay's point of view on everyone. Nyttend (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Can you point to the policy to your point that "We don't delete monarch on notability grounds..." I haven't read a policy stating that. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Entirely separate from the reliability of the sources, none of them constitutes WP:SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Jhala Ajja is a notable person. Article shouldn't be deleted. Lordo'Web (talk) 10:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Not enough coverage in sources. The article in question doesn't meet notability in WP:GNG, rendering it eligible for deletion under WP:SYNTH. Additionaly, the article's cursory examination of the subject fails to provide the requisite depth and analysis stipulated by WP:INDEPTH, thus necessitating its removal. MSLQr (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete does not pass GNG according to the concept of WP:Junk delete. He is not a notable person references show overview of only one event WP:ONEEVENT so he's a fictionary character in history:: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parul Sindhwan (talk • contribs) 07:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Agree with the nominator's explanations it should be deleted per SYNTH sources of RSSELF & lacking in depth-covrage DEPTH. Interestingly it is related to the series of articles directly related to Jhala dynasty. ®asteem Talk 20:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I don't see a consensus here yet. But would editors arguing for a Keep, please point out which sources establish GNG or provide SIGCOV?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Cited refs fail to constitute WP:SIGCOV, focused on the Jhala clan, but barely mention Jhala Ajja's leadership in any depth. Despite examining the Refs of Dr. R.P. Shastri, G Sharma, and Ram Vallabh Somani, insufficient information exists to establish Ajja Jhala's notability, contravening Wikipedia's GNG Guideline. Useroppa (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC) — Useroppa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 12:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

BreakThrough News (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)

BreakThrough News is not sufficiently notable to merit its own page. Most WP:RS which non-trivially discuss BTN explain that it is an appendage of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, to which this page previously redirected. I support reverting the page to a mere redirect. SocDoneLeft (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Pinging users: @إيان: @Superb Owl:. SocDoneLeft (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, Internet, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Merge with redirect to Party for Socialism and Liberation#BreakThrough News, per nomination. There's a bit more information here than there about Singham and some recent events connected with the site. Wikishovel (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: It's notable; it has about 897K subscribers on Youtube, 500k on TikTok, 250k followers on Instagram, and 160k on Twitter/X, and its coverage has been embedded in articles on legacy media such as The Independent.

The main problem with redirecting to Party for Socialism and Liberation is that it's the POV of the The Daily Beast and The Jerusalem Post, two sources most editors consider biased or opinionated.

إيان (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect as suggested above. 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Echoing يان's concerns, the subject obviously meets notability criteria. And with respect to votes to redirect: it's clear that redirecting to PSL would be a violation of NPOV from the outset (even before considering the sourcing, as explained by إيان).

On that point: if BTN doesn't disclose its funding sources (as seems to be the primary issue), then that should be explained in this article, using a variety of sources.

I can think of several reasons Wikipedia users deserve to be able to search for and find an article on BTN (this article) independent of information about PSL. For example, any discussion of putative links between PSL and BTN seem most appropriately discussed in the BTN article; depending on the nature of the particular link, it's possible that such a discussion would be considered irrelevant in the PSL article (and therefore not persisted).

Separately, but related: it is true that this article needs more content and more sources; but also, the related articles suffer from several deficits that likely make it more difficult for just anyone to come along and improve its content (i.e., by seeking related information in sources used in related articles). Daily Beast and JPost aside, it appears that the article about Neville Roy Singham is affected by a mixture of sourcing that includes dubious sources like New Lines Magazine, published by a think tank hosted by an essentially illusory university (FXUA, with fewer than 50 students) whose president is also the founder and president of that think tank.

In short: there appears to be an opinion-laundering war going on, and editors need to be able to keep these articles distinct in order to avoid hijacking attempts by any of the groups that might be involved.

--ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ 21:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I see no reason why this article should be kept at this time, it lacks enough information to meet notability per WP:GNG The article only contain information about the founders, what next? What's the significance? The creator should perhaps fill up these gaps to keep the article. I can't find none myself, There is also limited WP:RS. Tesleemah (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  It seems clear that WP:GNG is satisfied by citations of BTN's reporting in The Guardian, Fortune, and Al Jazeera, among others. --ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ 20:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: I checked the social media handles, website, and sources of this news company, but I didn't find anything notable. Baqi:) (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - I do not see any significant coverage. Mentions in publications would not be sufficient. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete according to WP:SPAM. Bearian (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  What part of that policy do you think applies to this article? إيان (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Added mentions in The Guardian, The Independent, and Al Jazeera. إيان (talk) 08:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  And discussion in the following book published by Routledge:

  • Bergman, Tabe; Hearns-Branaman, Jesse Owen, eds. (2024). Media, dissidence and the War in Ukraine. Routledge studies in media, communication and politics. London New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-032-55705-2.

  إيان (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete lacking in WP:SIGCOV, a merge might be acceptable too, but I do not know where to. Andre🚐 20:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  It seems clear that WP:SIGCOV is satisfied by the two articles in The Daily Beast, as well as the book Media, Dissidence and the War in Ukraine. --ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ 20:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Added yet another citation in Fortune, in addition to the previously mentioned discussion in the book Media, dissidence and the War in Ukraine, the articles specifically about it in The Daily Beast and Jerusalem Post, and citations in major publications such as The Guardian, The Independent, Al Jazeera, etc. Those ǃvoting to delete citing WP:SPAM or WP:SIGCOV have not offered any explanation why they think these apply in light of this substantial coverage. إيان (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• TNT delete. The additional sources of Fortune and Al Jazeera do not actually provide any WP:SIGCOV of this group; they merely include an embedded tweet. Likewise, The Independent does not provide WP:SIGCOV. I have read the chapter of Media, Dissidence and the War in Ukraine, and the references to Breakthrough News appear to be passing mentions; it does not provide WP:SIGCOV of this group.
  As for The Daily Beast, one of the two sources is an opinion piece, which is not reliable nor suitable for establishing notability. The second piece clearly is WP:SIGCOV, but the JPost mention is a paragraph of independent coverage. What pushes this over the line for me to think that this might be notable is this Network Contagion Research Institute report, which does cover the group in some depth. But the article currently is extremely whitewashed compared to the reliable sourcing, and it's softly promotional in its current tone. Rather than keeping it, I do think that blowing it up and starting from scratch would create a better article on this group. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  So we have established that WP:SIGCOV is not an issue and that the topic indeed meets standards of notability. Why don't we simply improve the article? I can start integrating views in the Network Contagion Research Institute source. Could you identify the elements that you lead you to write that the article as it stands is extremely whitewashed compared to the reliable sourcing, and it's softly promotional in its current tone? إيان (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is still an active discussion going on here. We have arguments to Keep, Delete and Redirect although the discussion is leaning Delete or No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Passes WP:ORGCRIT per the source analysis by Red-tailed hawk. However, I find the suggestion that it would be too difficult to edit the work and therefore we should WP:TNT ridiculous. The article is currently less than 1500 characters, making it technically WP:STUB length. How hard is re-working such a tiny article? We can totally fix it without much effort.4meter4 (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 12:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Reema Debnath (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:NACTOR. She has not played a leading role in any film either. There's no significant coverage about her in the sources and in WP:BRFORE search. Google news also shows 0 coverage about this individual. Nxcrypto Message 12:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, Women, and Actors and filmmakers. In2020 (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. One supporting role in major(ish) film isn't enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR.

P.S. What is WP:BRFORE? I'm new in AfD, I mostly took part in counterpart project in Polish Wikipedia. OK, I think you meant WP:BEFORE :) Tupungato (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Mayur Chauhan (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 was twice declined in AfC and also fails NACTOR, as the subject has not had significant roles in notable films or shows. There is no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources apart from the WP:OR added by User:Saurang Vara who denies any COI despite being familiar with the subject's personal information. The subject's role in Chhello Divas does not appear to be significant and none of the other films have substantial content to be considered when evaluating Mayur Chauhan according to NACTOR. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, India, and Gujarat. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

What makes you say his 3 roles in productions that have a page on this WP are not significant? And why should Karsandas Pay & Use be considered non-notable? I found some coverage about Saiyar Mori Re too. He seems to meet WP:NACTOR, -Mushy Yank. 13:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Khairul Basar (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 clearly fails WP:NACTOR. It was deleted last time too but was recreated without establishing any evidence of notability. Nxcrypto Message 09:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. The three sources in the article do not pass notability guidelines as two of which are interviews and the remaining one is a news version of the interview from Daily Star. Though that may count as WP:SIGCOV, it is not enough to pass notability. Google search did not provide further prove of notability. This subject therefore failed WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Mekomo (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• The first deletion was 3 years ago. Sources that were published after that date include: https://www.thedailystar.net/entertainment/tv-film/news/12-shades-khairul-basar-eid-3011136 ; https://bangladeshpost.net/posts/keya-khairul-team-up-for-the-first-time-in-porichoy-127326 ; https://www.daily-sun.com/printversion/details/683171/Dighi-Khairul-Basar-in-web-film-‘Murder-90’mand a lot of Daily Star coverage and interviews. -Mushy Yank. 13:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Terence O'Reilly (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 article does not demonstrate a notable character. And the editor User:LINCOLN2024 who moved it to the main space has been blocked for WP:SOCK, where he has a string of articles moved to the main space without being checked. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Ireland, England, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Draftify. Personally recommend restoring to draft - reverting the unilateral action of the socking editor. And that the draft be progressed through WP:AFC before any decision is made on moving it back to the main/article namespace. I recommend this as, after a quick WP:BEFORE, there appears to be some coverage of the subject as a topic in his own right (Granted mostly obituary-style journal articles and the type of coverage we typically see for academics, but someone with more familiar with WP:NACADEMIC would ideally take a look.) Guliolopez (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Shashi Ranjan (actor) (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)

Delete – My WP:BEFORE turned up no substantive independent secondary sources – there are plenty of listings etc. - to support the subject's notability with respect to WP:NACTOR. His 250+ episodes in Tere Mere Sapne (TV series) plus other roles here and there do not, I suggest, constitute "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Moreover, the article has been largely unreferenced since its creation, with only an IMDb reference appearing here and there. (N.B. it seems that there are a number of actors called Shashi Ranjan, at least according to IMDb – I think, but am not sure, that these two may both refer to this article https://www.imdb.com/name/nm11523032/ https://www.imdb.com/name/nm9556952/ and this one is a different person https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1662213/). As an alternative, maybe merge and redirect to Tere Mere Sapne (TV series)? SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. This is an unsourced WP:BLP that should have been deleted via PROD. Google search brought some hits on the name of the actor but I believe those articles are not about the subject of this article because they do not appear to discuss things related to this article. If the article had complete date of birth that would have helped to discern who those press articles talk about. The activities of thoss discussed in those articles date far back before this very actor started their career. Mekomo (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Theatre, Bihar, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Aaman Devgan (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 WP:SIGCOV sources have been found. The available sources are passing mentions related to the new Azaad film and Ajay Devgn. As the Azaad film has not been released yet, WP:NACTOR is not met, and WP:GNG is also not met. GrabUp - Talk 07:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GrabUp - Talk 08:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. This is WP:TOOSOON. The actor is just warming up for his debut film and he is only referenced as a nephew to a purported movie star. Mekomo (talk) 10:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Azaad (2025 film) (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 significant coverage (SIGCOV) has been found. The film is set to be released next year, so there are no reviews available, failing to meet the criteria of WP:NFILM. GrabUp - Talk 07:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Film. GrabUp - Talk 07:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)\
• Comment: If reviews were the chief criteria for having a film article, all upcoming films listed at List of American films of 2025 should also be nominated for deletion. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Krimuk2.0: That’s one of the important criteria currently being used in AfDs related to films, which is why I mentioned it. However, the film still does not pass GNG. GrabUp - Talk 08:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Abhishek Kapoor: until more independent coverage exists (and then revert the redirect and expand) but not opposed to Keep (release announced in January; notable cast and crew, known premise) if other users think it's OK. -Mushy Yank. 10:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Rmr. Ragulvarma (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 couldn't find any information about this individual through Google searches, which makes me inclined towards this being a hoax. None of the references cited in the article appear to mention the person, and the content seems to be copied from the article on R. S. Munirathinam. Since the article was accepted via AfC, initiating a deletion discussion might be the most appropriate action. Hitro talk 07:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Tamil Nadu. Hitro talk 07:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Google search for this 'politician' amounted to a waste of time as there are no hints about them in search result. This article at best is a hoax. And if it is not a hoax it also has to go because it is unsourced and cannot be verified. Mekomo (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  This article is unsourced because an IP user removed content some time ago. You can review the edit history to find the sources that were previously included. Hitro talk 11:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Might this be a hijack, rather than hoax? The version which was accepted at AfC said this person won elections in the 1970-80s, whereas the current version says he was only born in 1999. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  The "Electoral Performance" section appears to be directly copied from the article R. S. Munirathinam, including its references. None of the references in this version mentions him either. They have just created Draft:P RAGULVARMA. Hitro talk 12:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, one of a series of hoax articles by SP/MP, based on K. Venu (Tamil Nadu politician).

See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/RAGULVARMA PRABHU/Archive, Draft:RAGULVARMA PRABHU, DEEPA RAGULVARMA, Draft:DEEPA RAGULVARMA, PMK RAGULVARMA, Draft:RAGULVARMA PMK, User:RMR2004/sandbox and Draft:RAGULVARMA RMR. Falls well with CSD criteria of A7, G3 and A10, or G5 if anyone fancies reopening the SPI. Wikishovel (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Mads Hamberg Andersen (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:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Not even coverage in databases that could point to how he would be notable. Geschichte (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Johnson (soccer) (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)

Similar case to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lecomte (archer). Placements at the early Olympics depended on circumstance, it was not the serious global competition we see today. Specifically, soccer at the 1904 Olympics took place between three random clubs. When not even his name is known, the fact that he won a medal matters little. At best, redirect to either football or the US at the 1904 Summer Olympics. Geschichte (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to e.g. Football at the 1904 Summer Olympics#Medalists or List of 1904 Summer Olympics medal winners#Football. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of 1904 Summer Olympics medal winners#Football: Fails WP:GNG. Demt1298 (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Cheema Y (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)

Likely to fail WP:NMUSIC KH-1 (talk) 06:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

any reasons to delete it ?

i can show you wikipedia pages that have no reference at all that people are not even famous.

but rightnow in north india this singer trending on number one.

give reasons to delete it mr.editor.

thanks. 2001:56B:3FFA:2FFE:C955:65B4:E1FE:305F (talk) 10:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That response comes across as quite immature. Are you really suggesting using other articles as justification for keeping this one? That’s not how we determine whether an article should be deleted. This is Wikipedia, and popularity alone doesn’t equal notability. I suggest familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's notability guidelines before making such arguments. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 08:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Punjab and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep

This musical artist is very popular in India. I have noticed a general trend over both wikipedia and wikidata, that artists who are popular in countries outside of the USA are often deleted due to not meeting "notability criteria" despite them often being in the top 10 of popular artists in their own country, especially for artists from India or Africa.

There are lots of articles on the internet showing his popularity from independent well respected sources e.g.

• https://www.darpanmagazine.com/magazine/spotlight/the-skys-the-limit-cheema-y-on-his-meteoric-rise-with-cloud-9/?page=3
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/punjabi/music/cheema-y-the-global-reach-of-punjabi-music-offers-immense-opportunities-for-creative-expression-and-cultural-exchange-exclusive/articleshow/111718249.cms

Please consider keeping this entry. Thank you. QWER9875 (talk) 10:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Article is dominated with references to music chat websites which I do not know their reliability status. Only three sources in the article are not music chat websites. This one here[6] is the only source that could count for notability but this unfortunately is not enough. The other two left, one is interview and the other advertorial. Mekomo (talk) 11:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

August 2023 mid-south U.S. floods (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)

Nominating yet another one of my articles for deletion for the same reasons: it fails WP:NSUSTAINED too. Most of the coverage for this event is only when the flooding took place, and that's about it. There's this article regarding the aftermath, but other than that, there's nothing else to be found. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge to Floods in the United States (2000–present), but given that this event kinda occurred in a localized area, I'm unsure if that's a good alternative for deletion in this case. Either way, this fails WP:NEVENT on the basis of sustained coverage, which this article doesn't really have. ~ Tails Wx 04:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee. ~ Tails Wx 04:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Merge into Floods in the United States (2000-present), which seems to be an appropriate place to mention this (and again, shocked it’s not already there.) However, unlike July 2023 Western Kentucky floods, there might not be enough to put in there, thus I’m not opposed to outright deletion. 74.101.118.218 (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Social_utility_efficiency (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 definition of SUE as appearing in this article appears to be only discussed by Samuel Merrill and no other authors (excepting SPS and other unreliable sources) in the past several decades. I do not think this meets the notability bar. Affinepplan (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Mathematics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - Clearly meets notability guidelines. Has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject:
  • Weber 1978 "Comparison of Public Choice Systems"
    • Origin of the metric under the name "effectiveness", has 22 citations
  • "A comparison of efficiency of multicandidate electoral systems" by S Merrill III, American Journal of Political Science, 1984. JSTOR
    • Origin of the SUE name, in a peer-reviewed journal, has 153 citations
  • Postl, Peter and Giles, Adam, Equilibrium and Welfare of Two-Parameter Scoring Rules (August 1, 2012). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2124477 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2124477
    • "Computational results regarding the effectiveness of different scoring rules (where effectiveness is captured by a modification of the effectiveness measure proposed in Weber, 1978"
  • Evaluating and Comparing Voting Rules behind the Veil of Ignorance. Postl, Peter. L'Actualité Économique. Vol. 93, Iss. 1/2, (Mar-Jun 2017): 1-32,1A-36A.
    • "Computational results regarding the effectiveness of different scoring rules (… a modification of the effectiveness measure proposed in Weber, 1978)"
    • "According to Weber (1978), efficiency is defined, broadly speaking, as the ratio between the expected utilitarian welfare generated by the actually elected candidate according to the scoring rule and the expected utilitarian welfare generated by the socially optimal candidate." ["D’après Weber (1978), l’efficacité est définie, en gros, comme le rapport entre l’espérance de bien-être utilitariste générée par le candidat vraiment élu en fonction de la règle de score et l’espérance de bien-être utilitariste générée par le candidat optimal du point de vue social."]
  • Le Breton, M., Lepelley, D., Macé, A. & Merlin, V. (2017). Le mécanisme optimal de vote au sein du conseil des représentants d’un système fédéral. L'Actualité économique, 93(1-2), 203–248. https://doi.org/10.7202/1044720ar
    • "This coefficient corresponds to what Weber (1978, 1995) defines as the effectiveness of voting mechanism C." ["Ce coefficient correspond à ce que Weber (1978, 1995) définit comme étant l’effectivité du mécanisme de vote C."]
  • Le Breton, M., Blais, A. & Dellis, A. (2017). Élections : comportements, mécanismes et réformes. L'Actualité économique, 93(1-2), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.7202/1044713ar
    • "It follows in the line of Weber's pioneering work (1978), which, unfortunately, has been forgotten for too long. … The evaluation of the electoral system is then based on the expected value of the sum of utilities" ["Il est dans la lignée des travaux pionniers de Weber (1978), hélas tombés dans l’oubli pendant trop longtemps. … L’évaluation du système électoral est alors basée sur la valeur espérée de la somme des utilités"]
  • "Implications of strategic position choices by candidates" by R Robinette, Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, 2023. SpringerLink
    • "I propose a refinement to the social utility efficiency metric to account for the different utility of the candidate’s chosen positions"
  • "The relative efficiency of approval and Condorcet voting procedures" by S Merrill III and N Tideman, Rationality and Society, 1991. SAGE Journals
    • "the social utility efficiency of approval voting closely approximated that of a Condorcet-completion method (that of Black) and greatly exceeded that of single-vote plurality."
  • "Comparing Approval At-Large to Plurality At-Large in Multi-Member Districts" by JA Hansen, ResearchGate. ResearchGate
    • "For a particular voting rule, we define the social-utility efficiency (SUE) as the ratio of the sum of the social utilities of all winners…"
  • "Influence allocation methods in group decision support systems" by PA Balthazard, WR Ferrell, and DL Aguilar, Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, 1998. SpringerLink
    • "the results of analysis or simulation in terms of Condorcet efficiency or social utility efficiency, or strategies that maximize a voter’s influence over the outcome are not particularly useful to us."
  • "Measuring majority power and veto power of voting rules" by AY Kondratev and AS Nesterov, Public Choice, Springer, 2020. SpringerLink
    • "however, the Borda rule provides slightly more social utility efficiency"
  • "How frequently do different voting rules encounter voting paradoxes in three-candidate elections?" by F Plassmann and TN Tideman, Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, 2014. SpringerLink
    • "To our knowledge, Merrill (1984) provided the only previous empirical assessment of the Black rule—a calculation of the social-utility efficiency of this rule."
  • "Range voting" by WD Smith, RangeVoting.org, 2000. PDF
    • "Merrill’s utility based substudy is suspicious because … All his data for 2-candidate elections had “100.0% social utility efficiency,” in his terminology."
  • "Second Problem: How to Satisfy the Condorcet Criteria" by H Nurmi, Comparing Voting Systems, Springer, 1987. SpringerLink
    • "the Condorcet winning criterion does not coincide with another almost equally plausible criterion, viz. social utility efficiency (Weber, 1977)."
  • "Making multicandidate elections more democratic" by S Merrill, De Gruyter, 1988. De Gruyter
    • "Chapter 3: SOCIAL-UTILITY EFFICIENCY"
  • "STAR Voting, equality of voice, and voter satisfaction: considerations for voting method reform" by S Wolk, J Quinn, M Ogren, Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, 2023. SpringerLink
    • "To evaluate voting method accuracy and strategy resilience, we present the metrics Voter Satisfaction Efficiency (VSE) and Pivotal Voter Strategic Incentive (PVSI)."
  • "The Pathologies of Voting Schemes" by J Zhang, University of Iowa, 2020. University of Iowa
    • "The difference between the achieved utility and the maximum potential utility is the Bayesian regret. A related concept is the Voter Satisfaction Efficiency (VSE), which expresses the same idea as Bayesian regret but as a percentage."
  • "The case for approval voting" by A Hamlin, W Hua, Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, 2023. SpringerLink
    • "Recent research using computer simulations under a Monte Carlo method demonstrates that approval voting also produces winners that reliably maximize voter satisfaction (Quinn 2021)." "The ability of approval voting to select strong winners has been verified in multiple ways. The first of which is through the use of computer modeling (e.g. Smith 2006; Smith and Kok n.d.b.; Quinn 2021)."
  • "The case for score voting" by WD Smith, Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, 2023. SpringerLink
    • "Computer simulations have been used to compare score versus other election methods by the criterion of Bayesian regret (BR)"
  • "Ants, bees, and computers agree range voting is best single-winner system" by WD Smith, rangevoting.org, 2006. rangevoting.org
    • "Define the Bayesian regret (BR) of voting system E to be the expected regret exhibited by E."
  • "Vote of no confidence" by P McKenna, New Scientist, Elsevier, 2008. ScienceDirect
    • "To gauge this he measured “Bayesian regret”, a parameter that attempts to quantify how unhappy groups of people are following a poor outcome."
  • "Approval in the echo chamber" by B Armstrong, K Larson, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, benarmstrong.ca, 2017. benarmstrong.ca
    • "In particular, Smith provided results from a Bayesian regret analysis of approximately 2.2 million simulations showing…"
  • "Gaming the vote: Why elections aren't fair (and what we can do about it)" by W Poundstone, books.google.com, 2008. Google Books
    • "He began with an idea for comparing the merits of different voting systems, using a measure called Bayesian regret."
  • Not all of these search results refer to the same concept, but there are plenty of hits:
    • https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22social+utility+efficiency%22
    • https://www.google.com/search?q=%22voter+satisfaction+efficiency%22&tbm=bks
    • https://www.google.com/search?q=%22bayesian+regret%22+voting+method&tbm=bks — Omegatron (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  mind sharing a few? the measure has received coverage nearly exclusively by a dedicated tiny subset of election reform enthusiasts, and as far as I can tell just about zero coverage by any professional sources in the past several decades. Affinepplan (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  please note that the OP edited the comment since the reply. I stand by my statement. Pretty much 100% of this list either contains no mention of SUE or is a low quality / self-published source. Affinepplan (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with this criticism of Omegatron's list. I checked three at random and two had, as far as I could see, no mention of this concept whatsoever. The other mentioned it in a single sentence as a possible comparison - not a good barometer of noteworthiness. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  1. Bayesian regret is a different concept and not relevant to show the notability of SUE. and in fact, it already has its own (different) article Bayesian regret

  2. the vast majority of those results for searches with "social utility efficiency" are pulling up keyword hits for fully different concepts.

  I think you have just proved my point? Affinepplan (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  No, there are plenty of reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'm not sure if your Bayesian Regret article is about the same concept. — Omegatron (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  I spot checked 4 of those sources at random from the list you so helpfully wrote out and none of them even mentioned this metric once. Please don't just bluff and write random links with the assumption that I'm not going to read them. Affinepplan (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  User:Affinepplan Every single one mentions it. I just spend an inordinate amount of time finding direct quotes for you. 😣 — Omegatron (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  1. Bayesian Regret is a different concept. Please do not conflate the two, or think that mentions of bayesian regret implies notability for SUE

  2. None of William Poundstone, Warren D Smith, Aaron Hamlin et. al, Wolk et al are authoritative sources w.r.t. notability; I would categorize them all as cranks to be quite blunt.

  3. All the remaining quotes seem to cite the same Merril 1984 directly in passing but do not themselves examine the metric

  I still remain unconvinced that this passes the notability bar. I would provide more detailed critiques of your list but it seems exhaustingly long. Could you maybe pare it down to what, in your opinion, are the most compelling top five sources and we can focus on those? Affinepplan (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Merge I believe a possible solution might be to merge this into Implicit utilitarian voting. Both concepts seem to be very related, i.e., how well does a voting rule approximate the best possible utilitarian welfare, with Social utility efficiency seemingly being more experimental and Implicit utilitarian voting being more theoretical and worst-case oriented. The Implicit utilitarian voting article is not very up-to-date at the moment, however updating it and including Social utility efficiency as a small subsection on precursors might be worth it. Social utility efficiency on its own however does not seem notable enough for its own article. Also pinging @DominikPeters and @Erel Segal. Jannikp97 (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree these are very similar topics and merging them makes sense. I am less clear what the framing and the title of the merged article would ideally be. Currently, "implicit utilitarian voting" suggests that the aim is to design systems that do well on the distortion measure, while "social utility efficiency" stresses the idea of a metric. To me, the metric framing makes more sense. DominikPeters (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I would agree on the metric angle making more sense. Jannikp97 (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

perhaps distortion deserves its own article? based loosely on the summaries in https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370215000892 and https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00911

and the SUE can be folded in as a side note. I am happy to defer to your recommendation of a merge rather than a delete. Affinepplan (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

No, that's a completely different topic and it would be inappropriate to merge this into that. That is a voting system, this is a metric for measuring the performance of voting systems. That's like merging fuel efficiency into Toyota Corolla.

There is no problem with this article and no reason to delete or merge it; just leave it be. — Omegatron (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

there is a problem --- the problem of WP:Notability Affinepplan (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to merge these, because these are two very different approaches (minimax regret vs. expected utility).

If they were merged, I'd agree with DominikPeters that merging in the opposite direction is probably better. Of the two approaches, expected utility is the older and more well-established concept, while relative distortion is a new-ish introduction from CS/algorithms—actually, the first paper discussing distortion (in 2006) talks about the already very long history of expected utility approaches to social choice:

most work in economics assumes cardinal preferences and takes a utilitarian approach. This viewpoint dates to the work of Bentham at the end of the 18th century, who argued that "it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong." [...] The utilitarian approach is prevalent, for example, in mechanism design, and perhaps even more so in algorithmic mechanism design [Nisan 2007].

– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Of the two approaches, expected utility is the older and more well-established concept

again, to be clear, this article is not about "expected utility." This article is about a so-called "SUE" which of course while bearing resemblances to expected utilities is not identical.

Please, I ask you again, remain on topic to this deletion discussion for this specific topic, and do not draw irrelevant comparisons or other non-sequiturs to obviously notable topics. Affinepplan (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Speedy keep. The idea of comparing voting rules based on their utility is social choice and welfare economics 101. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

this article is not about generally "the idea of comparing voting rules based on their utility." this article is about a particular --- nonnotable --- metric. I guess you would be referring to Utility or Comparison of voting rules#Utilitarian_models ? which yes, both of those are reasonable and notable articles & subsections.

Please focus on specifically the article for which I have nominated deletion, and not the general concept of "utility in social choice 101" Affinepplan (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete unless someone can demonstrate noteworthiness. I don't think this has been done so far. Omegatron's list of articles seems to include some low-quality sources and many articles that don't actually mention or discuss this concept. And Closed Limelike Curves' comment is only really a defense of the much broader topic of comparing voting rules based on utility. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Ahh, ok, I think I understand the issue now. From what I can tell, you and Jannikp are interpreting the question as being about social utility efficiency as a mathematical expression (i.e. actual_utility / ideal_utility). I agree that's not notable, since it's just a slightly-different way of expressing the utility. However, DominikPeters, Omegatron, and I are thinking about how the term "social utility efficiency" is used in the literature, which is exclusively in the context of the SUE of a voting rule. In other words, the article is about applying the concept of utility to evaluating voting rules (because SUE is specific to social choice).

But all of this is a bit of a digression. Regardless of the title, the article mostly discusses comparisons of voting rules based on their expected utility, and the article actually discusses many slightly-different variations on the same metric (e.g. Bayesian regret, VSE, and SUE). This slight mismatch might warrant retitling it, but not deleting the content entirely. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

> and I are thinking about how the term "social utility efficiency" is used in the literature,

it is not used in the literature.

> the article is about applying the concept of utility to evaluating voting rules

no it is not. it is about SUE.

can you please stay on-topic and stop muddying the discussion with unrelated commentary about the general concept of utility in social choice? this is the third time you've done so. Affinepplan (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me like the article Social utility efficiency as currently written is actually a particular metric. And based on a Google Scholar search, it doesn't seem like the phrase "social utility efficiency" is widely used in the literature at all. So unfortunately I don't follow your response. Gumshoe2 (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Gumshoe2: Are there at least 3 sources? Yes. Are they reliable? Yes; at least 9 are peer-reviewed academic research. Are they independent of the original subject? Yes, at least 15 different unrelated authors. Is the coverage more than a trivial mention? Yes, it is even the main topic of some papers. This clearly meets the notability criteria. — Omegatron (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Could you clarify a particular three you have in mind? As I said, at least some of the articles you gave don't seem to even mention the topic. Gumshoe2 (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that this AfD does not qualify for "Speedy keep".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Merge to Comparison of voting rules#Evaluation by metrics. The sources provided here show that its mention would be due there. Regardless of notability, which I take no position on, this topic is presented most clearly with other metrics for voting rules. I'm not concerned about making that section too long because I think it should probably be split out into its own article anyways, also for editorial reasons. In any case, this seems like a plausible search term; and redirection would be preferable to deletion. McYeee (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  No objections to merging it into a page about evaluating voting rules based on different metrics. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Maybe it can be merged with Implicit utilitarian voting. --Erel Segal (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to Comparison of voting rules#Evaluation by metrics. I think the sourcing is there for WP:SIGCOV so a merge is not necessary. However, it would not be out of place in the Comparison of voting rules article. Oppose merge to Implicit utilitarian voting as these are two separate but related topics that can not be easily contained under a single title/scope.4meter4 (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

2023 Wynne–Parkin tornado (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 was first brought up on a project-space talk page by someone, although I can't remember exactly where. Seems to fail WP:NWEATHER from a cursory glance, no significant, lasting impacts, wasn't the deadliest tornado of the outbreak (which I know isn't a valid deletion reason), and over half of the references are to the NWS. E_F⁵ 20:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Tennessee. E_F⁵ 20:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Opposed Only 13/30 resources are from NWS, which makes up 43%, so you saying over half are from NWS is hyperbolic. This caused a lasting impact in the city of Wynne and the tornado is talked about through articles to this day. Just because it wasn't the deadliest doesn't mean it doesn't deserve and article, using that logic, the Greenfield Tornado shouldn't get an article because it wasn't the deadliest tornado of the outbreak sequence, so yeah, how l the amount of death the tornado caused is not a valid reason to delete the article. Hoguert (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

To be fair with the Greenfield tornado rationale, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. E_F⁵ 20:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay comparing articles is not really a good argument on my part but I still stand by everything else I've said Hoguert (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit early to gauge a "lasting" impact, only one year after the event? Geschichte (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Usually (at least with tornadoes), discussion of a tornado six months-or-so after the event shows the tornado’s lasting impacts, which I don’t see here. E_F⁵ 22:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep or Draftify – For stand-alone articles on individual tornadoes, I look for a couple of things. (1) Is there lasting impacts and lasting coverage, (2) if out of draftspace, does the article have the potential to pass GAN (since to me, that helps establish if it deserves to be split from the outbreak article), and (3) size of article vs outbreak section.

1. Based on a quick Google search, I see lasting coverage, with several articles published related to the tornado and/or damage caused over a year later (examples: [7][8][9][10]) Two of those articles are related to the High School, so I see lasting impacts as well just based on those articles. In fact, searching "2023 Wynne tornado" and setting the news articles to start at the most recent shows an article within the last week related to the tornado/damage. So lasting coverage (WP:LASTING part of WP:Notability) is a checkmark.
2. Does it have enough to pass GAN? In my opinion, yes. It 100% needs some work done, which is why I also mentioned possible draftification. However, as a writer of several stand-alone GA tornado articles, roughly 20k bytes is the minimum for GAN potential. I know size itself is not factored into GAN, but 20k bytes or more in size most likely will give enough detail-based length for a successful GAN. This article has over 25k bytes, so a checkmark there.
3. Size comparison between 2023 Wynne–Parkin tornado & the parent section Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023#Wynne–Parkin–Turrell, Arkansas/Drummonds–Burlison, Tennessee. The section in the outbreak article, which is specifically for the damage path, is 11.5k bytes. The stand-alone section for the track is 13.4k bytes. An aftermath section specific to the tornado adds 2.4k bytes. The meteorological synopsis section is not unique, so that size does not count and neither does the introduction. So in all, the stand-alone article has roughly only 4,300 bytes (aka characters) worth of additional unique-to-the-tornado content. The outbreak section cites 3 sources for the tornado track, while the article cites about 23 sources for the track + aftermath sections. To me, the additional byte length is probably the sources. Therefore, there is not much unique-to-the-tornado content in the article. For me, this is the main reason I would say draftify rather than delete. To me, this point is an X.

More unique info over the outbreak section would for sure make it notable for an article. I am ok with it remaining an article itself under the ideology of WP:FIXIT occurring. I do not believe this should be deleted, but at the present moment, I am leaning against it remaining in mainspace without additional information being added to the article/aftermath section. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

That is an excellent analysis, I should probably use the “would it be a GA” test more often. I would also support draftification, as it’s clear a lot of work (kudos to Hoguert) was put into this article. E_F⁵ 22:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep or draftify per The Weather Event Writer.4meter4 (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Payaza (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:ORGCRIT or WP:GNG. Sources are either run of the mill or routine announcements that adds zero value to the subject's notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Technology, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Press releases and announcements are not independent enough to meet the criteria for organisations. I’m unable to find independent sources to establish notability and would appreciate a ping if any is found. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 11:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep it's no doubt the article was poorly sourced earlier, however After a WP:BEFORE, I revamped the article and removed all press releases and routine mention. The organisation meet WP:GNG. They are notable tech industry per WP:ORGCRIT. Tesleemah (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep The article highlights Payaza's role as a notable Nigerian fintech company with independent coverage in reputable sources like BusinessDay, The Guardian, and ThisDay. Its initiatives, such as AI-driven hackathons and partnerships with organizations like UNIDO, demonstrate significant contributions to the tech and business sectors in Africa, meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria for organizations.Albakry028 (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Layton, 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, whom we do not cite, describes this as short-lived post office, with no other detail. That's consistent with the topos, which show a single farm across the road from the tracks. No evidence for a settlement beyond that. Mangoe (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Graham, 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 doesn't cite his entries so I have no idea why he stated that this was a village. On the topos it looks like a rail spot, but there is just nothing there. If there ever was a village, it disappeared long ago. We need more than this. Mangoe (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete - no evidence of notability. Could ultimately end up as a redirect. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't think there is a good reason to doubt Baker that this was once a populated place. Passes WP:GEOLAND.4meter4 (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, there is reason for doubt. We've been doing this for some years now, and we've gotten quite a bit of experience dealing with the various kinds of sources involved and reading the maps for verification. And what we found with GNIS also applies here: that some of these sources are being abused to some extent, because we are at cross-purposes with the authors. In the case of GNIS (and you need to read WP:GNIS if you haven't already) the issue was compounded by the mistakes the GNIS compilers made in looking at literally very label on every map in the country (plus other, far more dubious sources), but the issue in making articles here was that people made the default assumption that a name was a town, even though the purpose of GNIS was to standardize the names. Placenames origin books have the same issue: they are also about the names first of all and only secondarily about what they are attached to. And the rigor of these books varies. Durham out in California was meticulous about citing his sources, and the problems with him as a source were usually traced to misrepresentation of what he wrote. Baker, not as much. The general rule for the placename books is that if they say it was something other than a village, that generally fits with what we find on the maps and elsewhere; but if they say it was a village, that may or may not be borne out. If they or some other source says it was platted, that usually is borne out in the maps, because they will show a street grid; but we've had a couple of cases where a turn-of-the-century county history says "yeah, it was platted, but nothing ever came of it." These histories also have the tremendous advantage of being much closer in time to the origins of these places; in many cases the events are within living memory, whereas Baker was writing some sixty years later. So I'm disinclined to take Baker's villages at face value; we need something more. Unfortunately I have not found a county history in this case. Mangoe (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, problems with WP:V. Geschichte (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Rural post offices and rail points were often named after the local landowner; that doesn't make them a "community", let along a recognized populated place. Given the many articles sourced only to Baker with no other information found anywhere, I don't think that book alone should count for verifiability or notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Kids These Days (TV series) (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, passing mentions prove show existed, but nothing to prove notability DonaldD23 talk to me 00:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Lifetime#Original_programming -Mushy Yank. 10:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Ibrahim Abdurrahman Farajajé (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 only source that appears at all credible is the article "Whatever Way Love's Camel Takes: Remembering Baba Ibrahim Farajajé," which reads as more of a posthumous tribute than anything establishing notability, almost like an obituary (granted it was published a few years after his death, but the sentiment seems similar). All the other sources are either closely affiliated with the subject or do not appear to be generally reputable. An online search seems to return mostly the same things already being used as sources here, with an additional article on Google scholar that again appears to be a simple tribute. This individual certainly led an interesting life, but I see no evidence that they managed to attain notability. Anonymous 00:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Anonymous 00:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Bloated bio of a scholar who appears to have made almost no impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC).
• weak delete: More than a few journals remembered this individual after their passing, the one given in the article and this one [11]. With a book tribute here [A Legacy of Afrocentric, Decolonial, In-the-Life Theology and Bisexual Intersexional Philosophical Thought and Practice], but these all seem to be after this person passed away. I don't see much from when they were still alive. Oaktree b (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sexuality and gender, Religion, California, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• keep - hang on there is a 2023 festschrift dedicated to him - see, meeting WP:PROF criteria 1c Lajmmoore (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• comment I don't have time right now to work on it further, but these sources might help someone who does here, here (in Spanish), here Lajmmoore (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep anyone who gets a festschrift devoted to them (from non-fringe publications) is notable. Wow this article needs to be rewritten though, lot of NPOV issues PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

List of 1990s albums considered the best (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 criteria for inclusion on this list seems utterly arbitrary, see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I'm not sure if WP:CFORK applies here, but I certainly don't see enough evidence of notability to pass WP:NLIST here in addition to the INDISCRIMINATE concern noted previously. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because of similar issues noted above. Not worthy of a standalone page, fails WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE and most of the (reliably) sourced content is already present in the articles of the albums listed:

List of 1980s albums considered the best (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Leaning keep. I don't see how this is conceptually distinct from List of video games considered the best or List of Czech films considered the best, except that it is delineated by a decade. However, there are numerous instances of reliable sources gauging albums as best of over a given decade, as listed both with respect to these list articles, and with respect to the articles for the albums themselves. Clearly, WP:LISTN is met. BD2412 T 01:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  To be quite honest, I think that theoretically this could work as an all time list (like the articles you note), it just doesn't quite work forked into multiple decades since it gives it an overstuffed, WP:INDISCRIMINATE look. I think it would be better to take the albums that are most acclaimed by reliable sources from these lists, then assimilate them into a single list (see List of films voted the best). We'd need to make sure that there is no original research involved in singling albums out for inclusion, but I do think these lists could work consolidated into one list covering multiple decades' worth of music. Just my two cents, as the nominator. JeffSpaceman (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep and maintain decade delineations per the arguments of User:BD2412. Paulie302 (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep all Better sourced than I thought it would be, definitely not INDISCRIMINATE in either sense of the word. Meets N and NLIST by WP:CSC number 1. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per BD2412 and Jclemens. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 10:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Jclemens. --Tupungato (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Lee J. Slavutin (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)

Created by a single purpose editor so possible promotion or autobio. A search for sources in google news and google books yielded nothing in depth. Mainly 1 line mentions in google books, this source "The Sid Kess Approach - Page 82" seems the only decent one. But fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, Australia, and New York. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Has about three papers that come up in Gscholar, not much of anything else really, mentioned here [12]. Doesn't seem to have made much notability for our purposes here. Oaktree b (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Support nomination rationale. Mekomo (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

ArkUI (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 fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Rainsday (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

ArkGraphics 2D (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 fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Rainsday (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

ArkGraphics 3D (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 fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Rainsday (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Template:Waterqual mid-high (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Arbitrary addition of a level to an existing table scheme; no consensus for this. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 11:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Template:Wikimedia Commons redirect (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has been around since 2017 but has only 7 mainspace transclusions, so it has never meaningfully caught on. I'm not sure what sort of title it would be used for — perhaps a name of a photo that's somehow famous enough that people might reasonably search for it but not famous enough to be notable? In that case, I'd find it inappropriate, per a corollary of the notability backdoor argument I made about {{Wikispecies redirect}}. Sdkb ^talk 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Strong keep - The plain {{soft redirect}} template is not used in the mainspace (along the lines of the sentiment expressed at WP:SOFTSP). This allows such redirects to exist until the community decides whether or not they should through deletion or discussion venues. See, for example, this deletion discussion; there were no uses or foreseen uses, so the template was deleted. Should the community decide that a link to meta was necessary, it would likely be restored. This is an example of it going the other way. Even if the regular soft redirect template was technically disallowed from being invoked into the mainspace, attempts at it would lead to disarray -- at the bare minimum, this serves to plug such holes until the community makes a decision about retention or deletion. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Template:Wikibooks redirect (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has been around since 2017 but has only 6 mainspace transclusions, so it has never caught on. It has a theoretical use for book titles that are not notable for an encyclopedia article, but in that case, a corollary of the notability backdoor argument I made about {{Wikispecies redirect}} applies. Sdkb ^talk 00:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Strong keep - The plain {{soft redirect}} template is not used in the mainspace (along the lines of the sentiment expressed at WP:SOFTSP). This allows such redirects to exist until the community decides whether or not they should through deletion or discussion venues. See, for example, this deletion discussion; there were no uses or foreseen uses, so the template was deleted. Should the community decide that a link to meta was necessary, it would likely be restored. This is an example of it going the other way. Even if the regular soft redirect template was technically disallowed from being invoked into the mainspace, attempts at it would lead to disarray -- at the bare minimum, this serves to plug such holes until the community makes a decision about retention or deletion. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Template:Wikispecies redirect (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I start from the philosophical perspective that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we should therefore make use of the sister projects when they help us build a better encyclopedia, but that otherwise we should give them no special preference over any other content anywhere else on the internet.

This template was boldly created in 2017 without a larger discussion (or at least nothing was mentioned in the edit summaries). It takes a similar form to the much more widely used {{Wiktionary redirect}}. However, unlike Wiktionary redirect, which helps us provide information readers searching for terms that would never warrant an article, Wikispecies redirect functions more like a loophole in our notability guideline. The vast majority of its uses are for biologists that would not be notable for an article.

We have notability standards to constrain the size of the encyclopedia and reduce the maintenance burden, and I do not see a reason that we should carve out an exception for biologists just because our parent organization also happens to run a non-encyclopedia project that — unlike us — finds it appropriate to create a database of biologists. Such an exception opens some floodgates: If the WMF created, say, a Wikipaintings project that had a database of all visual artists without a notability bar, would we want soft redirects there? How about soft redirects to any concept with a Wikidata item? Or let's say we find a highly reliable non-WMF database of musicians — why not create soft redirects there for all musicians that can't survive AfD?

Either a biologist is notable and should have an article, or they are not and should not be included in Wikipedia. The only redirect in the latter case should be "go search the internet". Sdkb ^talk 00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Strong keep - The plain {{soft redirect}} template is not used in the mainspace (along the lines of the sentiment expressed at WP:SOFTSP). This allows such redirects to exist until the community decides whether or not they should through deletion or discussion venues. See, for example, this deletion discussion; there were no uses or foreseen uses, so the template was deleted. Should the community decide that a link to meta was necessary, it would likely be restored. This is an example of it going the other way. Even if the regular soft redirect template was technically disallowed from being invoked into the mainspace, attempts at it would lead to disarray -- at the bare minimum, this serves to plug such holes until the community makes a decision about retention or deletion.

We must also remember that the general rule for the creation of a soft sister redirect is for a topic to have a less-than-encyclopedic scope and be either commonly wikified words or repeatedly recreated (WP:SRD and Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects#Soft redirects from Wikipedia to a sister project). At least some of the scientist soft redirects that use this template probably have several wikilinks on other pages in the encyclopedia (but, regardless, that is an individual case matter for rfd). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Charli XCX - Unlock It.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GiankM. M (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I don't believe this is the actual cover art for the single. Released on 11 December 2017, the Internet Archive shows the Pop 2 artwork being used on the single on the 12th when the mixtape wasn't released until the 15th. Launchballer 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

File:La sopera, María Izquierdo, 1929.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DogeGamer2015MZT (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The painting was published in 1929 and is not in the public domain in the United States. It cannot be used as non-free under 8 paragraph WP:NFCC. — Ирука¹³ 08:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Ahmad Madaani.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GTVM92 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Since neither the author nor the date of original publication is known, it is not possible to determine the licensing status of the photograph in the United States or Iran. — Ирука¹³ 09:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Map of NYSPHSAA sections.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Phibetawiki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#1, as a freely licenced map of these areas could easily be created. Also WP:NFCC#3a- minimal number of non-free images in an article (as we already have the logo File:New York State Public High School Athletic Association logo.svg). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Torun unesco poland.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Geniu~enwiki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A small unused image with a caption and a sufficient number of high-quality replacements, including from the same angle. — Ирука¹³ 11:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

File:The badge of the Military Order of the Serpent.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jax MN (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Ref to Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Member_badge, this is a replaceable fair use file where a free version of the file can be duplicated --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 12:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Propose merging Category:Ministers for the Arts (Victoria) to Category:Ministers for Creative Industries (Victoria)

Nominator's rationale: Ministries are the same portfolio just a different name. GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Propose renaming Category:Postmasters general of Australia to Category:Postmasters-General of Australia

Nominator's rationale: Correct capitalisation per Postmaster-General's Department article. StAnselm (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Support: consistent with the corresponding article. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Looking at the category's page history there seems to be a lot of going back and forth with the capitalision. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Not back and forth, it was one-directional, the parent category has been moved too. The reasoning was, I think, that the article is about the office while the category is about people (I am not the best defender of this rename). I guess meanwhile most, if not all, similar categories are without capitalization as well, e.g. article Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Category:Prime ministers of the United Kingdom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose, this requires a broader discussion, it doesn't make sense to only rename this particular category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Propose splitting Category:Birth control law and case law to Category:Birth control law and Category:Birth control case law

Nominator's rationale: I think we should split this becayuse typically case law is nested under law ^SMason_Garrison 01:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• There is only one article about a law in the category, do you really suggest making a separate category for it? I think just a rename to the less clunkier Category:Birth control law would suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Propose deleting Category:Films acted by Puneeth Rajkumar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: We don't create categories for actors unless they wrote, directed or produced. Kailash29792 (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:PERFCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• MHelpDesk → Angi Inc.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This apparently is a product of predecessor companies of this target, per very passing mentions at IAC Inc. and HomeAdvisor, but it is not mentioned in the current target. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Fruits Basket. → Fruits Basket  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not really sure this redirect is plausible because of the period at the end, which doesn't appear on any official rendering of the title from what I've searched on Google. Per all these other discussions of similar redirects that have taken place over the years, I'd say we should delete this unless a justification can be provided. Regards, SONIC678 04:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Segmented Crawbster → Pikmin 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is the boss of the Cavern of Chaos, who used to have an article (see here for the article) for about eight minutes on December 29, 2009 before it was retargeted to the article for breaching WP:NOTHOWTO. The enemy isn't mentioned in the target article, and it wasn't at the time its article was turned into a redirect, potentially making this also fall afoul of WP:GAMECRUFT. I'm leaning towards deletion, but I'm open to other outcomes. Thoughts? Regards, SONIC678 04:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Karens → Karen people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Between Karen people and Karen (slang), is the existing target the WP:PTOPIC for "Karens"? feminist🩸 (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep with hatnote, per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Adding the "s" at the end shows that it is referring to a group of people, not a name or a slang. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The term "Karens" is actually used quite often irt the slang term. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Cite bioRxiv → Template:Cite bioRxiv  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

More cite template redirects TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I think all of these cite redirects should be bundled Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Cite CiteSeerX → Template:Cite CiteSeerX  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

More cite template redirects TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Cite document → Template:Cite document  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

More cite template redirects TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Cite medRxiv → Template:Cite medRxiv  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Mainspace redirect to non-readership content created by the same person who made Cite AV media. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Τορεπεροχίλ → Torreperogil  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Tagged as Russian but it's actually Greek. Either way, it's still a questionable WP:FORRED. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete The town doesn't seem to have any special affinity to Greek, according to a cursory search on Google. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Stock Pot Inn → The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. In-game location. It is mentioned in wikibooks, though it is nowhere near enclycopedic. wikibooks:The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask/Locations/Stock Pot Inn Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Latte Milk Bar → The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, as MfD uses subpages for the nominations like AfD but places them within the process's main page.

See Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.

See Category:Proposed deletion as of 19 November 2024.

• Menglianggu campaign - listed in Category:Suspected copyright infringements without a source from January 2019 Wizardman 01:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• TARGET2 - listed in Category:Suspected copyright infringements without a source from May 2019 Wizardman 01:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Spike-timing-dependent plasticity (history · last edit · rewrite) from https://research.ijcaonline.org/iceice/number4/iceice028.pdf. EvilxFish (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)