Wikipedia

Wikipedia:XfD today

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



Speedy deletion candidates [ edit ]

  ADDA52
  PACCOR

Articles [ edit ]

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Othniel Dossevi [ edit ]

Othniel Dossevi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

I am nominating this article for deletion because the player does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL. The question is whether consensus can be achieved on whether this meets WP:GNG or not. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

SSH-MITM [ edit ]

SSH-MITM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Looks like advertising. Another editor makes a claim of possible COI. The Banner talk 09:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment 1 by Rudolfstrauss
— View by clicking [show] —
SSH-MITM is an open source project and not a commercial product.

Please explain, why you are thinking it is advertising and it is not worth to be mentioned on Wikipedia. It uses the same license (LGPL-3.0) like Python Paramiko, which is the ssh implementtion. So the license can not be the problem.

According to the Github Stars (https://github.com/ssh-mitm/ssh-mitm/stargazers), there are a lot of people already interested in this project and the project has over 4.000 downloads per month on Pypi. I think, this project does not need advertising.

If you have suggestions how to improve the artice according to Wikipedias standards, please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudolfstrauss (talkcontribs) 10:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Independent (not in any way related to the subject, not the own website), reliable (no social media), prior published sources that discuss the subject in depth. The Banner talk 10:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

it is not the amount of sources which is important, when there are reliable sources from known twitter uses in this topic or upvoted redit posts. The ssh topic is, even in the security community, very small. so there are not much sources.

the project is young, but in the last weeks, SSH-MITM (in my opinion) becomes important. This tool is new and, compared to other ssh mitm tools, the most advanced.

If people does not discuss about a tool, this does not mean, that the tool is not interesting. This could also mean, that the tool works and there is no need to discuss about the tool.

A quick search with google, about 5 minutes:

Project Website is in the top results (ok this does not count):

https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&client=ubuntu&q=ssh+mitm

Twitter:

Redit has also posts:

Web:

https://securityonline.info/ssh-mitm-intercepting-proxy-server-for-security-audits/— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudolfstrauss (talkcontribs) 11:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

None of those sources even come close to establishing notability. Please read WP:NSOFT. We can't use posts on Reddits nor tweets as an encyclopaedic reference. Please read WP:RS to see the type of sources that we need. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Compared to other ssh server articles, SSH-MITM has more information about the project and the article is just a few hours old.

For example WolfSSH is only a list of supported platforms and algorithms and has only 2 sources, which links to the website of wolfssh and the license. (Sorry for bashing on wolfssh)



Writing "Independent (not in any way related to the subject, not the own website), reliable (no social media), prior published sources that discuss the subject in depth." does not help.

Sorry, this is my first article on Wikipedia. :-(

If you have done some research related to ssh-mitm, please add this information to wikipedia. This article should be a community project!
Comment 2 by Rudolfstrauss
— View by clicking [show] —
Articles about ssh-mitm:
Do you mind to use your own signature, instead of hijacking mine? You can sign your edits on talk pages with 4 tiles (~~~~) and the software will automagically replace this by your user name, time and date of your edit. The Banner talk 12:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)



Comment 1 by Manfred.ruzicka
— View by clicking [show] —
NIST and MITRE added SSH-MITM as a reference for CVE-2020-14145. This is a vulnerability in OpenSSH up to Version 8.4.

I think this are reliable sources and due to the fact, that the latest Version of OpenSSH is affected by CVE-2020-14145, it is an important topic.

Added a news article from Linuxnews.de to external links.

Manfred.ruzicka (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

You come with a lot links, but not with reliable sources discussing the program in-depth. It is still an advertisement. Sorry. The Banner talk 09:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment 2 by Manfred.ruzicka
— View by clicking [show] —
Is a vulnerability, which affects all versions of OpenSSH (even the latest) and information how to mitigate it not a public interest?

SSH-MITM is, according to nist and mitre, the only public tool (and open source), which is able to check, if a ssh client is affected by CVE-2020-14145.

Perhaps the creation of the page was not neccesary, but the intention was to provide more information and not advertisement. Is it better to move the information to OpenSSH or do you want, that this information should be completely deleted?

You are always talking about reliable sources, social media and discussions.

When it comes to vulnerabilities, the most reliable sources are mitre and nist. They are managing information about vulnerabilities and tools to audit them, but they don't discuss them. They only provide information, where you can find more information. Why do you think, that this two organisations are not reliable?

There are links from social media like Twitter and reddit and then you are saying, they are not reliable. A lot of vulnerabilities are only mentioned on twitter and twitter,because the community relies on those tweets or reddit posts.



Please explain, why the mentioned sources like nist and mitre are not reliable, what makes a source reliable.

Manfred.ruzicka (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

As I said two days ago about what the article needed: Independent (not in any way related to the subject, not the own website), reliable (no social media), prior published sources that discuss the subject in depth. The Banner talk 12:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment 3 by Manfred.ruzicka
— View by clicking [show] —
You are always writing, that reliable sources are needed, but did not explain, why nist and mitre are not reliable.

Please explain,why this both organisation are not reliable sources.

There are other resources referenced on the nist Article. Can we add those as reference? Are this references reliable? They are also describing CVE-2020-14145 and tthe mechanism, which is implemented in SSH-MITM to check against the vulnerability.

For example this report (pdf document): https://www.fzi.de/en/news/news/detail-en/artikel/fsa-2020-2-ausnutzung-eines-informationslecks-fuer-gezielte-mitm-angriffe-auf-ssh-clients/

When this is not a reliable source, what is a reliable source?

Manfred.ruzicka (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

One Question to you: Is the content interesting to be merged in another page or do you want, that the content will be removed?

I understand, that you think, SSH-MITM does not need it's own page, and this is ok for me.

If merging is an alternative, in which article, do you recommend?

Please, help to improve the content. You are all writing, that the content has no reliable sources or is not notable for its own page.

You are all experienced wikipedia authors, so help us to learn how to write content. Please do not always say, that what we are doing is wrong without providing alternatives.

A usefull suggestion could be: Perhaps the topic is not notable for its own page, but you can write about this topic on PAGENAME

A bad suggestion is: The content is not notable - delete the content

So please explain, what we can do with the content.

Manfred.ruzicka (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

First step is always to start looking for sources conform Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. And be strict about that. If you can not find enough sources that comply to Independent (not in any way related to the subject, not the own website), reliable (no social media), prior published sources that discuss the subject in depth., sorry, you can just give up. I have made that mistake too. I wrote a nice article about a folklore institution in Ireland. But when finished, I realized that 90% of the sources were related to the subject and the rest were poor sources (X organising A, X taking part in B etc.). After using some non-priest-approved language I deleted it, accepting that the institution would fail at the first challenge.
And I agree, it is extremely difficult to judge sources and information on its value, when you have a close relationship with the subject.
To be true, I can give you no hope. The Banner talk 21:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree - very difficult to follow the discussion. I have boldly opted to reorganise into collapsible sections so that it's easier to differentiate the chat from actual votes. None of the written content has been changed. Bungle (talkcontribs) 11:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

KEEP because this is the most advanced audit tool for ssh to inspect the traffic. Other tools like https://github.com/jtesta/ssh-mitm can be used, but lacks most features like public key authentication or file manipulation, which are needed for advanced security audits. Jump Hosts like Teleport SSH (https://goteleport.com/teleport/docs/) or StringDM (https://www.strongdm.com/) are not designed for security audits. While they can be used to create audit logs, those logs are for security compliance, which is another use case. They also lacks feature which are useful for advanced penetration tests. Rudolfstrauss (talk) 10:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Rudolfstrauss (talkcontribs) 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, Daniel (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Actually, I start to get the felling that more friends/staff are drafted in to work on the article. The Banner talk 12:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)



DELETE I'm the author of ssh-mitm. Same username as on pypi (https://pypi.org/user/ruzima/) and my wikipedia account is over 10 years old. I have not used it much.

It is nice to have a page on wikiepdia and i feel honored, but the "considered for deletion" message is not positive for me, my motivation and my project :-(

To "The Banner": perhaps you are right and some colleagues or persons who know me have created the page. Before this discussion ends in a "mud fight", please delete the page

Ruzima (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

List of ninja television programs [ edit ]

List of ninja television programs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

this seems completely trivial and pointless and WP:NOT. Should we also have List of television programs with blondes list of television programs where an accountant appears at least once? CUPIDICAE💕 15:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
This list page is not pointless. As with List of vampire television series there have been numerous Ninja television programs, and the list of these is getting too long for the main article Ninjas in popular culture. Similarly, for that reason, list pages were previously created for List of ninja video games and List of ninja films.Chanbara (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
It would be more relevant if this was a list of shows about ninjas, not an indiscriminate list of everytime a ninja has ever appeared on television. This list is nothing more than fancruft. CUPIDICAE💕 16:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
It is first and foremost a list of shows about ninjas. All of the series are ninja series. Non-ninja series featuring ninja episodes being included does not diminish the value of the list. Just as is the case with List of vampire television series.Chanbara (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • It seems likely that we can support a list of ninja tv shows, but the framing as The following is a list of television series, episodes, and commercials where at least one ninja character appears as a significant plot element. is too indiscriminate. Likewise including a bunch of poorly sourced, non-notable examples. If the list were pruned, would it be better to keep on its own or merge back into ninjas in popular culture? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
The framing could be changed to The following is a list of ninja television series, episodes, and commercials., as this is what it is. The list of ninja commercials could be moved back to the main article as a separate category. As far as individual ninja episodes, I believe it has significance just like a one-shot TV movie does (and also in terms of popular culture), but I suppose those could be separate, which I guess would leave this as a List of ninja television series. Sourcing can always be improved upon as new information is found (along with linking to new Wikipedia pages). Most Japanese series have Japanese Wikipedia pages which could be linked to as well when an English page doesn't exist.Chanbara (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd want to see sources covering episodes as a group and commercials (?!) as a group. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "group", but pretty much all of the ninja commercials are sourced to YouTube videos of them. These were included in the ninja Television list but they could certainly be moved back to the main article as a separate category of Ninja in popular culture.Chanbara (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't cover things just because they exist. We shouldn't have any lists based just on a common theme identified by a wikipedia contributor, sources only to the things themselves. I think it's highly likely that independent reliable sources have discussed ninjas in movies and probably ninjas on tv (perhaps both together), but I would be surprised to see individual tv episodes covered as a group, and shocked by sourcing about ninja commercials. Further reading: WP:SALAT, WP:CSC, WP:NLIST... — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, a number of articles in martial arts magazines in the 1980s covered the history of ninja in movies and on TV and they did include individual TV episodes such as Kung Fu - "The Assassin" and others... As far as commercials go, these were examples already listed on the main Ninja in popular culture article, which is why I included them when creating the list page, but, as I already stated, these don't need to be included here. Side note: this may or may not be relevant to the discussion, but recently FROM PARTS BEYOND publisher included these and more on his "How Ninja Conquered the World" timeline: https://vintageninja.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/VintageNinjaTimeline-%C2%A9KeithRainville-V1.3opt.pdfChanbara (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I found one of the numerous magazine articles where films, TV series, and yes, individual TV episodes are discussed together. The article was entitled "THE NINJA: AMERICA'S SINISTER NEW HERO by Lucille Tajiri". It was first published in the August 1981 issue of MARTIAL ARTS MOVIES magazine, and later re-published in the September 1984 issue of INSIDE KUNG FU Presents THE MASTER NINJA: WARRIOR OF THE NIGHT magazine. It's a pretty lengthy article but here are some of the more noteworthy passages from it:
"For those of you who aren't familiar with the ninja or falsely believe that he exists only in Japanese chanbara movies, you skeptics who doubt that the ninja is alive and well and living in America, just consider The Octagon, Shogun, Shogun Assassin, Enter the Ninja, The Ninja, Revenge of the Ninja and Shinobi. These are films that Western audiences have either already seen or soon will see in their neighborhood theaters in the months to come. All of these movies have scenes of, or are entirely based on, the ninja and ninjutsu, "the art of invisibility", "the art of stealth"."
"There can be no doubt that American Cinema's The Octagon, with it's formidable ninja training fortress, and NBC-TV's Shogun, which incorporated several ninja incidents, also paved the way for heartland America's acceptance of an art which, with its cloak of mysticism and aura of the occult, goes one step beyond most people's concept of the martial arts. But even predating this exposure, the art of ninjutsu was featured in the early 1970s on the once-popular Kung Fu television series, when Robert Ito (Sam in Quincy) played a crippled servant throughout three-quarters of the episode, only to surprise audiences by suddenly dropping his disguise and transforming into a dangerous, shuriken-throwing death machine doing battle against the inscrutable Caine. Delving back even further into the dusty archives, ninja first appeared on the international large screen in the 1967 James Bond thriller You Only Live Twice when 007 joined forces with a band of Japanese ninja agents to overthrow a villain of super-evil magnitude. Incidentally, Sho Kosugi (the black ninja in Enter the Ninja) says that the ninja scenes in the Bond escapade were especially memorable to residents of Osaka, Japan. It seems that in their fervor for authenticity, the Bond ninja left behind shuriken holes in the sacred, but wooden walls of Osaka castle."
P.S. I'm sure I can find more of these articles in my old magazines if need be.Chanbara (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Revised the lead to better reflect the content and moved the commercials list back to the main article Ninja in popular culture.Chanbara (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep the article as valid, despite what the nominator says, and just edit it to only include things with specific criteria. Must be a show about ninja, or with at least one ninja as a main character. DreamFocus 01:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Ben Langa [ edit ]

Ben Langa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

I find this difficult to assess. Langa appears to have made little impact as an author, while his assassination caused some ripples. Still, the available sources essentially consist of one writeup [1] (by an NGO generally regarded as reliable). The linked collection of documents would mostly be characterized as "passing mentions" by our metrics, I'm afraid. This feels like a suitable subject for an article, but the source situation makes me wonder. Opinions please. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The fact that he has three brothers who each have a linked article is relevant. If his brothers themselves are notable, having a sibling assassinated is an important part of their stories. Of course the content of this article could be embedded in each of those articles, but what's the harm in instead linking each to this one? Michaelgraaf (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Logs: 2021-01 ✍️ create
Keep: Having a page dedicated to this person on sahistory, the country's premier history site - https://www.sahistory.org.za/people/benjamin-johnson-langa - gives the subject clear notability. I don't have time to look further right now, but this looks useful as well - https://www.sahistory.org.za/collections/80452. Greenman (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

St. Paul's College, Lucknow [ edit ]

St. Paul's College, Lucknow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 19:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Suggest a project to destub all schools in UP: Then possibly merge. Saying Fails GNG is very tidy- but we we need to explain why. I have added a wl to Roman Catholic Diocese of Lucknow which is totally underdeveloped- it reminds me of the articles we were proud to add fifteen years ago. It could be the target for a merge. Para one looks like it has been transcribed from a notable source as part of a batch but unsourced. Para 2 looks like a personal memory but suggests this school has over 500 pupils- so sources could be found. I suspect researching this one school, is going to be a similar process to reseaching other UP schools, so a more global approach to problems could be be more productive. ClemRutter (talk) 10:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete This article has sat for 14 years with no sources at all, which is a very clear violation of our verifiability rules. A quick google search turned up no reliable sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

London Buses route 64 [ edit ]

London Buses route 64 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

No evidence this route meets WP:GNG. Endorse redirect to List of bus routes in London. SK2242 (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep The nomination does not suggest deletion. The route has been running in Croydon since the 1930s and so is reasonably historic. All such London bus routes are well covered in books – it's just a matter of looking per WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST. Our policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 20:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Existing for a long time is not a guarantee of notability. You’d need to find such books that supposedly contain significant coverage to prove your point as I could not find any. SK2242 (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would suggest taking a look a it's sister articles in this navbox, noting also that many routes don't have their own articles, to better gauge whether to keep or delete. Cordially, History DMZ(HQ) (wire) 01:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect Individual bus routes should be limited to only the most notable, and I do not see what makes this one stand out among all those routinely listed in such books. Reywas92Talk 20:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • weak Keep - Since the other London bus routes have articles, it would be disruptive to the category. Unless someone wants to transform all of them, I think doing one-off variations would not be better and would be a bit of SURPRISE to find this one missing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@Markbassett: There are only few remaining routes with articles. Lots of others have been deleted and redirected to the list page in the past. SK2242 (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@SK2242: ??? “only few” is Factually incorrect. I don’t know what you’re looking at but there seems 90+ articles of a bus route in London. That’s hardly all routes so there may have been others deleted - but it seems a significant percentage and lacking a guideline it seems reasonable to respect the efforts plus here a historical aspect, popularity as sightseeing bus, and 24-hour fairly direct route ... and let it be. For what it’s worth, I also see Bus routes in Manhattan, where a overall article links to each route has its own article, so having a bus route article seems not unique. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
90 out of over 500, and more may come to AfD soon. There is no evidence of notability for this route. SK2242 (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a 'Bus Routes in London Wiki' which covers 'many or most' buses in the region and which is reasonably active: the relevant page is here. There is a case for coordination. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Victoria Gordon [ edit ]

Victoria Gordon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

The subject of the article is not notable or worthy of a Wikipedia article since she has not achieved anything successfully to be known as an actress. She is an amateur aspiring actress at best who pretends she is a professional by clearly making her own amateur films and homemade videos with her family and friends from her Malibu/Beverly Hills neighborhood as is evident from her social media. The sources are mainly created by the subject and the article was presumably created by the subject herself (user: Juliescholar) who has significantly edited the articles about her family (for example Al Gordon (screenwriter) who was not as big of a screenwriter as she would like to portray but was only part of a team of screenwriters from some old TV shows which does not make her notable) or her mother Lori who she says is her "publicist" in an amateur podcast video interview on Youtube. The subject is an overzealous aspiring amateur actress with questionable acting skills and singing skills (and does not make her notable as a 'singer' either when she occasionally sings with the orchestra of her uncle) and with a knack for self-promotion who has found a way to get around the approvals process on Wikipedia at her original article here which goes against Wikipedia guidelines. She heavily puffs herself up by saying she is 'the youngest ever to perform solo at Walt Disney Concert Hall', but there is no real proof of that besides her mentioning it herself in some local paper which she would like everyone to believe and does not make her notable. It is very possible that someone else younger than her has performed there. This is a claim made by the subject herself without any proof from the time that it happened, and even so, it does not warrant her notability.Davidangeleno (talk) 11:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Sebastian Cruz Couture [ edit ]

Sebastian Cruz Couture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

As you can see from this article's history, I have been quietly looking at the references. While they are different enough to those in the article deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Cruz Couture to avoid outright WP:G4 deletion, it would appear to me the substantial issues have remained the same

  • repeated additions of purported references from press releases, gossip pages, and passing mentions - not in themselves a reason for deletion, but a reason to be wary of those references
  • quite simply this article fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP and quite possibly other tests for inclusion as a Wikipedia article

As always, I am happy to to be proven wrong. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Pankajbhai Patel [ edit ]

Pankajbhai Patel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Contested PROD. Fails NPOLITICIAN as never elected to office. I can't see GNG on this one either. JW 1961 Talk 10:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Australian Council for Civil Liberties [ edit ]

Australian Council for Civil Liberties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

WP:V, The organisation referred to here appears not to exist. There was an Australian Council for Civil Liberties from 1936 to 1966 after which it changed its name to the VCCL. Now, a single person, Terry O'Gorman, describes himself as the President of the Australian Council for Civil Liberties in certain interviews and press releases, but other than that there is no reality to the organisation. There's no building, no website, no address, no contact, and no staff or membership other than Mr O'Gorman. Mr O'Gorman remains the vice-president of the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties and uses the ACCL label when he wishes to express views that are his own and would not be compatible with his QCCL role. Ordinary Person (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Yoyo Ovi [ edit ]

Yoyo Ovi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Non notable singer and model who fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:SINGER nor WP:ENT. They seem to have been nominated for a non notable award which in no way proves notability, a WP:BEFORE search shows hits in unreliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007 Hello Celestina007, kindly delete the article if it doesn't meet notability. I personally created the article because the singer had performed on important TV programs. What i disagree is the Paid article you included. I'm not a blogger or paid writer. I keep on learning daily. If you wish to delete the article i will appreciate also, i was't paid for it or expecting direct or indirect gifts from the singer. as regards to Influence Akaba his music charted https://www.top-charts.com/songs/world/germany/itunes/2020-W12 on Itunes also published by MyTuner Radio (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I can’t unilaterally delete the article & no one can until the AFD discussion is over. The problem is the subject of your article doesn’t meet any criterion from SINGER and lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence making it a GNG fail also. Celestina007 (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Adan Santiago [ edit ]

Adan Santiago (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. AngryHarpytalk 08:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpytalk 08:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Binny Rinky Benajmin [ edit ]

Binny Rinky Benajmin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

The subject is a non notable Malyali actress who doesn't meet the notability requirements for actors as she has only had small roles. References quoted in the article are routine announcement and lack sufficient depth to meet the criteria. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • delete or draftify: this is wp:toosoon, she may be notable in future, looks like early stage of her career.ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • commemt is it Benjamin or Benajmin? Article has it both ways. Looks like the article title is misspelled. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Face Up (magazine) [ edit ]

Face Up (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Only found maybe one other source besides the one listed. Probably not a notable magazine. Dronebogus (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Mukhtar Sagir Dambatta [ edit ]

Mukhtar Sagir Dambatta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Current sources don't establish WP:GNG Hulatam (talk) 05:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hulatam (talk) 05:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete — Lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as copyvio of the 360dopes.com article which was created the day before the Wikipedia article. (The xycinews.com article has identical content but is conceivably a mirror, although there's no attribution). In any event, delete as fails WP:GNG. Coverage is syndicated stories based on what he's written. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Ann Grocott [ edit ]

Ann Grocott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

I have not been able to verify any of the claims about her art career. It is worth mentioning that the article appears to have been written by a family member, who also worked on Rex Wood and Noel Wood. The best coverage availble is a set of news articles about how she discovered that 50 of her late father's painting at auction were actually fakes. But: WP:NOTINHERITED.Possibly (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

1x1 (song) [ edit ]

1x1 (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

I had doubts about this song's notability in lights of its current DYK nomination. (To note--this nomination is not to propose outright deletion) No independent coverage from album reviews. WP:NSONGS states that coverage within album reviews does not establish notability. Charting alone does not mean the song is inherently notable. (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hulatam (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Arekh [ edit ]

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

I haven't been able to confirm a single thing on this page. I haven't been able to find any indication that the sources or even their authors are real. Several key phrases in this article appear only in this Wikipedia page, including Arekh Thulay, Dulmat, Persihaib, Albhub-Hamni, Khalep, and "neutral Bible". I think this page is a hoax. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as a hoax. Mccapra (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Wild Animal Baby Explorers [ edit ]

Wild Animal Baby Explorers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Article about a children's television series, not reliably sourced as passing WP:TVSHOW. As always, TV shows are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist(ed) -- the notability test is the reception of reliable source coverage about the show in real media to establish its significance, but the only reference shown here at all is a short review on the self-published website of an advocacy organization that isn't a neutral or notability-making source.

There's also been some editwarring going on here about whether this was an American show as claimed by IMDb, or a multinational American-British-Canadian copro as claimed by random IP numbers who aren't showing any sources to demonstrate that IMDb is incorrect about its production nationality -- and it's also flipped back and forth several times between a redirect to PBS Kids and a standalone article, but throughout that entire history of editwarring, it has never, ever been properly sourced for the purposes of earning a standalone article.

No prejudice against the recreation of a (protected) redirect to PBS Kids from the redlink if desired, but this should be deleted first as there's no value in retaining this poorly sourced content in the edit history. If people really want this to be recreated as a standalone article again, they're going to have to put much, much more effort into it than this. Bearcat (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Hamid Goudarzi [ edit ]

Hamid Goudarzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

I found no significant coverage. Non-notable actor. SL93 (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hulatam (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Pink Is In [ edit ]

Pink Is In (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Article about a television series, not adequately referenced as passing WP:TVSHOW. One of the base notability criteria that a television show has to meet to get a presumption of notability is that it airs on a national network -- but this airs only on a cable community channel in a single market, which means it has to clear a much, much higher burden of sourceability than a series that was actually airing on CTV or CBC or Global would. But for coverage, all it really has is a couple of hits in the local media of its own local market, along with one hit of "local actress gets role" in the hometown newspaper of one of its cast members in an article that's fundamentally about her rather than the show per se, which is not enough coverage to make it notable in spite of its lack of national network carriage. Additionally, this was first created by an editor with a clear conflict of interest, as their username very closely corresponds to the name of the show's creator. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if its basis for notability changes (e.g. actually getting picked up by a national network for followup seasons), but simply existing is not an automatic notability freebie that exempts a local TV show from having to have nationalized carriage or nationalized coverage. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Dalia seera [ edit ]

Dalia seera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

This article was prodded after an objection to my merge proposal to on the talk page, citing concerns about notability. Further research showed the objection was well-founded, but it was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson without explanation. I found few reliable sources, but best as I can tell, the term appears to be a composite of two languages: Marathi (sheera) and Hindi (Dalia). Looks like editorial bungling. "Sheera" is a halva made with suji/rava (semolina), and "lapsi" is a type of porridge made with dalia (bulgur). There are no reliable sources for the construction "Dalia sheera". Spudlace (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spudlace (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The Real Thing (Gwen Stefani song) [ edit ]

The Real Thing (Gwen Stefani song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

I am not entirely sure if this song was really released as a promotional single or not, given that Discogs is generally unreliable (WP:RSP). As the article is made up of mostly album reviews (especially the "critical reception" section), and it has not charted on any singles chart, I am afraid this article fails WP:NSONGS. (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Well via the GA process. It would have been reviewed by several editors, and I highly doubt an article that does not meet WP:GNG would become a GA. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I've also dropped a note on the GA project's talkpage too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: As a GA can be reassessed, so can notability. Just to notice that there have been quite a few AfDs for Songs GAs. I don't think a GA status can automatically indicate that the song is notable per-se. (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – In one of my sandboxes, I have recently started editing and expanding the article's content to comply with the recommendations of WP:NSONGS. This article has not seen a lot of editing activity in nearly 5 years, which I understand bears zero significance in the case of an AfD, but I would like to make it known that this content is being actively worked on to meet guidelines. Carbrera (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC).
  • Feel free to expand the article. Once the article is expanded, ping me so that I could see the progress. Keep in mind, though, please don't include Discogs as a source. (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there a link that verifies this release as a promotional single? I feel like it's pretty much a copy-paste ID from Discogs. Idolator may be okay, but Pop Void is an unreliable source. I'm also seeing sources used from "Gay City News" and "PopCrush" which are not reliable (WP:RSMUSIC). The NME and Billboard sources fall short of what is required to be "independent, non-trivial coverage": only one sentence skimming through is in NME (Undeterred, Stefani went away and wrote the track ‘The Real Thing’ in the style of New Order, which the band then came and played on.) and the Billboard article is a revisit of the album and not the song. If things are cherry-picked from scattered sources like this, I don't think it is fair to say the song has received coverage outside album reviews. (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I do not think it is fair to say that I have cherry-picked information from "scattered sources". Despite not being the main contributor to this article in the past, I knew that it was in need of help when you first alerted me of its AfD, and it has long been on my mental list of articles to revisit. I disagree with your stance, and I believe I expanded the article to an appropriate manner that would meet the requirements of NSONGS. In regards to the concerns you raised above, why is the media citation of the CD itself not sufficient? WP:RSMUSIC and WP:ALBUMAVOID both list this format as a generally reliable source. The only information I have obtained from the media is the track listing and length, release year, and label. The NME source is completely about Stefani's attempt to work with New Order on "The Real Thing"; yes, the actual title is only mentioned once but the entirety of the article is about the song's development. I was unaware of the unreliability of PopCrush, so I have removed it, but Gay City News is not listed at RSMUSIC. Into the Pop Void seems to employ several editors with professional experience, so I do not believe that it is unreliable per se. I think the content introduced in these particular sources is beneficial to the reader and includes information that would be out of place on the suggested L.A.M.B. redirect, only adding unnecessary weight. I am fully aware that a non-radio single from 2005 is not going to have a hundred references about it, but it does have some. Isn't that why NSONGS notes that "the number of reliable sources necessary to establish notability is different for songs from different eras"? I stand my ground when I say that the article should not be deleted or redirected. Carbrera (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC).
  • I will accept the CD liner notes on good faith (to note, I still am very skeptical of the liner notes, as the source claims the single had a promo release in the Philippines, while most editors of the article, including you, are from presumably the U.S.). The RSMUSIC is just a guide, and "Gay City News" not being included in it does not mean it is notable per-se unless there is evidence of editorial oversight. I do not understand how incorporating the NME information into L.A.M.B. would add "unnecessary weight", given that Album background/production sections often incorporate the conception of each and every song, which is a perfectly normal thing. Otherwise, the Idolator and the Void sources are weak for a standalone article. (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • On another note, the Billboard retrospective article is great material to expand a "Production" section of L.A.M.B. (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)`
  • Keep – Due to the article's recent expansion and addition of multiple published sources outside of album reviews, I vote to keep this article per my understanding that it meets WP:NSONGS. Carbrera (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC).
  • I appreciate your efforts in expanding the article, but I still have some concerns regarding notability. (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Love. Angel. Music. Baby. Only real notability evidence is some album reviews. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep – An Interscope citation is being used to back up this promotional CD release not Discogs, which is fully reliable. Also, the song has a good number of live performances and other versions mentioned; these definitely show notability. --K. Peake 19:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I will accept the Interscope liner notes on good faith. I do not think NSONGS mention anything about live performances or remixes unless they themselves also attract coverage. Being performed once or thrice does not make a song inherently notable. (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Love. Angel. Music. Baby. A limited release promo single that doesn’t meet WP:NSONGS is certainly not fit for an article, GA or not. D💘ggy54321 (xoxo😘) 03:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Love. Angel. Music. Baby. - Drastically overwritten like most Stefani Wikipedia articles. However, a quick scan through the references confirms nearly all coverage is dependent on album reviews, no charting information either.--NØ 04:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • A song does not need to chart in order to be notable. Carbrera (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC).
  • Of course not, but it can be an indication that a song might be notable, something this song really doesn’t have. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • RedirectLove. Angel. Music. Baby.. I don't think Discogs is useless but even it only has cover art. Not a CD, or liner notes, or anything... just cover art. For all we know it's fan-made. It even says "draft" on the right side. Nevertheless, 2005 isn't ancient—there would be more sources if it was notable (maybe it wasn't 2005? who knows... I don't even think this was an official release). Heartfox (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Now that I noticed from the Discogs release, it says "Draft" which I think is by no means an indication of an official release. The "GSPRCD" release ID is also fishy (I may be conducting original research here, but it is quite an abbreviation of "Gwen Stefani Promo CD"), given that label release IDs often contain number-only strings, or a mix of letters and numbers (i.e. "Poker Face", another single from the same label). (talk) 05:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I want to state that I have this promotional copy of "The Real Thing" in my personal CD collection, and I would have never added it as a citation in the first place if I doubted its legitimacy. The Discogs source being discussed was added over 5 years ago and has since been removed – I am fully aware that is the site should not be used outside of external links on Wikipedia. Anyway, I am having difficulty accepting why this combination of independent sourcing, cover versions (including one by a major group), a promotional release, and album reviews is not enough to meets the guidelines of NSONGS. Yes, a lot of the coverage comes from these reviews of L.A.M.B., but a rather sizable amount of the article's content is also derived from the sources I've mentioned. It seems like everyone interprets NSONGS differently. Carbrera (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC).
  • If you happen to have the promo CD of it, then I'll accept it on good faith. I don't know which "major group" you are referring to, but perhaps you'll find WP:SONGTRIVIA helpful. Aside from album reviews, I am seeing two sources (Idolator and Pop Void), which I am afraid insufficient, to put it plainly (if you count Billboard, then each and every track deserves an article?). Just to note, a single release does not grant notability. (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I am referring to the Vitamin Strings Quartet cover and the accompanying AllMusic review by Johnny Loftus. I realize that not all singles are notable. What's wrong with this NME article? The entirety of the article is about Stefani's attempts in creating the song. I dislike repeating myself, but I feel as if the legitimacy of several sources is not even being considered. In regards to your Billboard comment, I do not think and have never thought that one source equates to notability. I'm saying that Idolator + Into the Pop Void + NME + Billboard + VSQ's cover + everything else should be enough to meet any notability concerns. Carbrera (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC).
  • Aoba47 – I hope you don't mind that I pinged you, but as the original GAN reviewer of this article, perhaps you'd care to weigh in? Carbrera (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC).
  • I missed the NME source, but then incorporating that, it will add up to three (NME, Idolator, Pop Void -- the last of which is dubious). Why do you have to repeat yourself, when I specifically said that those three sources are not sufficient for a standalone article? If most sources incl. Billboard discuss this song as part of the same artistic project (in this case, the L.A.M.B. album), then why a standalone article should be created in the first place? (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Not to mention the String Quartet review is on the tribute album and not this song per-se. Stop justifying a song's notability in the concept of album reviews. (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • By the way, is there any way you could upload the promotional copy of the single onto platforms like Flickr or Imgur? That may or may not determine notability (as I said, single release does not grant notability), but to make sure the information at other Gwen Stefani articles is correct i.e. Gwen Stefani discography. (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I have done no such thing. My argument has never been that – I simply believe that a combination of album reviews and independent sourcing, on the song (in this case), should suffice and is still in compliance with notability guidelines. It is as if there is some imaginary number of sources I need to reach on this article, and I don't think that is reasonable. Carbrera (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC).
  • – I can upload it, but I think you are asking a lot of me. Carbrera (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC).
  • Sorry for being doubtful. I just want to make sure the information is correct, as there is little information on this promo release outside Discogs, which is rather skeptical. I believe this is for the best of this site. (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I still say my ground that sources on this article are insufficient for a standalone article, and some sections can be trimmed tremendously. I would however leave it to other editors to discuss towards a consensus. (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect - firstly the whole of the background and release section is about the album and not relevant except for the last two sentences. Additionally the critical reception is all from album reviews, The "Other versions" section is not notable. The track listing and "release" is dubious - it was sourced from Discogs and then replaced with an offline references. Releases like this are for promo purposes and media - not the general public. A release needs coverage in its own right separate from the parent album, otherwise the information could and should be included on the parent album page. GA status is nothing to do with notability - there are lots of examples in the past of well written non-notable topics. With less than 500 views since its creation in 2016 - that's also an indication of its lack of notability. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 17:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The bulk of the expansion is from album reviews, to note. (I am not dismissing the three sources above though) (talk) 05:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I honestly do not know about this one. I can understand the argument to redirect this article as it is encouraged to show significant coverage outside of album reviews, and it does look like a majority of the coverage is about the album reviews. I would prefer to leave this decision up to other editors. I just wanted to comment as I have been pinged. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep due to Carbrera's demonstration of notability. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Love. Angel. Music. Baby. - fails WP:NSONG, coverage mostly from album reviews, the song has neither charted nor received accolades. --Ashleyyoursmile! 10:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect and Comment uDiscover Music is an unreliable source since it belongs to UMG. Billboard does a track-by-track review which in the end is an album review, NME source just states she was inspired by New Order? and they say how their collaboration never came to fruition? The Idolator source is a good one. The Idolator and NME info can be added to the album page. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Sounds like the best idea. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. I was being neutral because of the multiple redirects here, but I think that WP:NMUSIC is clear here: "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. Rather, these are rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is listed at articles for deletion." And as everyone knows: "Rule of thumb: a principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation". The article is built upon album reviews and should be merged into the parent album? Yes, per WP:NSONGS, but NSONGS also says: "a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", which is the case here, and nothing here is trivial. Due to the multiple contradictions found at NSONGS, I wouldn't take it seriously beyond an advice page, and I'll stick with WP:GNG, the parent of NSONGS, the non-contradictory guideline that is being satisfied. (CC) Tbhotch 16:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for bringing up WP:NSONGS as a rule of thumb rather than carved-in-the-stone policy. I do admit NSONGS is sometimes frustrating. Alas, I am waiting for the promo release confirmation to make sure information is correctly represented. (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • To note, I am still inclined towards redirect--the better alternative is to expand L.A.M.B.'s article (which is currently lacking a "Production" section, and whose "Composition" section is awaiting a much needed update to keep it up-to-par with current Music FAs). I would not however canvass others into taking my side--though I do have quite strong feelings about this one. (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • CommentHere are the images that were requested. Unfortunately, the more and more I read some of the comments above, the more I feel my credibility as an editor has been questioned. I've written dozens of GA-quality pages that contain the AV media notes template for promotional CDs and have never been asked to upload photos of the release in question before. I have an extensive music collection and should not need to justify how or why I own an international CD. I understand the request, but considering what led up to it, I am insulted that my use of offline sources has been fine up until this AfD. Yes, I am admittedly a fan of Stefani, but I do not let it interfere with my pledge to adhere to Wikipedia's policies concerning notability and reliability. I want to fight for this article but I am no longer willing to go out of my way to prove myself to others. Carbrera (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC).
  • My intentions were not at all malicious--though I do understand you may have a rough time dealing with my behavior. Probably the Discogs site shouldn't have been listed in the first place, as that site is fishy and has raised quite a lot questions about its reliability, especially since the information site for this song has a "Draft" tag. (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relisting. There's still no clear consensus on whether the article should either be kept or redirected.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎(ICE TICE CUBE) 00:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep There seems to be enough to say about it that a stand-alone article is not out of line, and the only reasonable merge target (Love. Angel. Music. Baby.) is already longish. Album reviews are an entirely reasonable place to look for information about a song, I'd say, bearing mind that a source doesn't have to be devoted to a subject in order to have meaningful content on it. Charting is one reason why a song could be worth documenting, but it's hardly the only reason, just like a book can be worth writing about even if (gasp) it isn't a best-seller. XOR'easter (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

WiseCampus.com [ edit ]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. DJFace1 (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The nominator has been blocked as a spammer, however I am leaving this nomination open so that it can be evaluated on its merits. MER-C 11:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: Barely found anything about the website. ASTIG😎(ICE TICE CUBE) 12:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 00:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, defunct website. Oaktree b (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete purely on non-notability (claimed or shown) basis: there are no sources cited, and a search finds nothing either (possibly because this seems to have gone bust almost ten years ago, although that in itself isn't of course grounds for deletion), therefore fails notability and even basic verifiability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Surchur [ edit ]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. DJFace1 (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN with no enduring coverage--most of the edits to the article in the last 8-9 years have been cleanup bots. It never received major press coverage, and apparently has been dead for ~9 years. Having said that, it could arguable merged into a bigger article on a larger topic of search engines that failed. Jclemens (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The nominator has been blocked as a spam sockpuppeteer, however I am leaving this nomination open so that it can be evaluated on its merits. MER-C 11:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 00:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Unfiltered Records [ edit ]

Unfiltered Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. DJFace1 (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete -- per nom. Mazurkevin (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    Blocked for spamming. MER-C 11:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The nominator has been blocked as a spam sockpuppeteer, however I am leaving this nomination open so that it can be evaluated on its merits. MER-C 11:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 00:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Atarfe Industrial CF [ edit ]

Atarfe Industrial CF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

The article was contested due to playing in a national division despite the team never going passing the fourth tier of Spanish football which isn't a national division. The club also fails WP:FOOTYN as they haven't competed in the Copa del Rey which is the national cup competition for Spain. HawkAussie (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep The Spanish fourth division isn't a national division, but Spain limits the number of Copa del Rey participants and the club passes WP:GNG since the third (fourth, soon to be fifth) division is really the cut-off for Spanish media coverage: [2] [3] [4]. SportingFlyer T·C 01:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Hana Cakuli [ edit ]

Hana Cakuli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Article fails both WP:MUSICBIO andWP:GNG as there is no deep coverage by independent reliable sources about the singer. Lorik17 (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Files [ edit ]

File:Atlantaterminal1.jpg [ edit ]

File:Atlantaterminal1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Theguru320 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, low quality, limited information, absent uploader Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Strangelove-comfest.jpg [ edit ]

File:Strangelove-comfest.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Radiojesus (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, questionable licensing, only viewable edit by user. Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Eyerafal.jpg [ edit ]

File:Eyerafal.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Skillz187 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, unclear if licensing related to current or historical image, image is easily replaceable. Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Chiefs-Away-Jersey.jpg [ edit ]

File:Chiefs-Away-Jersey.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Thefeamgroup (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, low quality. Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

File:HarlemLIVE Receives a United Federation of Teachers Award.JPG [ edit ]

File:HarlemLIVE Receives a United Federation of Teachers Award.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by HarlemLIVE (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, not encyclopedic, likely used on deleted article. Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Student in HarlemLIVE Office.JPG [ edit ]

File:Student in HarlemLIVE Office.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by HarlemLIVE (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, not encyclopedic, likely used on deleted article. Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Students at Work at HarlemLIVE.JPG [ edit ]

File:Students at Work at HarlemLIVE.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by HarlemLIVE (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, not encyclopedic, likely used on deleted article. Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Students Taking Part in the HarlemLIVE Program.JPG [ edit ]

File:Students Taking Part in the HarlemLIVE Program.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by HarlemLIVE (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, not encyclopedic, likely used on deleted article. Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Livingroom6.jpg [ edit ]

File:Livingroom6.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Greatartists210 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, low quality, absent uploader Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Bloum3.jpg [ edit ]

File:Bloum3.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Greatartists210 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, unencyclopedic, low quality, absent uploader Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Bloum.jpg [ edit ]

File:Bloum.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Greatartists210 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, unencyclopedic, absent uploader Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Dub Jones, American football halfback, on 1950 card.jpg [ edit ]

File:Dub Jones, American football halfback, on 1950 card.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Batard0 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Exported to the Commons. --Mhhossein talk 05:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say) by Lady Gaga alternative cover.png [ edit ]

File:Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say) by Lady Gaga alternative cover.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Infsai (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Dubious according to WP:NFCC criterion 3 ("minimal usage") and Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover. The original cover (as published onto iTunes) is already included in the infobox. I do not see why this is needed, as it does not substantially increase readers' understanding of the subject. (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion this file actually meet criteria, since it's much different than original one and use photo took from music video and if you search for "Eh, Eh" on iTunes or Spotify you'd rather get this artwork, rather the original one. But like in "Salt" I think both artworks are worth including. infsai (dyskusja) 11:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I believe the artwork of the most notable release should be the main image. Taking a quick glance at this article, the remix EP only seems to be mentioned in the Track listings section, so it is clearly not the more important one. Including an extra image, such as the one in "Salt", is okay in cases like that, but I'm not so sure about "Eh, Eh". I also agree that it does not significantly increase my understanding of the article's topic. Why include the artwork for a specific remix when there are tens or hundreds of others out there that also did not experience notable success? I don't see the point. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 14:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
If the cover on iTunes is the most notable, then I think this should be kept, while the other file should be deleted. (talk) 07:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment:@ResolutionsPerMinute, Infsai, and : Also, from the comments here I am sometimes a little unsure which file folks are talking about when they say "this" or "it" and that makes it hard to tell what should be kept and what should be deleted.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Autobahn 2009.jpg [ edit ]

File:Autobahn 2009.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SmokesQuantitys (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per WP:NFCC there is no need for multiple non-free cover arts for alternative versions of the album. The original cover art suffices as the primary means of visualisation of the album. The main component of the additional coverarts is a symbol/iconography which appears on the main cover art anyway. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep: other FFDs have determined so long that the image is different enough, than it can be kept. I would also be in favor of deleting this one and keeping the one above. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ƏXPLICIT 11:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Categories [ edit ]

NEW NOMINATIONS [ edit ]

Category:Archbishops of Nigeria [ edit ]

Nominator's rationale: There are 14 (Anglican) Archbishops in the Church of Nigeria, one of whom has the title 'Primate of All Nigeria'. The present title is ambiguous and the category is collecting Archbishops who are in Nigeria (but not 'of'). There are also 9 Catholic Archbishops in Nigeria, not to mention Maronite Catholic Eparchy of the Annunciation, with an exarch. (Eg Musa Filibus is an Archbishop of the Lutheran Church of Christ in Nigeria.) There have been 4 Primates of All Nigeria so far. Oculi (talk) 13:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Anglican archbishops by diocese in Ireland [ edit ]

Nominator's rationale: In Protestantism in Ireland, only the Church of Ireland has archbishops. So the adjective "Anglican" is redundant and the denomination " Church of Ireland" more precise. Also they are archdioceses, not dioceses. Follows recent CFD in the Roman Catholic Church for archbishops. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:People convicted of speeding [ edit ]

Nominator's rationale: While it is true that every article in this category mentions a speeding conviction, I think this characteristic is common enough to be essentially trivial. It certainly is not defining for those so categorized. And the same category was deleted before, in 2018. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Saxe-Ernestine House Order [ edit ]

Nominator's rationale:WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD, WP:PERFCAT, WP:OVERLAPCAT)
When foreign royalty and other important guests visited any of the various Saxon/Ernestine duchies or vice versa, the Saxe-Ernestine House Order was given out as souvenir. Alexander II of Russia, Luitpold of Bavaria, and Abbas II of Egypt are not remotely defined by this award and list it with other honours. Relations between the inter-married royal houses of Europe was likely also a factor.
The award was also automatically given to local members of the fractured ruling family, House of Wettin, who are already somewhere under the equally fractured Category:House of Wettin tree. There wasn't a list so I created a collapsible one at the bottom of the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Order of Francisco de Miranda [ edit ]

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Order of Francisco de Miranda is a Venezuelan award that has been given out to a wide variety of domestic recipients including business leader Martín Marciales Moncada, musician José Antonio Abreu, agricultural engineer Eduardo Mendoza Goiticoa, and sculptor Harry Abend. The foreign recipients have also been diverse and include a Japanese auto executive, a Polish Nobel Peace Prize laureate, a ruling Emir from Qatar, and a visiting Soviet cellist. The one thing these articles all have in common is they generally mention the award only in passing and the there is no common thread here to aid navigation. All the category contents are now listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)



Redirects [ edit ]

Rhino (Warhammer 40,000) [ edit ]

Yet more broken 40K Vehicle redirects, again these are supposed to be pointing at a section of Vehicles of the Space Marines in Warhammer 40,000, which was deleted in 2011. I can find no coverage of this tank anywhere in the encyclopaedia. If kept this would probably be better targeting Space Marine (Warhammer 40,000), but they're not covered there either, just given a name drop as an example of a transport vehicle. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Razorback (Warhammer 40,000) [ edit ]

Another broken warhammer vehicle redirect. This is supposed to be a section redirect to Vehicles of the Space Marines in Warhammer 40,000, but that article was deleted in 2011. I can't find any coverage of this vehicle anywhere in the encyclopedia. If kept this would probably be better targeting Space Marine (Warhammer 40,000) as the army that uses the vehicle, but it's not covered there either 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Space Marine Predator [ edit ]

These are three redirects for variants of a space marine tank which is not discussed in the target article. These used to be section redirects to Vehicles of the Space Marines in Warhammer 40,000 which was redirected to the main warhammer 40,000 article (With a bot "Fixing" the resulting double redirects by retargeting them), before being restored and nominated for an AfD discussion, which ended with the article being deleted. These broken section redirects were left behind from the bot retargeting them to the main article, and should probably have been G8'd when the main article was deleted. If kept these would be better targeting Space Marine (Warhammer 40,000), but there's no content on these tanks there, just a name drop as an example of a tank the space marines use 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Greatest Team of the Greatest Club [ edit ]

Delete - completely implausible for a typo, not to mention unbiased in favour of the club. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Leman Russ [ edit ]

This is a higly ambiguous redirect because there are two things in the warhammer 40,000 universe called leman russ, neither of which is discussed at the target article - a charcter and a tank. The character used to have an entry at Primarch, which was deleted following an AfD nomination, but is still mentioned in The Horus Heresy. There's also an argument to be made that this should target Space Marine (Warhammer 40,000), as the character acts as the leader of a space marine army. The vehicle used to be discussed in Vehicles of the Imperial Guard in Warhammer 40,000 which was deleted following an AfD nomination, but still has a mention in Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000). The article content in the page history was transwikied in 2007, following which the article was turned into a redirect. Since there are 3 possible targets for this I propose deletion to allow uninhibited search results. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Nipple H [ edit ]

The only edit the creator ever made was to create this redirect. The edit summary from 2008 signals that they knew it would come under scrutiny because they denied vandalizing the encyclopedia in it. It's just too bad it took over 13 years to bring it here. They say it's a fan nickname and I don't know if that's true, but if it is then too obscure and defamatory to be useful to us. LM2000 (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The Scabs (Amercican band) [ edit ]

Implausible typo, and not linked from elsewhere Ionmars10 (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep; the decent amount of pageviews shows that the redirect is linked from somewhere (outside Wikipedia). Ionmars10, please don't move redirects per [[5]]. J947messageedits 03:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep The band is mentioned several times in his article. Seems like a sensible redirect.LM2000 (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    • The redirect contains a typo; it can be hard to notice and the fact that you didn't notice it adds to the plausibility of the typo. J947messageedits 04:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Aye, and apparently I'm not the only one. I've never typed with an extra C into the search bar, but per your evidence, plenty of others have.LM2000 (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Templates and Modules [ edit ]

Template:Star Control Franchise Template [ edit ]

Unused duplicate of Template:Star Control franchise (the argument formerly known as T3). Certes (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:? [ edit ]

This template is insufficiently complex to need its own template. It's also hard to access from the browser bar. Lastly, the last TFD's opinions look quite unpersuasive from a today's point of view. Izno (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Subst and delete Insufficient complexity of markup to warrant a template. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't know jack about templates, but this is used a lot at Contributor copyright investigations. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI help 17:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep this is used 710 times and has no technical or other issues - while it might be simple, it's used enough to warrant keeping. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
    It's current use in articles fails WP:MOSBOLD and WP:MOSITALIC as a start. There is a separate template for unknown in tables. Elsewhere it might be reasonable, but elsewhere doesn't need this level of 'standardization' as it was framed over a decade ago. Put a question mark in whatever you're working and be done. --Izno (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
    apparently it's used in CCI (over half the transclusions are in project-space)? I agree that it shouldn't be used in articles. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep In use at CCI. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    I don't really see why one should need a bold-italic question mark available. I assume a normal question mark would work in all cases. --Izno (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 18:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Intensively used in various lists within WikiProject Telecommunications. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    It shouldn't be used in mainspace per its documentation. --Izno (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Modify so that it makes use of ?, facilitating the use of escaped question marks. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete - I realise I'm taking a contrarian position here, but I cannot see any reason to have this. Invoking the template ({{?}}) is 5 characters, and the inserted text ('''''?''''') is 11 characters. Do we need a template to 'save' six characters? You can click the "bold" and "italic" options in the editor to do this in two clicks anyway, if you're worried about aligning the number of quote marks on each side. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 16:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • keep - the road to deletion is to first get rid of the use of the template by substituting it with a better one (named "unknown" or something) - once there are almost zero uses of the template then come back and I'll happily vote delete. N.B. the value of the template is not the content, it's the fact that it gives a clear place to find unknown values in tables and then start doing research to fix them. StacksofHoy (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
    Just as an administrative note, this is absolutely not the way to proceed for a nomination; the discussion comes first, and then the outcome is decided. Substing a template with the intention of saying "it's no longer used" is disruptive and has caused some TFDs to swing the other direction. Primefac (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    Ping to StacksofHoy just in case they're not watching this page. Primefac (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Miscellany [ edit ]

Deletion review [ edit ]

What is this?