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

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.

Purge server cache

Trinidad and Tobago national baseball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV covering this team to meet the WP:GNG or WP:NTEAM, with only a few Facebook posts appearing in my BEFORE. The team does not appear to be ranked by the WBSC from what I can tell. Let'srun (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Trinidad and Tobago. Let'srun (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN College Basketball broadcast teams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NLIST due to a lack of coverage regarding these broadcasting teams. While individual broadcasters might be notable and they are covered in ESPN College Basketball, the teams themselves don't receive the same type of coverage. Let'srun (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Basketball, and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of archaeological sites by continent and age (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This list is too broad in scope to ever be usefully complete. There are tens of thousands of archaeological sites in the world and most are notable. The current entries are a small fraction of just those sites we have articles on. We already have a list of archaeological sites by country (which is also very broad and should be split) to help people navigate by geography, as well as categories trees for Category:Archaeological sites by continent and Category:Archaeological sites by period, various templates and overview articles, etc. – Joe (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology and Lists. – Joe (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Luqman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reviewed during NPP. A supposed prime minister of a tiny island, not meeting WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Unsourced and no reliable sources were found online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will also need salting if the article is deleted. Has been repetitively created multiple times. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Brunei, and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ice Road 2: Road to the Sky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lacking significant coverage per WP:NFF, draftify until receives more BOVINEBOY2008 11:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The_Ice_Road#Sequel: for now. Not opposed to keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Antálek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Antálek played 90 minutes of professional football before being sent to lower leagues. I found nothing better than Teraz, a brief mention in squad list, but am not sure how reliable it is. Article fails WP:GNG without significant coverage overall. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Letters from a Killer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

• The film does not appear to be significant by the rules of Wikipedia WP:MOVIE. No detailed coverage in authoritative references, no reviews, no awards.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: added things to page, including critical reception -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per WP:HEY. Newly added reviews. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happiness Is... Part 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

• The film does not appear to be significant by the rules of Wikipedia WP:MOVIE. No detailed coverage in authoritative references, no reviews, no awards.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Russian films of 2019: a standard ATD when sources exist and cast is notable. Not opposed to keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sedale Threatt Jr. (basketball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBASKETBALL - was created in 2017 with heavy promotional material. The subject played primarily in an Australian second tier semi-professional league. There are no secondary or independent sources available. The subject is also basically an Orphan with it's only link being his father's page at Sedale Threatt. DaHuzyBru (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Basketball. DaHuzyBru (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baloch genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article has numerable issues, it relies on questionable sources, and as well as contains original research. But most of all, it seems to be a WP:POVFORK of Human rights abuses in Balochistan. It doesn’t have a really good verifiability argument. Any content that is reliable should be moved to the Human rights abuse page, as this page is better established and has more to say. This page just seems extremely unnecessary. VirtualVagabond (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not a single source refers to a "genocide" and barely any scholarly sources, usually news sites being used for making exceptional claims and commentaries which would need further review. WP:TNT applies. Would also support merging anything reliable to the Humans rights abuses in Balochistan page, which this article is a content fork of for which the reliability of content is to be first established per consensus. Axedd (talk)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Events, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha RX-K / RX-King 135 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of meeting WP:NPRODUCT * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Yamaha motorcycles. Failed to find any sufficient sources to support the article.
• Redirect per above. BilletsMauves^€500 13:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I added five-six sources; this motorcycle is frequently referred to as "legendary" in Indonesia and has significant secondary coverage, including from IDN Times and Autos.id.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I think. I agree that the sources added by Mr.choppers amount to significant coverage; I'm just not sure whether it's all reliable coverage, as I have no experience with Indonesian-language sources. -- asilvering (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has been edited a lot since its nomination. An assessment of new sources would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carll Goodpasture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I have been looking for third party references to support this article but can find none, especially on the exhibitions and grants and awards categories. In addition, there are no references, other than links to primary sources from the subject person. I believe this is not notable and falls under under WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE / WP:PRIMARY, and may violate WP:BASIC / WP:PHOTOGRAPHER / WP:AUTO. Maybe, if no references apply, the subject could be inserted into a relevant American photographer article. Shotgunheist ^💬 04:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Biology. Shotgunheist ^💬 04:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lillebror Johansson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Sweden. LibStar (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Kerr (retired firefighter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable political candidate. Of the 4 sources cited on the page, 2 are his own website and 1 is Ballotpedia. No in-depth news coverage and no claim to notability. Holding a mid-level position in a union and serving on a state board does not entitle someone to a Wikipedia page. Page creator seems to have a personal connection to Kerr, judging by the fact that they uploaded several pictures of him on Commons and tagged them as "own work." BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Running for office isn't notable. The article uses primary or un-RS and all I can find are interviews or "get to know your candidate" articles [1]. Non-notable career otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NPOL in short. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no coverage from independent, reliable sources, the article doesn't meet WP: BIO notability. I think that Despite his contributions as a firefighter and political candidate, a standalone page isn’t justified. Yakov-kobi (talk) 09:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry M. Rubin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Upon review of article and its sources, the person in question does not meet the notability guidelines in question: the person is not (1) cited by 3rd party sources other than websites that repeat his bio as an official founder of Samuel Adams beer (2) known for originating a new concept [see point #1] (3) become a significant monument, etc. (4) He is not cited as by peers and 3rd party sources for the work that is well-known or significant. The article was written by a blocked user and could primarily serve the purpose of self promotion as defined in WP:NOTADVERT. P3D7AQ09M6 (talk)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Food and drink, Video games, Entertainment, Games, California, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is just a CV. No notability. ApLundell (talk) 05:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If deleted Harry Rubin (virologist) should be moved to the base name since Harry Rubin redirects here.--67.70.101.117 (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Folks, My apologies, I actually meant to nominate Harry Rubin (virologist) Late night editing got the best of me. Upon a 2nd look at this article in particular, I found new reputable secondary sources to that show indeed this Harry Rubin was indeed a Samuel Adams co-founder. I'm closing going to close this deletion nomination in favor of doing some work to improve the article itself. P3D7AQ09M6 (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete both of them.

Being a minor, behind-the-scenes partner of a business does not make someone notable.

ApLundell (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of WP:GD I'm going to suggest that we pursue a constructive alternative such as improving or cleaning up the article. Two main reasons (1) Being one of the Samuel Adams founders both within the beverage field and just generally is definitely a major contribution. It looks he was not the frontman, but, indeed, he's been recognized by multiple secondary sources as being a founder and his involvement in various beverage investments is notable enough to be topic of headlines. As you probably know, media outlets have full control over headlines, which means that these media outlets viewed his involvement as "the story". On a more basic level, Samuel Adams is also billion dollar major conglomerate, it's widely recognized, and is part of the American social milieu (2) I digged into other secondary sources and there's quite a few other significant achievements such as being one of the people who started GT Interactive, which launched DOOM (a major video game) (3) This nomination was a careless mistake on my part so it's kind of a fluke nomination. My apologies again to all for that bonehead error and for wasting folks time reviewing this!

re: Harry Rubin (virologist) Even though I intended to nominate it, I also now lean towards keeping it. Mostly because his achievements within his specific domain are quite significant.

If we deny this deletion nomination, I can take an action item to improve both pages.P3D7AQ09M6 (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also AFD'ed C. M. Rubin, his partner. IgelRM (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to hear from more editors as the nominator states they didn't mean to nominate this article (so a withdrawal of sorts) but an editor is arguing for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bukit Bintang Boys' Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unnotable school does not satisfy WP:GNG, some editor decided to remove PROD with no improvements what so ever. N niyaz (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Just to clarify the timeline here, the article was deleted on July 13 after User:N niyaz's PROD expired. User:Auyongcheemeng made an undeletion request, saying this is one of the few schools that predates the founding of Malaysia, and the request was fulfilled on July 17, restoring the article. The PROD tag was correctly removed by an admin as part of the undeletion process. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 05:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bsoyka Unfortunately being 'one of the few schools that predates the founding of Malaysia' does not explain its failure in satisfying WP:GNG. For your information, there are thousands of schools that predates Malaysia's independence. And unless this school is a high achieving school which is rare, I don't see the school showing any significance. N niyaz (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. It was not that few for the number of schools during that time. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This is one example a mission school set up by missionaries in the early days in pre-Malaysia days, not that 'rare' yes, but they are getting there. In the current and foreseeable future of political climate and increasing Islamisation of Malaysia the number of these type of schools are on the decline (462 nationwide, 227 in peninsular Malaysia in 2011 ^[1] down to 420 nationwide, 191 in peninsular Malaysia in 2024 ^[2]. [Not that many of these schools have wiki pages written]. These schools have contributed in the Malaysia's early days as a nation to produce current and former leaders/notable persons. [Bukit Bintang Boys' Secondary School] is no exception (see its list of alumni). Not many schools among the 10,000+ currently operating schools in Malaysia can attest to that. Bukit Bintang Girls' School (also was a mission school, but sadly no longer exists) a sister school involved in its founding of BBBSS has its wiki page preserved.C.M. Au Yong (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still stand by my earlier reasoning for this page to remain, being: historical and a pre-Malaysia school that has contributed to the early nation-building.C.M. Au Yong (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The facts of significance you provided deserve a place at article such as Education in Malaysia instead of this school. The school is not inherent of notability because it has early contribution to humanities as a missionary establishment per WP:ORGSIG. The school is not inheritable of notability because it has notable alumni per WP:INHERITORG.

Issue with this article is the history and other notable events sections fails to WP:PROVEIT with reliable sources. Other part could be just WP:MILL content. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sections that doesn't have verifiable/sources should be removed those cases, not an outright entire page removal. It doesn't help the case that the name "Bukit Bintang" is extremely SEO unfriendly as a casual web search with those terms will refer to "Jalan Bukit Bintang, Kuala Lumpur" the tourist spot, instead of the school. There are sources out there but they aren't electronic accessible/one dead trees for the most part/or buried in older web archives.C.M. Au Yong (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is just barely some digital traces that remain to this day, eg. mentioned in passing: BBBS & BBGS as major mission schools in the country in its day^[3]. C.M. Au Yong (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume removing them would leave nothing much left. A search at https://search.nlb.gov.sg/onesearch/Search?query=%22bukit+bintang+boys%22&cont=newspaper showing newspapers but irrelevant to article. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 04:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of schools in Selangor. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to hear more opinions. Also, editors, please sign all of your comments in an AFD discussion so that other editors know whose opinion they are. We shouldn't have to look at the page history to find this out.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Alberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The provided sources are mentions and stats pages. Nothing else is available in Google. Shinadamina (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and Australia. Shinadamina (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Lacks significance coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Order of the Elephant of Godenu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject doesn't appear to have significant coverage in reliable sources. The references presently being used don't establish notability. toweli (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Order of the Lion of Godenu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject doesn't appear to have significant coverage in reliable sources. The references presently being used don't establish notability. toweli (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WhatsApp University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The term is indeed used in India. However, I don't think it has scope beyond a definition. It can be easily integrated in Fake news in India#Modes of distribution (WP:CFORK). Although start-class, it pretty much looks like a future repository for dumping all fake news spread on WhatsApp. For serious cases, there is already Indian WhatsApp lynchings. Gan Favourite (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and India. Gan Favourite (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:NEO. The topic is better covered in Fake news in India#Modes of distribution, and the term is not separately notable. Many of the sources here just contain uses of the term but actually cover the topic (and not the term). Maybe merge a brief mention of the definition in the NDTV article. hinnk (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on the references added, keeping my !vote as is. These links [2][3][4][5] were added to support discussion of a Kerala High Court case. None of these mention the case at all, and none discuss WhatsApp University beyond using the phrase in a headline (two are political cartoons). The statement that "The phrase has…been a subject of stand-up comics" is referenced to a short review of a single comedian, where the topic is recapped very briefly. To Grabup's question below, the existing coverage isn't significant, and we're seeing how trying to present it as such means misleading readers. hinnk (talk) 05:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: i added some of WP:RS references. and this phrase clearly passes WP:GNG. Youknow? (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Agree with @Youknowwhoistheman --BeLucky (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I agree with @hinnk, the topic can be better covered in Fake news in India#Modes of distribution, other than the defination, there is not much to inside the scope of this article which cannot be put under the Fake news article. Xoocit (talk) 08:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Enough sources are cited to establish the subject's notability. In my opinion, if there can be a standalone article with sufficient coverage, what is the reason to redirect? GrabUp - Talk 03:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. Sufficient sources have been added to make a reasonable case for inclusion. I am somewhat dubious that this will develop into a full article, so a merge could make more sense down the road. We can cross that bridge when we get there.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: For now, however, should be reviosited and if still not fleshed out, should be Redirect as that would be the best move if there is still not much thereCassierREDDDD (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It is a very common topic in India so it is notable. Perhaps a disambiguation page pointing later to the real Whatsapp University. Sectioneer (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have a clearer discussion of the sources and whether they contain significant coverage of the topic? A source table would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's a stab at a source table. The strongest candidates appear to be a short article in the Navbharat Times, an opinion piece in The Hindu, and an in-depth blog post of questionable reliability. That last one is really a stretch, and I think we'd be hard-pressed to hit WP:3REFS. Even more so to get something large enough that it'd merit being split off from Fake news in India. hinnk (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:hinnk
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://cyberblogindia.in/the-great-indian-whatsapp-university/		~ Blog, no apparent editorial staff at the time		~ Partial
https://www.thehindu.com/society/whatsapp-indias-leading-university/article24358591.ece		~ WP:THEHINDU, but this seems to be an opinion piece		~ Partial
https://www.tv9hindi.com/business/misinformation-fake-news-will-be-the-biggest-risk-for-world-in-next-2-year-2355348.html			Brief mention, article is actually about a World Economic Forum report on online misinformation	✘ No
https://www.livehindustan.com/jharkhand/ranchi/story-students-need-to-leave-facebook-whatsapp-university-vice-chancellor-6861807.html			Brief usage	✘ No
https://hindi.news24online.com/travel/survival-tips-bear-alligator-water-whatsapp-university-truth-social-media/727091/			Brief usage	✘ No
https://www.scoopwhoop.com/humor/logic-khatre-mein-hai-kunal-kamra-takes-on-whatsapp-university-in-latest-stand-up/		~ Looks like a clickbait site	Screenshots and GIFs from a standup routine without secondary analysis	✘ No
https://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/tech/gadgets-news/whatsapp-launches-check-the-facts-campaign-to-fight-misinformation/articleshow/105384003.cms		~ WP:TOI	~ 2-paragraph blurb, but has actual coverage of changes in WhatsApp to prevent misinformation	~ Partial
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/maharashtra-ministers-whatsapp-university-jibe-at-bjps-new-online-campaign-plan-2270936			Brief mention	✘ No
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/yogi-getting-my-telephones-tapped-akhilesh/article37993341.ece			Brief usage	✘ No
https://www.apnlive.com/bjp-ruchi-pathak-india-on-99-years-lease-video/			Brief usage	✘ No
https://www.business-standard.com/politics/bjp-mps-call-kharge-vc-of-whatsapp-university-for-criticising-railways-123060901106_1.html			Brief usage in a quote	✘ No
https://www.jagran.com/editorial/apnibaat-secularism-of-whatsapp-university-separating-imul-is-like-saying-that-congress-has-no-relation-with-nehru-23434257.html			Brief usage, not related to what's being cited	✘ No
https://www.newslaundry.com/topic/whatsapp-university		~ Reliable publication, but this is a political cartoon	Appearance in a political cartoon, not related to what's being cited	✘ No
https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/bengaluru/2024/Jul/10/debunking-whatsapp-universitys-misinformation			Brief usage, article is about a tabletop game, not related to what's being cited	✘ No
https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/dont-go-by-whatsapp-university-kerala-high-court-dismisses-pil-alleging-forced-vaccination-of-children-198488			Brief usage in a quote	✘ No
https://theprint.in/last-laughs/whatsapp-university-phd-in-mangal-gyaan-maths-isnt-ec-you-know/2066319/		~ Political cartoon	Brief usage, not related to what's being cited	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• Whatsapp University is a real University of India, They even have a Linkedin page

  https://www.linkedin.com/company/whatsapp-university/about/

  "A genuine global University with schools of Engineering, Law and Humanities. Aiming to be in QS Top 100 by 2033.
  

  Warning : Impersonators shall be Prosecuted or Shot." 106.210.38.218 (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Fake news in India#Modes of distribution; per WP:MERGETEXT. Not to say a term like this can't be used alone, see, e.g. Godi Media, a similar Indian term that has substantial references support - unlike here. Shotgunheist ^💬 05:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note, also, I just rolled back an addition about the actual "Whatsapp University" as it is patent nonsense with 4 followers on linkedin, and does not add to actual article notability being debated. Shotgunheist ^💬 05:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the subject has been significantly covered by quite a number of sources, ToI, The Hindu, The Print, NDTV. Also covered by books such as 2019: How Modi Won India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.210.38.218 (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of 20th Century Fox films (1980–1989) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This doesn't meet WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. It has no assertion of notability or references. Boleyn (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The list is an obviously notable topic for a list (or set). The split into lists by years, including this one, exists only for navigation reasons. References can be added, easily but Afds are not for cleanup.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 03:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. I incline towards delete, in agreement with Boleyn, but I won't vote for the moment. However, I have a question: what is the point restricting it to the 1980s? There were certainly famous films (such as The Robe) well before that. Athel cb (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several sibling lists for other decades, so the concept was clearly "split long list up into multiple sublists for convenience". If The Robe was from an earlier decade, thus, then it would simply belong in another decade's list. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy redirect Duplicates List_of_20th_Century_Fox_films_(1935–1999)#1980s, as do List of 20th Century Fox films (1935–1939), List of 20th Century Fox films (1970–1979), and List of 20th Century Fox films (1990–1999). If you're going to split the page, you have to finish the job. Reywas92^Talk 14:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Refer to Category:Lists of films by studio. Please note the navbox 20th Century Studios Films at the bottom of the page. This is part of larger lists. Since major (or even minor) film studios have such an enormous output of films over the years or decades, this is an acceptable method of listing films by studio. — Maile (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G-Worldwide Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Again, this article is deceptively written, creating an initial impression that it meets the criteria of WP:NCORP unless scrutinized closely. Critically fails WP:ORGCRIT, There is not even a single source from the article or WP:BEFORE to establish any context of notability. Being a nominee of The Beatz Awards is not significant enough to make it presumptively notable. Over all, fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Business, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with nom, none of the sourcing meets GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Garcia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promotional page for non-notable engineer and public speaker. I couldn't find any reliable sources via Google News or Newsbank Database (wider and deeper than Google). Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NPROF, WP:AUTHOR. Cabrils (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, Radio, Engineering, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability not apparent yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manu Intiraymi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not sure this person passes WP:NACTOR, mostly minor roles. Can't find any reliable sources discussing them apart from the cited nytimes source which isn't specifically about Intiraymi, but mentions him in passing in 3 paragraphs of a rather long piece about the state of the entertainment industry in LA in the late 1990s. Other sources I have been able to find are Star Trek fansites, which I wouldn't consider significant coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Science fiction and fantasy, and California. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Re WP:NACTOR, this subject has played a significant role in Star Trek: Voyager. But I am not finding that his role in One Tree Hill (TV series) was very significant. And it would take one or two more solid ones to find that he did so in multiple productions. The subject also fails WP:ANYBIO for lack of in-depth biographical coverage by unrelated parties. JFHJr (㊟) 00:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, but also JFHjr, who touches on ANYBIO. I think this is a fundamental fail. Perhaps when their career trajectory continues in the way they want it, it'll be different. Not quite now though. ——Serial Number 54129 00:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe WP:TOOSOON? JFHJr (㊟) 01:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes JFHJr thanks, that's good advice 👍 ——Serial Number 54129 09:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal file by non-contributor. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose dispersing Category:Members of the Fourth AliyahCategory:Immigrants of the Fourth Aliyah to the tree of Category:Immigrants to Mandatory Palestine

Nominator's rationale: disperse, period of 1924-1929 is arbitrary and we have diffused these migrants already by country of origin. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Members of the First AliyahCategory:Immigrants of the First Aliyah to Category:Immigrants to Ottoman Palestine
• Propose merging Category:Members of the Second AliyahCategory:Immigrants of the Second Aliyah to Category:Immigrants to Ottoman Palestine to Category:Immigrants to Ottoman Palestine
• Propose dispersing Category:Members of the Third AliyahCategory:Immigrants of the Third Aliyah to Category:Immigrants to Ottoman Palestine to Category:Immigrants to Ottoman Palestine and the tree of Category:Immigrants to Mandatory Palestine
• Propose dispersing Category:Members of the Fifth AliyahCategory:Immigrants of the Fifth Aliyah to Category:Immigrants to Ottoman Palestine to the tree of Category:Immigrants to Mandatory Palestine

• I have added the siblings too, they are based on equally arbitrary periods. If not merged, then at least rename "members" to "migrants" or something like that. It does not concern membership of an organization. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge/disperse per Marco's second proposal. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Marco. That’s not going to happen. This is a category specific to the period of the Fourth Aliyah, which was 5 years. We do not want to merge it into a 20 year period of immigration. Dag21902190 (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• These are not arbitrary periods, you are flexing your ignorance of Israeli history.

  Furthermore, believe it or not, definition of a “member” is “one of the individuals of a group”. The group of individuals who migrated to the Land of Israel during each Aliyah was a “member” of that respective Aliyah. They have been referred to as members of their respective Aliyot since the founding of the state.

  if you want to change the word “member” for “migrant”, you will have to figure out how to change that on each person’s page. But your statement that “member” only refers to the “member of an organization”, is not true. It is your perspective of the word, but not reality.

  I will note that the time you have dedicated to coming after these unique categories, and attempting to disperse them into the ether, piques my interest. You have spent hours attacking Israeli categories and pages, wasting time that could have been used being productive.

  We will not be doing anything to the categories, as that would be denying the reality of each unique Aliyah.

  I’m starting to have serious questions about the moderators of this platform. Everything Israel-related gets attacked non-stop (in an organized fashion), by people like you, who don’t even know what the Aliyot were! Making claims that each Aliyah is an arbitrary time-period is a blatant lie, and your privileges should be investigated. This is bizarre. Dag21902190 (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Furthermore, I find it absolutely fascinating that you nominated the first five Aliyot for dispersal, but left out the Aliyah Bet category. Is it because Aliyah Bet was illegal immigration, and doesn’t make the Jews look good? So you wanted to disperse one through five, and keep just the illegal immigration?

  This entire nomination should be ignored, and the bias you’ve shown by nominating it should come back and bite you. Dag21902190 (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1st. Category:Aliyah Bet does not contain immigrants, it is a topic category. So that is something completely different. 2nd. Every of these Aliyahs is not a single group, they concern a process of several years with many separate groups and individuals. Group membership is therefore completely inapplicable here. 3rd. Please stop with personal attacks. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I’m not sure what you don’t understand, and the reason you keep doubling down on a subject you know nothing about is beyond me. Each Aliyah had its own unique movement. The facilitators of those Aliyot knew that they were facilitating the first, second, third, fourth, fifth Aliyah, and then Aliyah Bet. These categories organize the early Zionist immigrants to the land of Israel by the specific Aliyah movements that facilitated their immigration. To deny the benefits of these categories, and continue to gaslight me, is just a disingenuous tactic. I frankly consider the mass nominations of my categories for” deletion” and “merging” as vandalism, and an overreach of your privileges. You are not a victim here, you are the attacker. Dag21902190 (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Only now I notice that you have created Category:Members of Aliyah Bet too. I will nominate this category as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose dispersing Category:Members of Aliyah Bet to the tree of Category:Immigrants to Mandatory Palestine

• Comment Categories were prematurely emptied by the nominator. Dag21902190. This should have waited until this discussion concluded. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Liz: not by nominator, but by creator of these categories. They have manually moved the articles from "Members" to "Immigrants". That is a waste of effort because the move could have done by a bot if there was consensus for it. I have updated the proposal accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You should be investigated by Wikipedia for overreach of your editing privileges. You are stalking my page, attempting to merge all of my work into broader categories that don’t differentiate between Aliyot, (which is the entire point of these categories). This is the 12th category of mine that you have vandalized with some sort of banner, and for no good reason other than it relates to Israel. You didn’t like the word “member”, so I changed it to ”immigrant”. Now you’re making a blatantly false claim that each Aliyah is an arbitrary time period. It doesn’t matter to you if you revise history, as long as you prevent a compartmentalized gold-mine of information, like these categories, from existing. You are working hard to prevent any sort of organization that makes it easy to research the early history of Israel. Dag21902190 (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nothing happened in 1924 that requires a category split for immigrants. It was simply a continuous inflow of immigrants. In addition, my proposal is not preventing anything because all articles will stay in Category:Immigrants to Ottoman Palestine and Category:Immigrants to Mandatory Palestine. Finally these are no longer "your" categories, as soon as you create them they become Wikipedia's. See also WP:OWN. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Incorrect, please do more research. Case in point would be that nearly half of the 2nd Aliyah immigrants returned to their countries of origin, while the vast majority of immigrants of the 3rd Aliyah stayed in Israel. They were two separate waves, with totally different results Dag21902190 (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I can't see how that matters. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, Marcocapelle, I saw the comment they inserted in your nomination and thought they were the nominator. What is going to happen with all of these "Member" categories that are now empty? Will they be turned into redirects if this proposal goes through? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Liz: I can imagine your confusion about what happened. If nothing else happens these categories will become eligible for deletion as empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't see a convincing argument to disperse. Marco points out 5 year periods are arbitrary, but so are centuries. If, as Dag states, there exists a mode of reference that divides the immigrants into 5 periods, and someone may reasonably be taking advantage of that division to differentiate between 2 immigrants from different periods, I don't see any reason to disperse. If Dag just invented this division himself I would agree, but my impression is that this isn't the case. JoeJShmo^💌 23:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC) not extended confirmed HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I'm not confident they can be dismissed as arbitrary periods - insofar that distinct push and pull factors during the different periods makes each wave have its own characteristics - but even if arbitrary periods of early immigration, they are well recognised as distinct periods (at least within Jewish scholarship). Culturally, also, the Israeli concept of "returning home" as part of an Aliyah is distinct from immigration. For these reasons, the people who were part of such migration would most likely identify it with the X Aliyah name, not as anything else. So as long as there is a good source saying that an individual moving to (insert era) Palestine did so as part of an Aliyah, I believe it is a valid identifying category. My one is concern, though, that people who may have migrated and aren’t identified as part of an Aliyah may be added to these categories based on timespan alone; manual sorting could be required which (I know from experience) is exhaustive and nigh-impossible. For simplicity and not being technically untrue, I wouldn’t staunchly object to the merge proposals as laid out. Kingsif (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Kaguya-hime to Category:Works based on The Tale of the Bamboo Cutter

Nominator's rationale: All articles in the category are adaptations. Also the category title should use the current title of the main article. Mika1h (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Hijacked journals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. Proposal: listify, where it could be better sourced. Currently this content is not discussed in the eponym article, Hijacked journal, nor in most member artciles, e.g., Sylwan. fgnievinski (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep None of these are reasons for deletion. If it's not discussed in each article, it should be. That individuals are not discussed in the main eponimous article is irrelevant, because they shouldn't be. We mention the first known case, Archive des Sciences as an example, but there's no reason to mention the others. WP:NONDEF also does not apply because journals do not control if they are hijacked or not, but it's very much an important thing to know about a journal. And if you want to have a list, have a list, but that does not make the category irrelevant or useless. Also an important defense for WP:CITEWATCH. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, lots of things can be a "important thing to know" (for whom?) but that does not put WP:NONDEF aside. No objection to listification if someone volunteers for that. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  for whom? For the reader. If you stumble upon a citation to e.g. Sylwan, it's important to know that Sylwan was hijacked, and that you may not be looking at the real Sylwan but the fake one. Also, per WP:NONDEF

• a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject.

• We have multiple reliable sources describing these journals as hijacked

• if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead section of an article (determined without regard to whether it is mentioned in the lead), it is probably not defining;

• If it's not mentioned in the lead, it should be.

• if the characteristic falls within any of the forms of overcategorization mentioned on this page, it is probably not defining.

• It doesn't fall into any of them.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Which sources define them as "a hijacked journal"? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  See Beall's list, Retraction Watch, ScholarlyOA (before it was itself hijacked), Walailak Journal, Nature, etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those are sources about the topic of hijacking. The question is about sources about the subjects in the category. Please read WP:NONDEF carefully. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Every one of those sources identify specific journals being hijacked, and how they were hijacked. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You're missing the gist of NONDEF, so I'll quote:

    A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place.

    It goes on to say:

    • if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead section of an article (determined without regard to whether it is mentioned in the lead), it is probably not defining;

    No Wikipedia article about a hijacked journal start (or should start) saying "Journal X is a hijacked journal". They just happen to be a victim of a scam. Granted, it's nice to know, but it needs to be sourced; a list would be the best place to cite sources, which is not technically possible in a mere category membership. fgnievinski (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No Wikipedia article about a hijacked journal start (or should start) saying "Journal X is a hijacked journal". No, but the lead could (and I would argue, should) end with "The journal was hijacked by <organization>, with a fake website at <fakeurldomain>, and the legitimate site hosted at <realurldomain>".[source]" This is absolutely critical information because otherwise someone looking for e.g. Wulfenia could well end up checking the scam version rather than the legit version. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Headbomb's convincing arguments. If a journal is hijacked, that most certainly is a defining characteristic. --Randykitty (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Lean rename. Is there a better name than this? Like predatory? Mason (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hijacked means something very specific and applies to the victim of the scam. Predatory is a larger class of dubious journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and listify per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've added the list from the category to the article Journal hijacking. Regardless of result, the list is there. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a partial list and does not belong in the article, nor does it negate the purpose of the category. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:NBC LX Home affiliates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: No longer available OTA but still streaming; these stations have/will start airing a new diginet, NBC American Crimes (no article yet) Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Acquired citizenship to Category:Change of nationality

Nominator's rationale: Per previous discussions on "Naturalized citizens". Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge is actually a better option, per below comments. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, the precedents were Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 1#People with acquired citizenship or Naturalized citizens and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 9#Category:People with acquired citizenship. – Fayenatic London 12:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Manual reverse merge would be better, I think, because in some cases people become dual nationals without losing the first nationality – in which case they are acquiring rather than changing. Although "Change of nationality" is part of the name of the subcat Category:Change of nationality in sport, that name does not match its stated scope which is "Sportspeople who have represented more than one nation". – Fayenatic London 12:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge. You don't have to change your original nationality to acquire a new one. Many people have more than one nationality. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've tagged Category:Change of nationality.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • Category:Acquisition and loss of nationality would be the most accurate name — not necessarily the best one
  • There is a broader conflation in the category tree between Category:Nationality and its subcat Category:Citizenship. See Nationality section "Nationality versus citizenship" and table "List of nationalities which do not have full citizenship rights".
  • The category should encompass BOTH gaining a new nationality AND losing an old one (Renunciation of citizenship and Category:Denaturalization). As others have said, "Change of nationality" is bad because it suggests a combination of gaining AND losing. OTOH "Acquired citizenship" is bad because it suggests ONLY gaining, NOT losing.
  • subcat Category:Change of nationality in sport is not a true subcat. There are subnational and supernational "national" teams and there are sports where non-citizens can represent. It also seems to include things like the people who played for both Czechoslovakia and Slovakia.

  jnestorius^(talk) 01:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: the previous CFD is being reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_July_24#Category:People_with_acquired_citizenship. – Fayenatic London 20:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pending the DRV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Baltic Germans to Category:Baltic-German culture

Nominator's rationale: Three related categories:

• Category:Baltic Germans
• Category:Baltic-German people
• Category:Baltic-German culture

I am not sure which way to merge, but current situation makes a mess Estopedist1 (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what I think should happen is it should be merged into "Category:Baltic-German people", than the page should be split into a new catigory called "Category:Lists of Baltic-German German people". the "Category:Baltic-German culture" should be made a subcategory of Baltic-German people. Zyxrq (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as parent category of Category:Baltic-German people and Category:Baltic-German culture which are clearly different subcategories. Presumably there is also room for a Category:Baltic-German history. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I generally agree. Zyxrq (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle: in general, Baltic Germans (see this article) means "Baltic-German people". Umbrella concept should be something like "Baltic German world" (e.g. Wikidata bundle Wikidata:Q8459480) Estopedist1 (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ethnic categories are normally organized as a topic category on top and a "people" subcategory for biographies. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Estopedist1 @Marcocapelle I think this is kind of on topic but you guys think it would be Appropriate to create a new Template such as, Template:Baltic-Germans similar to Template:Baltic states for organizational purposes? Zyxrq (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Farmers who died by suicide in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one article and a category with two films. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Models from London by borough (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Merge/Delete per WP:OCLOCATION Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't it be a dual merge to both parent categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle, I was planning to slowly phase out the "People by Royal/London Borough of Foo" categories. Its quite different from the New York City boroughs (not least that there are far more of those) and, as far as I can tell, most of the people categorized by London borough are, more of than not, from there.

  In fact, I was going to suggest a purge of anyone who is not originally from London. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, I wouldn't oppose that, but until there has been a discussion about it it should still be a dual merge. Suppose consensus is against the idea, then borough categories ought to remain properly populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Marcocapelle, Alright, I will add those targets then. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep categories with 5 or more members, i.e. Camden, Croydon, Hackney, H&F, K&C, TH, Wandsworth & Westminster. Merge the rest as too small to be useful for navigation. I looked at some marginal cases and was not able to populate them further. – Fayenatic London 18:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fayenatic london, wouldn't you agree that this is WP:OCLOCATION? Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Omnis Scientia That guideline permits "diffusing a large category". As for "relevant bearing", IMHO it is relevant that some of these models come from disadvantaged areas of the capital. – Fayenatic London 09:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fayenatic london, I would disagree - I don't think the category is particularly large in comparison to others to require diffusion - but I won't argue with you on it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would cheerfully concede to the majority if more editors think they should all be merged. I will place a notice at WT:LONDON. – Fayenatic London 10:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:First women admitted to degrees at Oxford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: While notable interesting, I'd say this is trivial. Perhaps Listify. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Not sure how anything can be admittedly notable and also trivial, but since I agree the topic is undoubtedly notable, it's a reasonable topic for both categories and articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Chiswick Chap, I was going for the word "interesting" and have updated my rationale to reflect that. But we don't categorize by degrees. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, we categorize by occupation, not by admission to education. Besides "first" is quite subjective. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your reply is very quick, and certainly wrong, which suggests it wasn't considered. "First" can mean "the first group of women admitted to degrees at Oxford", which is objectively definable. And since when was occupation the only possible category? It obviously isn't, there are heaps of other categories, like 1949 births and people from different countries, to name but two. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • If kept, then rename to Category:Women admitted to degrees at Oxford in 1920 to avoid confusion about the word "first". Marcocapelle (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Might the use of the word "first" be clarified if the category were titled "Women first admitted to degrees at Oxford?" The significance of the event is not that these women received degrees in 1920, but that women had been denied degrees prior to that year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Schonblom (talk • contribs) 20:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Eric Schonblom, that's true of every university then, is it not? Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Women were excluded from degrees at Oxford from its founding in 1167 until 1920. That's a bit longer than could be stated for most universities. Am I missing the point? Eric Schonblom (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Maybe a bit. But if we were to categorize first women by university where should we draw the line? After 1910? 1900? That would be arbitrary in any case. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify. Categories are meant to help navigation. They are not just bundles of interesting things.Mason (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Converting this to an article with a list is a good idea. The references are already on the category page. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle, I've got a draft in the works. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Its also worth noting this is a list of women who were conferred degrees in 1920. They "graduated" a few years earlier, at different times. This is basically a ceremony to award degrees. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you! Marcocapelle (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: First women admitted to degrees at the University of Oxford has been moved to mainspace i.e. listified. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Religious leaders from the Roman Kingdom to Category:People from the Roman Kingdom
• Propose merging Category:Religious leaders from the Roman Republic to Category:People from the Roman Republic

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory each. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:27th century BC in religion‎ (1 C)
• Propose deleting Category:26th century BC in religion‎ (1 C)
• Propose deleting Category:23rd century BC in religion‎ (1 C)
• Propose deleting Category:18th century BC in religion‎ (1 C)
• Propose deleting Category:19th century BC in religion‎ (1 C)
• Propose deleting Category:16th century BC in religion‎ (1 C)
• Propose deleting Category:15th century BC in religion‎ (1 C)

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer for this early period, the categories only contain a people subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Dionysus in mythology to Category:Mythology of Dionysus

Nominator's rationale: Dionysus is a mythological character and so most of the content related to him is related to mythology, but I can understand the point of diffusing all the miscellaneous articles relating to his mythology. The "X in mythology" category name is better used for depictions of real things and concepts in mythology, such as Category:Animals in mythology. The proposed name is based on Category:Mythology of Heracles. MClay1 (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:History of the Khwarazmian Empire to Category:Khwarazmian Empire

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Bogs, fens and marshes in mythology to Category:Wetlands in folklore

Nominator's rationale: More encompassing and simpler name. Bogs, fens and marshes are apparently three of the four main types of wetlands, with swamps being the other, and I can't see why that should be excluded. Mythology is a subcategory of folklore. This is currently a small category, but I can see it being expanded, as wetlands are often the subject of folklore. MClay1 (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. Total agreement with nom. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Dutch people of the Eighty Years' War (Spanish Empire) to Category:???

Nominator's rationale: From the category description this is supposed to be for Dutch people who served the Spanish Empire during the Eight Years War. The current name doesn't convey that's the relationship.

I don't have a good rename suggestion, but I think the current version is confusing. Mason (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree that it is a confusing title. Suggestion: Category:Pro-Spanish Dutch people of the Eighty Years' War or Category:Pro-Spanish people from the Netherlands of the Eighty Years' War, the latter because the term "Dutch" may not include Frisian or Flemish people. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• What is missing here is the fact that it concerns military personnel. It is not just about opinions but on which side people fight. So technically it should become Category:Military personnel from the Netherlands in the Spanish army during the Eighty Years' War. But this is incredibly long and it is also unlike any other category. So I start wondering if we shouldn't merge this category and its sibling to the parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does Marcocapelle's suggestion work?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming:

Category:Racially motivated violence against white Europeans to Category:Racially motivated violence against white people in Europe

Category:Racially motivated violence against black Europeans to Category:Racially motivated violence against black people in Europe

Nominator's rationale: The first of these categories formerly included violence against white colonialists in Asia or the Americas, which isn't really comparable to anti-white attacks in Europe. I felt that (following the example of Category:Racially motivated violence against white people in Africa that it was more appropriate to subcategorize by location of the attacks, rather than by the origin of the victims.

In addition, these categories already seems to be subcategories of Category:Racially motivated violence in Europe, strengthening the case that they ought to be subcategories by location. GCarty (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support in spirit, but instead of white people/black people. It should be Category:Racially motivated violence in CONTINENT against people of African descent to make it clearer that the location and descent are easier to distinguish. Mason (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Smasongarrison: then how would you rename the first category? Category:Racially motivated violence in Europe against people of European descent? That sounds a bit odd. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be the logic. I agree that it sounds odd, but hasn't the norm been to move away from White and Black people as names for categories? Mason (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think that "black" and "white" need to be avoided in combination with "racially motivated violence". Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Racially motivated violence against white people in Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Most of these articles are about anti-colonial or anti-settler violence. They cannot and should not be conflated with racially motivated violence in other contexts. User:Namiba 16:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, while this might be a reason to rename the category I can't see why we would delete the category on this ground. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because the category does not apply.--User:Namiba 12:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It does apply as white people coincides here with settlers and their descendants. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Calling it racially motivated violence is mostly unproven. They could also be electricians but we would not call it trade motivated violence.--User:Namiba 12:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not agree. Many articles here are about white people in South Africa and Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. The connection with skin colour is pretty obvious. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Armenian buildings in Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NPOV, this resembles Category:Buildings and structures in the Republic of Artsakh that was just deleted. Note that three articles are in Category:Armenian Apostolic churches in Azerbaijan which is not a problematic category because it refers to denomination rather than to country/nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I created this following Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_October_2#Architecture_by_country, where there was consensus to change from "Fooian architecture" to "Architecture in Foo"; the main focus of that discussion was whether to allow (and how to name) categories like this, where there were significant numbers of cases of diaspora architecture other than Colonial architecture. This one has a larger sibling Category:Armenian buildings in Turkey, and both of them have see-also links to/from each other and Category:Architecture in Armenia. Deleting it would be detrimental to the encyclopedia as Togh's Melikian Palace would be removed from Armenia-related architecture categories, although it would remain within Culture of Armenia. – Fayenatic London 13:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: the contents have nw been restructured into 2 subcats for churches and monasteries, with only the palace article held directly in the category. – Fayenatic London 07:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Armenian buildings and structures in Azerbaijan to include Armenian cemetery in Julfa. – Fayenatic London 07:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If kept, I support the rename per WP:C2C. After renaming, We Are Our Mountains may be moved from Category:Culture of Armenia to this category too. But I am still not sure whether the category should be kept because how would we objectively define a building to have a different nationality? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see support for a rename if kept, but no consensus on whether it should be kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Games by genre to Category:Games by theme
• Propose renaming Category:Board games by genre to Category:Board games by theme
• Propose renaming Category:Role-playing games by genre to Category:Role-playing games by theme

Nominator's rationale: The categories for non-electronic games only consider "genres" as games by a certain topic and not by their mechanics or structure, unlike the video games by genre category. Perhaps we could rename all these categories to be analogous with the video game genres category. But we might need to rename "Games by type" to "Games by genre" in turn. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Social casual games to Category:Social network games

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with Main Article's subject. The long-lasting "casual games" category may actually need to be discussed. It is a "genre" that overlaps with many other categories but more importantly calling certain video games "casual" can be opinionated. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Mythology of Perseus to Category:Perseus

Nominator's rationale: Per the naming of other eponymous categories, such as Category:Heracles and Category:Jason. MClay1 (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Though this category is missing articles on Perseus' spouse, his children, the many characters killed by him, and his magical weapons. Dimadick (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, there is also Category:Mythology of Heracles. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Greek mythological characters by location to Category:Characters in Greek mythology by location

Nominator's rationale: User:Markx121993 appears to have tried to manually rename the category (that he created three years ago) by creating the new name and then manually moving all the contents. The old category then got nominated for speedy deletion for being empty, which I stopped by turning it into a redirect. I propose deleting the target and then doing a proper move so as not to lose the old category's page history. MClay1 (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • Support Why did not Markx121993's propose a renaming in the first place? Dimadick (talk) 06:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back and rename, to align with parent Category:Characters in Greek mythology. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Participant in the Council of Chalcedon to Category:Participants in the Council of Chalcedon
• Propose renaming Category:Participant in the First Council of Constantinople to Category:Participants in the First Council of Constantinople
• Propose renaming Category:Participant in the Second Council of Constantinople to Category:Participants in the Second Council of Constantinople
• Propose renaming Category:Participant in the First Council of Nicaea to Category:Participants in the First Council of Nicaea

Nominator's rationale: I think these should be plural, but I'd like to get someone's opinion who is familiar with these councils Mason (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

support pluralizing - no reason for them to be singular (not a topic i edit around, but a hobby interest of mine). ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

support These were supposedly church councils with hundreds of participants. No need for singular in the title. Dimadick (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

support As the creator of these cats, I support this renaming, it feels more natural. AgisdeSparte (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, obviously plural. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Togolese women company founders to Category:Togolese women in business

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There are not enough people in this tree to justify diffusion. Mason (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge, also to Category:Women company founders. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Togolese businesspeople by industry to Category:Togolese businesspeople
• Propose merging Category:Togolese business executives to Category:Togolese businesspeople
• Propose deleting Category:Togolese founders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layers Mason (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

neutral: I don't know what the thinking is about these cats, so I'm staying neutral and let the community vote on that, but note that I created those cats looking at the cats avalaible for Westerners doing the same job as the page I just created then, which was Kavsokl Batoka at the time, I believe. Here it was probably Coco Channel that was taken as an example by myself. Maybe it's a mistake, but at least it shows that the same type of cats exist for Western figures/countries. AgisdeSparte (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge for now, this isn't helpful for navigation. No objection to recreate the categories when they contain a couple of articles next to the subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Crime in Togo by type to Category:Crime in Togo
• Propose deleting Category:National security of Togo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose merging Category:Agencies of the Republic of Togo government to Category:Government agencies of Togo

Nominator's rationale: There are numerous redundant category layers for a single page Agence nationale des renseignements (Togo) Mason (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge for now, this isn't helpful for navigation. No objection to recreate the categories when they contain a couple of articles next to the subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Social movements in Togo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer Mason (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It does not make too much sense to merge it to Category:Social issues in Togo. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Cities in Kloto (prefecture) to Category:Kloto Prefecture

Nominator's rationale: I think we should rename and reparent this category because there's no Kloto Prefecture category. Mason (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oppose: We can create the category separately ; I just didn't place it in the required pages, but just in my creations, for example, Agomé-Yoh or Missahoé could be in Category:Cities in Kloto (prefecture), whilst Kamalo Falls or Agomé people could be in the larger category of Category:Kloto Prefecture. AgisdeSparte (talk) 07:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in Category:Populated places in Plateaux Region, Togo and we do not need categories for second-level administrative divisions per se. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Populated places in Togo by type to Category:Populated places in Togo

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This is a redundant category layer. Mason (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Големата екскурзија → Big Excursion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect should be deleted. It is not in English and thus not useful for the readers here. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Jabar → West Java  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are Many Disambiguation Links in the Word "Jabar" on Jabar (disambiguation). So for me this should not be special. Like the case of West Kalimantan where I made the word redirect Kalbar, but it was deleted because it was not only in one article. Baqotun0023 (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Măluț River → Talna  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Completely unmentioned on the target page. With a bit of digging I found ro:Râul Măluț which just says "The Măluț River is a watercourse, a left tributary of the Talna River in Satu Mare County, Romania.". It's not the only tributary and nothing seems to indicate it is a particularly significant one so simply adding it to the article would seem a bit misleading? Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Malut → Braniștea, Bistrița-Năsăud  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not sure that a variant spelling for a village with 536 inhabitants (which redirects to the commune's article) is the primary topic, given that Malut is also a commonly used shortening for North Maluku (Maluku Utara), an Indonesian province with more than a million inhabitants. Malut (disambiguation), which is currently a primary-and-one-other dab, could be moved to the base name instead. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• make dab primary per nom. Most hits relate to Category:Malut United FC players (I'll add the team's article to the dab page). There is also Măluț River but see separate nomination of that. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Pokemon generations 5 → Pokémon (video game series)#Fifth generation (2010–2013)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

implausible pluralization? if kept, i'll be retargeting to the gen 5 games regardless of result cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete Seems plausible. Readers might see the "5" and think generation should be pluralized. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Guillermo Vilas: Settling the Score → Lists of Netflix original films  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not sure what to do about this one. The subject exists (per third party searches) and is linked at List of Netflix original films (2020) in the list of film released that year. But ... the fact that this title is a redirect and not an article seems to validate WP:REDYES deletion. However, the subject of this redirect is mentioned twice in the biographical article about its subject, Guillermo Vilas: Once in the last paragraph of the article's top section, and once in the last paragraph of Guillermo Vilas#ATP ranking No. 1 controversy. I am not sure if either of these targets are viable retargeting options for this redirect, or if the redirect should be deleted to promote the creation of an article (though my preference here is deletion.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Steel1943: I am skeptical of the value of red links in prompting article creation. I think it's better to have a red link than no link at all, where an article can potentially be written, but better to have a redirect than a red link where the article is really unlikely to actually be written. The ultimate end question is what best serves the reader looking for information on the subject. BD2412 T 23:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @BD2412: Fair enough. "WP:REDLINK" Might be another guideline and/or essay excerpt that I need to add to my "questionable utility" list. I'm just ... not sure if the current setup is adequate since the subject of this redirect has article potential, and I do not believe I've seen any other cases where a redirect representing a biographical media (book, film, etc.) redirects to the human subject of the biography rather than having an article about itself or being a redirect that targets a section in another article identifying and explaining itself. Steel1943 (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think there are cases where it makes sense, where the subject is discrete and the likely topic of a writeable article, and cases where a redirect is more defensible. BD2412 T 19:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: To clarify on this, my stance is delete and weak retarget to Guillermo Vilas since "keep" is definitely invalid. Steel1943 (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Fax (hair) → Hair  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Fax (head hair) → Hair  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The word "fax" is mentioned nowhere in the target article, leaving it unclear what these redirects are meant to refer to and/or define. The only other article on Wikipedia I can find that mentions such terms in context is John the Baptist, but with the way the term "fax" is used in that article pertaining to "hair", it makes it seem as though these nominated redirects are some sort of suffix. Steel1943 (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RFOR, as Middle English might reasonably be considered a "foreign language". The word may be familiar to modern readers through Shadowfax, but the Wiktionary link from Fax (disambiguation) will cover this usage adequately. Tevildo (talk) 09:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have added an etymology section to the page on Hair so it is now in the target article. Fax is attestated in modern English, not only Middle English, even if its usage has since become rare. Ingwina (talk) 10:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case, my stance (I am the nominator) is changing to retarget Fax (hair) to Hair#Etymology but still delete Fax (head hair) since the "Etymology" section does not specify anything about "head" or "head hair". Steel1943 (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is from the page "The now broadly obsolete word "fax" refers specifically to head hair".

  I feel like if fax means hair, the word should redirect to the whole page - is there precedent for redirecting to the specific section mentioning the word if the word refers to the wider article? I don't have too strong views about this bit though - it just depends on the nuance of wikipedia policy to me! Ingwina (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ingwina: The reason why I'm suggesting for at least Fax (hair) to target Hair#Etymology is the section directly exposing what "fax" means in the context of the subject of the article. In this case, keeping the target as Hair with no section redirect would be if the word was immediately established to be an alternative used in present day, which it seems this word may not be. Either way, that section seems to best explain why this term redirects to any part of the Hair article's subject. Steel1943 (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure :) I'm very relaxed about it. Worst comes to worst they scroll up. I don't think it's a big problem! Ingwina (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For a stronger consensus...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jefferson Ramsdell (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article, like a large number of Doug Coldwell's GAs, was delisted as a GA (part of WP:DCGAR) and deleted presumptively, on the basis that he had been close paraphrasing tons of stuff for a decade. Well, I was the reviewer for the GA nomination, and I suppose it is unusual to actually check all the sources during a GA review (??), but I did when I reviewed it, and I didn't see anything. If there is any actual evidence that this article was a copyvio, then fine, I have no objection to it being deleted, but otherwise, I don't think it is reasonable for it to stay in the shadow realm forever. The process of me doing a typical Doug GA nom involved the better part of a day extensively copyediting and writing, so it is fairly disheartening to have it all thrown in the trash without any actual evidence that the article is a violation. jp×g🗯️ 09:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Pinging @Justlettersandnumbers:, who should have been notified about this DRV. I believe this is the relevant CCI. Owen× ☎ 13:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]