Wikipedia:XfD today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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


Speedy deletion candidates[edit]

Articles[edit]

Purge server cache

List of products manufactured by Fender Musical Instruments Corporation[edit]

List of products manufactured by Fender Musical Instruments Corporation (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 · NYT · TWL)

Per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTCATALOG. WP:LSC says Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence and this list is just a compilation of things that exist (from a commerical company). Terrible referencing -- single source, plus one other reference. Lots of red-links, many non-links. No particular inclusion criteria if we consider a given instrument or model and all the different variants, sub-models, special editions, marketing changes, ... to be included. Or not? Mikeblas (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The sole source cited in the article could be linked to in Fender_(company)#External_links, and perhaps Category:Fender Musical Instruments Corporation products is a warranted category? Mooonswimmer 00:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Products, and Lists. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep While we already have a Category:Fender Musical Instruments Corporation, the existence of a category is never a valid reason to delete a list article. A list article is far more useful than a category since it can contain more useful information. Anything that does not have its own article should be deleted from the list. There are plenty of blue links though. Dream Focus 00:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: Fender products do meet WP:NLIST and User:Dream Focus has already trimmed the non-notable entries. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete: Per Nom. Also, Fails notability criteria among other things. From the one-line lead, "This is a list of products made by Fender Musical Instruments Corporation which have their own Wikipedia articles, that is false, to the 32 instances of the same source with just different page numbers, to failing WP:LISTN that reads, One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. There seems to be no hidden language. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I added the part that says "which have their own Wikipedia articles". I removed most of the bad entries that didn't meet that requirement. Anyone can remove the rest. WP:NOTPERFECT applies here. Dream Focus 16:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: The argument that it fails WP:NLIST is blatantly wrong as there are multiple books detailing the history of Fender and their products (e.g., The Fender Bass: An Illustrated History or Fender Amps: The First Fifty Years each of which have detailed, in-depth listings of each product). Not to mention that this page is suitable as a navigation page with over 50 several notable entries. For that reason alone, it should be retained. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Easy to find sources which discuss the idea of Fender products as a category, group or set. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. No source has been provided to support the argument that these products, as a group, have received significant coverage. Sandstein 13:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is quite literally false. And besides, even it did fail notability, lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. I hope the closing admin disregards your vote. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No additional discussion since last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dylan Slevin[edit]

Dylan Slevin (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 · NYT · TWL)

Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. Onel5969 TT me 12:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ireland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
Logs: 2023-01 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Art Monk Construction[edit]

Art Monk Construction (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 · NYT · TWL)

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep The roster is substantial and we have a couple of articles discussing the label's operations in depth, to boot. One of the more important indies as suggested by WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Colors TV[edit]

Colors TV (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 · NYT · TWL)

WP:ADMASQ. Is this UPE? References are pure churnalism. All references are PR pieces, and TV listings, At least one is a 404 error. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG. Creating editor is globally locked. Merge anything salvageable to Viacom18 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • no comment on the TV channel itself, yet. But the TV serials from this channel were once plagued by UPE, socks, and promotional edits - still happens time to time. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
Logs: 2022-05 R22020-05 move to Draft:Move Colors TV
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All Bengal Students' Association[edit]

All Bengal Students' Association (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 · NYT · TWL)

Currently has no in-depth coverage, and searches did not turn up any. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 19:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ile-de-France Region Waste Management Observatory[edit]

Ile-de-France Region Waste Management Observatory (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 · NYT · TWL)

Organization that cites no sources and fails WP:GNG. No additional (non-wiki) sources could be found with a WP:BEFORE search TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 20:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gylles Mitchel[edit]

Gylles Mitchel (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 · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Malcolm Joseph[edit]

Malcolm Joseph (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 · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Randolph Peltier[edit]

Randolph Peltier (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 · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forum for Stable Currencies[edit]

Forum for Stable Currencies (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 · NYT · TWL)

I don't believe this political advocacy group meets WP:ORG or WP:ORGCRIT. The independent sources cited all appear to be passing mentions. The article's creator and primary contributor, Sabine McNeill, is the group's founder. Jfire (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Siege of Semerkand[edit]

Siege of Semerkand (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 · NYT · TWL)

Another one of many battle articles which fails WP:VER, WP:NOTABLE and seemingly WP:RS as well. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Likud Knesset members[edit]

List of Likud Knesset members (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 · NYT · TWL)

Article is an unnecessary fork of Lists of Knesset members and its individual pages. Replace with a redirect to the Lists of Knesset members page Totalstgamer (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Totalstgamer, for you! I look forward to your clarification! gidonb (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its resorting the information by party, which is frankly unnecessary. Sorting is done by party in each individual Knesset page, which achieves the same effect, not to mention there's an entire category (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Likud_politicians) (apologies for the long link, i couldn't get regular wikipedia bluelinks to work) for Likud politicians, and that to say we 'sort by position' is inaccurate. We don't have a list of every member of the Knesset by the offices they've held, we have two lists of individuals whove held higher parliamentary (and executive) offices, and individual pages for each government ministry. There's no clear reason for us to also sort by party... twice. Totalstgamer (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So the article actually complements Lists of Knesset members (!) and the fork may occur with the individual party articles. I see, however, that many of the party articles do not carry this information. I have not sampled all parties but among those sampled Hadash has these lists. Likud doesn't, so this article also complements the Likud entry. In addition, the Likud article is long. This would make List of Likud Knesset members into a legitimate WP:SPINOUT. gidonb (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fork by the way is somewhat of an exaggeration in this context. The potential for redundancy would be really the concern. But it doesn't happen in the case nominated. Unless I miss something? gidonb (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concede fork might've been the wrong term, but the point still stands. There's no reason for this page to exist, especially since a table for Likud wouldn't be as long as the page we're considering deleting (the hebrew wikipedia uses such a table, i believe), or very long at all for that matter. Also of note, I've gone through the Knesset member pages and they're all sorted by party, which is the exact same information, laid out in the exact same way, and almost as easy to traverse. Given that fact, how does this page compliment lists of knesset members? those pages each already sort by alphabetical order and party. Should we also have an alphabetical list of all Knesset members? i presume there's a category for that, i haven't checked, same way there's a category for Likud politicians, who are overwhelmingly members of the Knesset. This doesn't have potential for redundancy, it already is redundant, its another in many lists of Likud MKs that's even more poorly maintained than the rest of them. Totalstgamer (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! I will examine the pages again and see if any of the concerns you raise are justified. Thank you for explaining your concerns in greater detail! gidonb (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete This information is easily available via the various lists of members of each Knesset, so I think this is unnecessary duplication. Number 57 12:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. I checked some more (see above) but this really is a legitimate spinoff of a list that otherwise can be contained in the party article. Can also be made for Israel's Labor Party. Whenever the list of a party's Knesset members is very long, and the party article is very long! gidonb (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nicaise Zimbori-Auzingoni[edit]

Nicaise Zimbori-Auzingoni (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 · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lobi Manzoki[edit]

Lobi Manzoki (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 · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sammy backon[edit]

Sammy backon (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 · NYT · TWL)

BLP of an elected local councillor. Does not pass WP NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files[edit]

Categories[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Redirects[edit]

Curved yellow fruit[edit]

I first made this redirect back in 2018 back when I was my old bizarre redirect making self, when I saw a picture of a sign in a store advertising bananas that said "Curved yellow fruit 40¢". It has went through two redirect discussions in the past, back in 2018, one of which was no consensus, and the one after was speedy keep. It was deleted in March 2019 as part of the mass deletion of my 260 I think bizarre redirects, but was brought back in May 2019. Honestly, this one should've stayed deleted instead of being brought back two months later. Colgatepony234 (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I was the original creator of this redirect before someone else brought it back... is this eligible for me to G7? Colgatepony234 (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since this survived previous discussions and another editor thought it worth reviving, this doesn't meet the WP:G7 criteria. - Eureka Lott 05:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Templates and Modules[edit]


Miscellany[edit]

User:Grayghost01/WBTS Revisionism[edit]

User:Grayghost01/WBTS Revisionism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This is an obvious breach of several policies and guidelines (WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:FAKEARTICLE, WP:UPNOT, WP:POLEMIC and WP:PURPOSE), not to mention its inflammatory and divisive character, as its nothing more than a long pro-Confederate opinion piece. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 03:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete per all cited reasons, most of which were not addressed in the previous deletion discussion. Userspace is not the place for opinion pieces only tenuously related to Wikipedia editing, and it's certainly not the place for racist spiels. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete: We don't need any more faux-articles or historical revisionism. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 04:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: This is a disruptive nomination, WP:Presentism, and IMHO an attempt to improperly censor userspace. This user subpage was nominated for deletion less than six months ago and there was clear consensus to keep. Nominator participated in that discussion, made essentially the same points, and literally nothing has changed since that MfD, these arguments being rejected then. On the merits, as I described in my keep assertion then, this is "a personal user essay explaining in some detail how his view (of the Confederacy and appropriate coverage) was formed." We shouldn't be in the business of whitewashing Wikipedia's history when a fair number of readers have developed their views in a similar manner, for good or for ill. This retired user's point of view might not be popular (and certainly violates the precepts of essay Wikipedia:No Confederates), but for a user to explain their thinking does the pedia a service, because many modern people hold these somewhat anachronistic views. Historians of Wikipedia shouldn't be compelled to ask for REFUND just because explaining such views have fallen out of favor among a minority of editors. BusterD (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The problem is that it's formatted like an article, and presents those opinions as if they were facts, which they're not. We aren't obligated to host this just because it's "unpopular", especially when it's unpopular largely due to its lack of merit. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 04:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • These arguments were unpersuasive in October, and renominating a kept object mere months after a previous deletion discussion not only breaks with normal deletion procedure, but appears intended to police thought on userpages. I'm not okay with that. If somebody wants to say something on Wikipedia which reveals a foolish view, other wikipedians are entitled to read the foolishness and draw their own conclusions about the user. Courtesy blanking a page which might offend is just fine with me, but permanently deleting such material removes a significant part of the pedia's history and handicaps those wikipedians who come behind us. BusterD (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Deletion review[edit]