Wikipedia:XfD today

Shortcuts

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

Articles

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< January 29	January 31 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

All Things Equal

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

Fails WP:NORG - no significant coverage and only trivial news sources. Wikipedia generally does not have articles for organisations of this size. Redtree21 (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Tattwamayananda

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

WP:BEFORE shows no coverage in reliable, independent sources. Fails GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Spirituality, and California. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel “Wowo” Laurio Fortes, Jr.

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

Subject fails GNG and NPOL for not having WP:SIGCOV of WP:RS, WP:IS that the subject is talked about in dept and length for verification Cassiopeia talk 08:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Cassiopeia talk 08:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thalli Manasu

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

Excluding the Sakshi source, I am uncertain about the reliability of the other sources. However, none of the cited Telugu sources provide independent significant coverage of the movie. All the sources report the same quotes from the movie’s creator. Also, no reviews found. GrabUp - Talk 07:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Star Health and Allied Insurance

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:ORGCRIT. Unable to find significant coverage which are independent of the subject. Fails to satisfy WP:NCORP. Sooterout (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and India. Sooterout (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tusayiwe Mkhondya

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

The article subject may lack the required notability. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kit Malone

AfDs for this article:

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

A person claiming to be the page's subject has requested deletion, citing safety concerns for her and her family (she's a trans rights activist). I think it's pretty reasonable – she's not non-notable, this wouldn't be my first choice for AfD normally, but she mostly appears in the news as an advocate, not as a person of interest herself. Most of the coverage comes from passing mentions in local news stories that are largely about trans rights or non-independent biographies from the ACLU and her own website. As is procedure for BLPREQUESTDELETE, leaving it up to the good folks at AfD :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sexuality and gender, United States of America, and Indiana. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP: BLPREQUESTDELETE. If the page’s subject is concerned about her safety, I think it is only reasonable that we honour it. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Telle

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

A good article for WP:Verifiability but it appears to fail notability as an actor and as a musician. The Shelby Star is a great source here but it is a local one. IgelRM (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Video games. IgelRM (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be enough ongoing reliable coverage to justify notability. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please be specific, which ones? IgelRM (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage in Hardcore Gamer, Variety, GamesRadar+, Push Square, TheGamer, The Shelby Star, and The Gaston Gazette, plus some not-insignificant mentions in The New York Times, Edge, VG247, and Television & New Media. That the coverage is ongoing stands out to me too. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hardcore Gamer and The Gaston Gazette are being discussed below so I will skip over those.
Variety: Telle is mentioned and quoted in the article, although not the subject of the article.

GamesRadar+: An interview with Telle, she is frequently interviewed, but that does not make someone notable.

Pushsquare: Not the highest of sources, tertiary reporting on a video with her.

TheGamer (2 times): Not the highest of sources, checking the opinion piece: Praises her acting in Double Exposure, significant but not sure how opinions count for notability.

The Gaston Gazette: Appears to be the events section of a local newspaper, Telle is mentions giving a concert, not WP:SIGCOV

The New York Times, Edge, VG247, and Television & New Media mentions: I don't think should have need an article on everything that gets ongoing mentions and I believe these can be covered on the Life Is Strange article.

IgelRM (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject does not need to be the source's main topic for coverage to be significant. I believe the article passes the WP:GNG. (And, to be clear, Push Square and TheGamer are considered generally reliable per WP:VG/S.) – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, California, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are several articles that establish notability such as Shelby Star and hardcoregamer. With so much coverage she also meets WP:BASIC.Darkm777 (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my nomination, the Shelby Star is good but it is a local story and therefore does not give GNG. The Hardcore Gamer feature is an interview. The most notability I see is her 2024 nomination for Best Performance. Edit: I would pass her WP:NACTOR, but it says "multiple" and I only see Life Is Strange and Life Is Strange: Double Exposure. IgelRM (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Local newspaper coverage does count for WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way the article is written as a feature on a local person, it's clear to not be sufficient. IgelRM (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 hardcore gamer articles this and this, while the first is mostly an interview, there are 3 paragraphs of intro about her, which can be used towards notability. The 2nd article has a couple of quotations but is not an interview. The policies say that when someone has multiple articles from one website, they can be combined. Provided, we combine these, we can count as one full good article towards notability. Also don't forget WP:BASIC which says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, multiple sources can be combined to show notability. Darkm777 (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand (you accidentally linked the same article twice) your argument. From the interview article, I see one paragraph that mentions her but not WP:SIGCOV:

"While the quality of the writing and dialogue have polarized critics -- although the title has vastly improved in these aspects with each episode’s release -- the voice acting is a factor that has remained consistent and brilliant throughout every episode, especially when it comes to the on-screen chemistry shared between the voice actresses for Max and Chloe Price: Hannah Telle and Ashly Burch respectively."

"Hannah Telle Reveals Life Is Strange ‘Definitely Exceeded All of my Expectations'"

This piece paraphrase the interview that ran the week before.

Hannah Telle ‘100 Percent’ Interested in Reprising Role for Life Is Strange Sequel

This reports on the interview she gave the fan-made Blackwell Podcast. She is quoted for answering she would reprise her role. The article then switches to the producer saying there will be new characters. Not SIGCOV combing the 3. IgelRM (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 05:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump proposal for displacement of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip (2nd nomination)

Steve Lungen

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

Local politician fails WP:NPOL. Novemberjazz 05:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump proposal for displacement of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip

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

You couldn't create a better violation of WP:NOTNEWS if you tried. Unfortunately, this seems like a recent pattern for the editor who created the article. (See De-Trumpification, Official portrait of General Mark A. Milley, Executive Order 14168, etc. Novemberjazz 05:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extreme WP:RECENTISM on yesterdays newscycle and a prime example of WP:TRUMPCRUFT. More than adequately covered in Trumps main article at this point.Golikom (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trump says he wants to 'clean out' Gaza.--Arbeiten8 (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Eventually there may be an article on Trump policy towards Gaza, but him just saying something is not the basis for an article and WP is not a news site. MarcGarver (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This could potentially be covered in any number of other articles — Second presidency of Donald Trump, United States support for Israel in the Gaza war, Political positions of Donald Trump, etc. It might even make sense at some point to have a standalone article on Donald Trump's positions on the war in Gaza. But having an article about this one statement (which is not even the first time Trump and his surrogates have expressed similar sentiments) is the definition of WP:TRUMPCRUFT. MCE89 (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of North American ski resorts

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Comparison of Lake Tahoe area ski resorts

Articles for deletion/Comparison of North American ski resorts

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

Almost all of the data is cribbed from self-published sources, i.e. the websites of the various ski areas. They are notorious for inflating their statistics. I pointed this out almost four years ago and placed a "self-published" tag on the page, but nothing has improved in the intervening time. Finding good, solid, independent, reliable sources for these numbers is difficult if not impossible. Moreover, the ticket price has not been updated in five years and is off by almost a factor of two in some cases - it's an impossible maintenance task to keep that column up to date. The rest of it mostly reiterates marketing fluff.

See my comment on the talk page from Mar 2020: Talk:Comparison_of_North_American_ski_resorts#Self-published_tag Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Lists, and North America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. There's already a tree of categories for ski resorts, don't need more than that. And as OP said the data reliability is a big question mark. Wizmut (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH. Srijanx22 (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following how the article is WP:SYNTH. Care to elaborate? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Statististics can easily be updated with new information in terms of the ticket price. As for categories such as "skiable acreage" and "vertical drop", I agree that the article should have original research, but there really isn't a practical way, although not impossible, to find that information other than from the resort themselves (which is dubious but the most accurate information we have). However, the amount of trails, ski lifts, and annual snowfall is easily verifiable information that is publicly accessible. I also do not believe this article acts as a WP:DIRECTORY, and provides encyclopedic value, thus need not be deleted. I could also see this article getting merged with List of ski areas and resorts in the United States. Googoogootoo (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree that "...the article should have original research" That goes against WP:OR.

That said, the most accurate numbers for vertical drop can be found by consulting the US Geological Survey data or similar official sets of data. There's a really nice web UI to that data at openskimap.org and anybody can pull up a ski area, find the top and bottom, and get the vertical drop. If you do that, you'll see that the numbers in this article are often way off. You'll also be doing original research which we are not supposed to base article content on.

So, the basic problem is that much of the data in the article is demonstrably false, and there's no good, solid, independent, reliable sourcing for the actual numbers that would allow us to bring the article in compliance with Wikipedia policies. It would be great if we could find solid data, but we can't, and we shouldn't be repeating information that is clearly false. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: everyone knows that we have never published original content. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Lake Tahoe area ski resorts participants: Miminity (talk · contribs), Maile66 (talk · contribs), Reywas92 (talk · contribs), Marincyclist (talk · contribs), and Dream Focus (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG. All the sources are self-published. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and potentially merge with (/split into) List of ski areas and resorts in the United States/List of ski areas and resorts in Canada. While the article could use more independent sourcing and trimming of the likely outdated lift ticket prices, this is good content and organization and should be kept similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Lake Tahoe area ski resorts. Data such as elevation and number of lifts are more informative than the simple bulleted list and does not make it a catalog. Reywas92^Talk 14:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article provides a good way of comparing North American ski resorts and has useful content that goes beyond simply a list of names and cities like the main list. I suggest renaming the article to "List of..." so it is in-line with convention, and removing ticket prices per WP:NOTTRAVEL, but it should be kept and the statistics can be updated as-necessary. Marincyclist (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The relevant question my be found at Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process which says:

Verifiability: if an article is unverified, but verification seems possible, it may be worth keeping. However, articles with mainly unverifiable content should be deleted.

So, does it seem possible to verify all or even most of this data? If so, it may be worth keeping. But I haven't heard of a path towards finding reliable sourcing for most of the data, so my take is that it does not seem possible i.e. the article contains "mainly unverifiable content".

Comment There are websites such as onthesnow.com, slopestat.com, skiresort.info, and powderhounds.com that all contain most of the relevant statistics listed in this article. I also don't think ski resorts "inflating" figures is really as common as some say. Marincyclist (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A quick spotcheck shows that onthesnow.com & slopestat.com just reproduce whatever numbers the resorts provide. skiresort.info gets some of them right (as per USGS data) and repeats what the resorts claim for others. powderhounds.com only covers US West & Vermont. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A valid navigational list to list all the articles for a similar thing together. They should be split by nation though. Valid information list. Lists are more useful than categories because more information is listed, helping people find what they are looking for far better than a category can. I don't believe the prices should be listed, since that's not usually something that is done. Even in the articles linked to it doesn't list the price. I don't think any business an legally lie about information, so no reason to doubt how much snowfall or measurements they have. If a government website can be found listing the information, or a reliable source that list this information, that would be better to use as references. Dream Focus 17:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 05:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Camp Wildcat order of battle

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

This is a minor Civil War battle (16 killed and 62 wounded all told) and certainly doesn't merit three articles for the order of battle. The Confederate and Union ones can be merged to Battle of Camp Wildcat, making this page superfluous. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Wrong venue. As things currently stand, this page is necessary as the order of battle is split into two pages, one for each adversary, per WP:ORBAT. I wouldn't oppose merging the two order of battle pages together at this title, or merging both into the article about the battle as proposed, but we need a WP:MERGE discussion, not a deletion discussion. I will say ~~this~~ the current arrangement is the typical setup for most ACW battles, including most minor ones. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no need for 4 separate pages about 1 minor battle. Mztourist (talk) 06:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator without opposition. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Camp Wildcat

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

This is a minor Civil War battle (16 killed and 62 wounded all told) and certainly doesn't merit three articles for the order of battle. The Confederate and Union ones can be merged to Battle of Camp Wildcat, making this page superfluous. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. I nominated the wrong article by mistake. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

DC Singh

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

Most sources here marked sponsored, the Arabian Times and LLM article lack a byline and are written in a promotional tone. I've added a potentially usable (though promotional) article from the Scottish Field, one source is insufficient. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, India, and Punjab. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 04:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete– all sponsored and paid-for coverage, as well as recycled content from self-published material on his own website. EmilyR34 (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added more sources to the page from different websites for a well-rounded reference. Iamharry090 (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conologue, Indiana

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

Appears to be an early post office back-added to the topos from an old map. Need more evidence that that of an actual settlement as these maps recorded post offices as well as actual towns. Mangoe (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 03:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Baker (p.101) says that this was a post office, and warns that we might have to search for Conlogue. So I did. The printed 1980s version of the GNIS database records this as "Conologue Post Office", which is a bit of a clue in itself. I found Conlogue in Jackson in an 1869 government listing of post offices.
But those of you fresh from the discussion of Fleming, Indiana (AfD discussion) will enjoy what I found after that, which was Conlogue in a table on p.65 of the 1876 Monitor Guide to Post Offices and Railroad Stations in the United States and Canada which says "(R.R. name, Fleming's)". So this is the earlier name for the post office by Fleming's station on the O&M.
But other than the shipping guides and post office directories: I found nothing.
Uncle G (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fleming, Indiana

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

Not seeing evidence that this was more than a short-lived post office at a rail point. Mangoe (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 03:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Especially as Baker says (p.133) outright that it was a railway station that later gained a post office. ☺ After no success with a lot of histories and gazetteers, I finally located this as Fleming's in a table on page 80 of W. F. Allen's 1874 Gazetteer of Railway Stations in the United States and the Dominion of Canada. It was on the Ohio & Mississippi. That source says that the station served a population of 200, but makes no statement about what form that population took. Fleming's is in the station listing for the O&M in James Macfarlane's 1890 An American Geological Railway Guide too. The post office is in the 1899 USPS directory. But no Lippincott's nor the Thomas gazetteer has a Fleming or Fleming's, out of the several that they do have, in Indiana. Uncle G (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gikomba fire

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

The article fails Wikipedia:Notability (events) as I cannot find sources for it that are not simply routine coverage contemporary to the fire. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there are multiple sources for the event and others follow-up coverage, like BBC, DW, CNN, Kenya Star, The Nation, Nairobi News FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 03:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete The Nairobi News article specifically says that the issue at the market is that fires are common, basically every year of late. This implies that there's nothing special about this fire. Mangoe (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brasher warning

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

Does not seem to be independently notable. ~~Level bust seems like a likely redirect/merge target.~~ Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A level bust is only one type of pilot deviation out of many, and therefore not a good redirect or merge target. It is like redirecting Fruit to Banana. I've heard ATC issue Brasher warnings for things like departing in the opposite direction and landing on the wrong runway. Polygnotus (talk) 08:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus: Thanks for the clarification. Are there any other plausible redirect targets? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535: I've watched a lot of VASAviation and played around with MSFS but I am not an expert. I don't think there are any plausible redirect/merge targets. I think the WP:COMMONNAME would be pilot deviation. While Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary it is probably possible to write an article about pilot deviations (but I haven't done a full WP:BEFORE check, and I am not qualified to write such an article). Perhaps someone from the Aviation wikiproject can help? Polygnotus (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added another source into the article. This should suffice. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Polygnotus asked for my opinion at User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Brasher warning. I would suggest that if it is kept it's moved to Pilot Deviation Notification, Pilot deviation notification, Pilot deviation or whatever is used worldwide and that "Brasher warning" is an American nickname for the term. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 13:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Pilot deviation notification with a redirect. "Brasher notification" is used only in the US, while the more general term is used world-wide. Risker (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: The scope of pilot deviation is a bit bigger than pilot deviation notification so I think that pilot deviation is a better article title. The notification itself is usually just ATC telling you to write down a telephone number. Polygnotus (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. But the content we currently have available relates strictly to pilot deviation notification, not the general topic. Now, if someone with sufficient knowledge was to write an article about pilot deviation, then yes, pilot deviation notification should be one section of it. We don't have that article now, but we *do* have enough content that, with a few minor changes, would be a reasonable article on pilot deviation notification. I don't personally have sufficient knowledge to write such an article, but it wouldn't surprise me if one or more participants in this discussion do have that knowledge. Risker (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right now we have three sentences - just a definition and etymology. Only one other article links here, and only one other even includes the phrase "pilot deviation". Until and unless someone is able to flesh this out into a substantive article, I think merging to something like Aviation safety#Human factors (or moving to wiktionary) would be better. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi.1415926535: Nah if you want to merge then maybe to Pilot error (although some pilot deviations are very intentional). But if "Pilot error" does not fall under WP:NOTDICT then pilot deviation does neither methinks. Polygnotus (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Pilot decision making#Difficulties? I suppose the warning is technically a result of difficulties rather than a type of difficulty, but this seems more to be a decision-making situation rather than a true error; as Polygnotus points out, sometimes it is a deliberate decision, although perhaps not a good one. Risker (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535, Risker, CambridgeBayWeather, and Wikiexplorationandhelping: see below Polygnotus (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC) I assume that sticking very close to the source material isn't a problem because its the FAA and therefore copyright free? It is pretty difficult to be creative when conveying factual information. [reply]

Extended content

Pilot deviations are actions of a pilot that result in the violation of a Federal Aviation Regulation, often a failure to follow instructions from air traffic control.

https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2010/Mar/AIRBORNE_PILOT_DEVIATIONS_-_GL_Region_FAASTeam_FY10_2nd_Qtr._Notice.pdf

Pilot deviations can be split in to ground- and airborne deviations.

Examples of airborne deviations are when a pilot strays from an assigned altitude or heading, or if they penetrate controlled airspace or restricted airspace without clearance.

Examples of groundbased deviations are taking off or landing without clearance, failing to hold short of a runway or deviating from an assigned taxi route.

https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-01/Avoiding%20Pilot%20Deviations.pdf

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535, Risker, CambridgeBayWeather, and Wikiexplorationandhelping: I added some stuff and moved it. Not sure what the procedure is. Polygnotus (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Pilot deviation and (possibly) include a section on Brasher warnings. "Pilot deviation" seems to be the term for a pilot deviating from a flight plan, while "Brasher warning" refers to an ATC reporting a deviation/a pilot receiving a letter of investigation for a deviation. See the Aero Law Center page or the FAA's explanation of the ATC system (it's near the bottom). Ships & Space_(Edits) 02:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Started writing before move. Keep, as the above suggestions were implemented. Ships & Space_(Edits) 02:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

San Marino at the 2012 European Athletics Championships

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

Utterly insignificant. No possible merge target at San Marino at the European Athletics Championships, which would be a questionable page in itself, given that athletics lacks a high status in this micro-country. Geschichte (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sport of athletics and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into San Marino at the European Athletics Championships, which I just created. There's enough here for an article, for example "Eugenio Rossi dreams of first medal for San Marino at Euro Athletics Championships". --Habst (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that European Athletics is the organizer of the European Athletics Championships and therefore not an independent source Geschichte (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Non-EA sources: [1], [2], [3]. I came into this one with a skeptical eye but I'm seeing the coverage, and the WP:NLIST argument for these types of articles (keeping them as encyclopedic indices of competitors) is also convincing to me. --Habst (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Moana Marie Nunes

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

Subject is only notable due to her marriage with Antonio Sabàto Jr. - see WP:INVALIDBIO. Martey (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Entertainment. Martey (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree with the comment on her notability tied to her husband. The only section that has sourcing is her Personal life. The career section is totally not sourced, but that section shows her notability. — Maile (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Advertising, Beauty pageants, American football, California, Hawaii, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Confused. This person is clearly a big celebrity, but she doesn't have a lot of coverage in mainstream media, leading me to wonder why she's gotten so little coverage, at least from what I see on Googling, from them compared to what's in the article. Has there been a blacklist? Is she just famous for being famous? What's going on? I'm genuinely interested in an answer, so please ping me. Bearian (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no answer from anyone else forthcoming, I'm going with "yes, the subject is famous, but not notable." Bearian (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there are multiple claims to notability. She did more recently receive press from her marriage with Antonio Sabàto Jr, but she meets WP:SINGER for creating the Hawaiian Tropicè theme song, singing the Star Spangled Banner for various notable events, etc., WP:ENT for TV work such as Starz... CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Cherniyenko

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

In searches in both English and Ukrainian, almost literally nothing at all has come up—hardly even databases. Maybe I am missing something, but this player/manager appears to fail WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ADInstruments

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources are routine coverage or directory listings. Deleted by PROD in 2006. Jfire (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Biology, Technology, and New Zealand. Jfire (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. WP:SNOWCLOSE & WP:CSK#6. (non-admin closure) CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Drents Museum heist

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

No need for a stand alone article for this incident. Most of the content in this article was copy-pasted from Drents Museum without attribution. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Crime, and Netherlands. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable, already has a sizeable amount of information, and there will very likely be additional information coming within the following days. I see no reason such a notable event with reliable sources should be deleted. Rin (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Archaeology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:N/CA is the relevant guideline here. See inclusion criteria, # 2: The event is very likely to be notable because it has widespread international impact and is very widely covered in diverse sources. That said, copy-paste from an existing article without attribution is not the way to do it. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is already an article where it can be discussed, if it really does become so notable that a split is required that can always be done later. It is premature and unnecessary to not just cover this in the relevant articles. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Includes a number of notable news sources, which are continually growing as the investigation continues to develop. Cheers! Johnson524 02:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets all aspects of WP:NEVENTS. And it transcends the museum, because it has an impact on the country of Romania as a nation with various consequences. 206.0.71.40 (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:CSK #6 (it's currently linked on the main page). ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Bongkosh Rittichainuwat

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

Doesn't have enough references to prove notability. Borderline, but still lacking as an academic administrator. Awards don't have any references, including the poetry chanting award. Qylt (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Travel and tourism, and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Berger (disambiguation)

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

Per WP:2DABS and WP:PARTIAL. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Disambiguations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete as written. I find no instances of other confusingly similar names. BD2412 T 02:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of X-Men: The Animated Series and X-Men '97 adaptations

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

Beyond being a largely WP:INDISCRIMINATE list that is only supported by a few sources (largely for the X-Men '97 portion) and can be considered trivia, this information seem better suited to note, if applicable and notable, in each series' respective articles rather than its own article (I do believe X-Men '97 already has some of this information in its "Writing" section). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Television. Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Lorstaking (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the portions referenced to secondary sources to X-Men: The Animated Series and X-Men '97, respectively, in the spirit of WP:AtD. Daranios (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I can't speak with certainty for the original series, but with X-Men 97 there are various articles about the comic book issues/storylines than inspired each individual episode, as well as some of the differences between across mediums. In a few instances, I've seen the same with episodes from the OG cartoon too.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but as I noted, why does this specific list article need to exist then? I've pointed out how this material is already covered at the X-Men '97 article where it is most appropriate. This article is just WP:INDISCRIMINATE. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files

File:VASIMR system.jpg

We typically don't use non-free images to illustrate general concepts. I believe this diagram can be replaced with File:Vasimr.png on Commons. Ixfd64 (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, replace with free alternative per nom. Buffs (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sketches of Entosthodon Nesocoticus (Margaret S. Brown).png

The subject of the article is not an artist, and her artistic skills are not described in terms of reliable sources. Removing this image will not harm the encyclopedic value of the article. WP:NFCC#8 & 1 — Ирука¹³ 03:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:CubaoCathedraljf9480 37.JPG

Questionable if the logic of Leicester v. Warner Bros. is applicable for this case. According to this blog, the current building was built in the 1960s, but this stained glass in particular dates to the 2002–03 renovation; in effect, not the original integral part of the 1960s building. Since it was not the original part of the 1960s architecture, the FoP use granted by Leicester v. Warner Bros. isn't applicable in this case. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:English video bloggers

Propose merging Category:English video bloggers to Category:English YouTubers

Nominator's rationale: I am proposing the merge of “English video bloggers” into “English YouTubers” because there is currently no distinction between how the two terms are being used. Almost every single person in this category is described as a “YouTuber” rather than a video blogger on their page. Additionally, the people listed on this page made/make a wide variety of content posted to YouTube (music, comedy sketches, videos of creating art). “Video blogger” is essentially being used as a synonym for “YouTuber,” so I believe the best thing to do is just merge this category into the English YouTubers category. Yeahirlydk (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the category is part of a larger tree under Category:Video bloggers. The whole tree might or might not suffer from the same problem. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

7th century mass cleanup

Propose merging Category:672 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:670s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:673 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:670s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:675 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:670s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:676 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:670s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:677 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:670s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:678 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:670s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:651 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:650s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:652 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:650s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:653 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:650s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:655 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:650s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:697 BC births (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:690s BC births
Propose merging Category:639 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:630s BC
Propose merging Category:637 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:630s BC
Propose merging Category:633 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:630s BC
Propose merging Category:632 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:630s BC
Propose merging Category:631 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:630s BC
Propose merging Category:648 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:640s BC
Propose merging Category:647 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:640s BC
Propose merging Category:646 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:640s BC
Propose merging Category:645 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:640s BC
Propose merging Category:644 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:640s BC
Propose merging Category:643 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:640s BC
Propose merging Category:642 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:640s BC
Propose merging Category:640 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:640s BC
Propose merging Category:656 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:650s BC
Propose merging Category:655 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:650s BC
Propose merging Category:654 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:650s BC
Propose merging Category:653 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:650s BC
Propose merging Category:652 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:650s BC
Propose merging Category:651 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:650s BC
Propose merging Category:669 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:660s BC
Propose merging Category:667 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:660s BC
Propose merging Category:665 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:660s BC
Propose merging Category:664 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:660s BC
Propose merging Category:663 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:660s BC
Propose merging Category:662 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:660s BC
Propose merging Category:660 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:660s BC
Propose merging Category:678 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:670s BC
Propose merging Category:677 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:670s BC
Propose merging Category:676 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:670s BC
Propose merging Category:675 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:670s BC
Propose merging Category:673 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:670s BC
Propose merging Category:672 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:670s BC
Propose merging Category:689 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:680s BC
Propose merging Category:688 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:680s BC
Propose merging Category:686 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:680s BC
Propose merging Category:685 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:680s BC
Propose merging Category:684 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:680s BC
Propose merging Category:682 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:680s BC
Propose merging Category:681 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:680s BC
Propose merging Category:698 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:690s BC
Propose merging Category:697 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:690s BC
Propose merging Category:695 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:690s BC
Propose merging Category:694 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:690s BC
Propose merging Category:693 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:690s BC
Propose merging Category:691 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:690s BC
Propose merging Category:690 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:690s BC
Propose merging Category:665 BC births (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:660s BC births
Propose merging Category:600 BC births (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:600s BC births
Propose merging Category:607 BC births (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:600s BC births

Nominator's rationale: Sparsely populated due to the topic being in the distant past. -- Beland (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:680s BC deaths

Propose merging Category:681 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:680s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:682 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:680s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:685 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:680s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:686 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:680s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:689 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:680s BC deaths

Nominator's rationale: Sparsely populated due to the topic being in the distant past. -- Beland (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:620s BC deaths

Propose merging Category:621 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:620s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:622 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:620s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:626 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:620s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:627 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:620s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:628 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:620s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:629 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:620s BC deaths

Nominator's rationale: Sparsely populated due to topic being in the distant past. -- Beland (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Beland: you need to add the merge target(s) in the nomination, otherwise the bot will not be able to process it. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that...I'm using User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/massXFD and it's not entirely foolproof. But I figured out how to do that by reading the instructions more carefully. -- Beland (talk) 05:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Feel free to merge all the 7th century BC nominations if you prefer; that certainly makes sense, but I didn't want to edit your comments. (Thanks for bearing with me...at least now I know how to do this in a single pass for next time.) -- Beland (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I realize now that it is too late to merge them. If we would merge them manually, all links in the tags on the category pages will become partially broken (they would only link to the right page, but no longer to the right section). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to decade parent category per nom, provided that all 7th-century BC deaths will be nominated (preferably merged to a single nomination). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:640s BC deaths

Propose merging Category:640 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:640s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:642 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:640s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:643 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:640s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:644 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:640s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:645 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:640s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:646 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:640s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:648 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:640s BC deaths

Nominator's rationale: Sparsely populated due to topic being in the distant past. -- Beland (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to decade parent category per nom, provided that all 7th-century BC deaths will be nominated (preferably merged to a single nomination). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:630s BC deaths

Propose merging Category:631 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:630s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:632 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:630s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:633 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:630s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:637 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:630s BC deaths

Nominator's rationale: Sparsely populated due to topic being in the distant past. -- Beland (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to decade parent category per nom, provided that all 7th-century BC deaths will be nominated (preferably merged to a single nomination). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:610s BC deaths

Propose merging Category:612 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:610s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:613 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:610s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:614 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:610s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:617 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:610s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:618 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:610s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:619 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:610s BC deaths

Nominator's rationale: Sparsely populated due to topic being in the distant past. -- Beland (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to decade parent category per nom, provided that all 7th-century BC deaths will be nominated (preferably merged to a single nomination). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recreation

Propose merging Category:Recreation to Category:Leisure activities

Nominator's rationale: merge, not a clear distinction between the two categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:600s BC deaths

Propose merging Category:600 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:600s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:604 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:600s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:605 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:600s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:607 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:600s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:609 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:600s BC deaths

Nominator's rationale: Sparsely populated due to topic being in the distant past. -- Beland (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to decade parent category per nom, provided that all 7th-century BC deaths will be nominated (preferably merged to a single nomination). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:690s BC deaths

Propose merging Category:690 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:690s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:693 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:690s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:694 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:690s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:695 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:690s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:697 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:690s BC deaths
Propose merging Category:698 BC deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:690s BC deaths

Nominator's rationale: Sparsely populated due to topic being in the distant past. -- Beland (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to decade parent category per nom, provided that all 7th-century BC deaths will be nominated (preferably merged to a single nomination). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:620s BC

Propose merging Category:629 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:620s BC
Propose merging Category:628 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:620s BC
Propose merging Category:627 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:620s BC
Propose merging Category:626 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:620s BC
Propose merging Category:622 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:620s BC
Propose merging Category:621 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:620s BC

Nominator's rationale: Sparsely populated due to topic being in the distant past. Beland (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to decade parent category per nom, provided that all 7th-century BC years will be nominated (preferably merged to a single nomination). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:610s BC

Propose merging Category:619 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:610s BC
Propose merging Category:618 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:610s BC
Propose merging Category:617 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:610s BC
Propose merging Category:616 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:610s BC
Propose merging Category:615 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:610s BC
Propose merging Category:614 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:610s BC
Propose merging Category:613 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:610s BC
Propose merging Category:612 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:610s BC
Propose merging Category:610 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:610s BC

Nominator's rationale: Sparsely populated due to topic being in the distant past. -- Beland (talk) 04:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to decade parent category per nom, provided that all 7th-century BC years will be nominated (preferably merged to a single nomination). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

600s BC

Propose merging Category:609 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:600s BC
Propose merging Category:607 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:600s BC
Propose merging Category:606 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:600s BC
Propose merging Category:605 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:600s BC
Propose merging Category:604 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:600s BC
Propose merging Category:601 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:600s BC

Nominator's rationale: Sparsely populated due to topic being in the distant past. Beland (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to decade parent category per nom, provided that all 7th-century BC years will be nominated (preferably merged to a single nomination). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Civil parishes in Telford and Wrekin

Propose deleting Category:Civil parishes in Telford and Wrekin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is no need for a category at this level, and it breaks with, and confuses, the long-established hierarchy of categories. English civil parishes are categorised by a category for their district or unitary authority (ie the smallest larger unit which includes them), and a category "Civil parishes in [county]" (by ceremonial county, not by unitary authority). There is an established hierarchy at Category:Civil parishes in England by county. Note that Category:Civil parishes in Shropshire has a note, present for many years, showing its scope as "Civil parishes in the county of Shropshire, including the borough of Telford and Wrekin." (Shropshire is a somewhat confusing area to consider, as the ceremonial county and the smaller unitary authority area share the same name.)

Note that when this category was added to a group of parishes, Category:Telford and Wrekin was removed, so this will need to be replaced in any cleanup if this category is deleted. PamD 10:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for that creation was to declutter the already over cluttered Telford and Wrekin category. It was to add the civil parishes to a seperate sub category to allow people interested in parishes or local history to see the parishes of Telford and Wrekin. The issue with the Shropshire one is that it covers the whole county but also there are two unitary areas which cover different sizes in Shropshire. With telford have just shy of 30 civil parishes as Telford itself is unparished. It allows for the other cps to be given a platform of their own in a category shy of Telford and Wrekin category. As @Crouch, Swale has previously told me that category is not needed. So it allows the category to be found in the Telford and Wrekin category but without directing or cluttering the mainspace itself. Neatly if you will. Since none of these cps answer to Shropshire Council but T&W Council. DragonofBatley (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonofBatley and JMF: Telford and Wrekin is completely parished and has been since 1988[4]. Dawley, Oakengates and Wellington were unparished before then but the rest of the district has always been parished. As can be seen at Mapit Telford and Wrekin doesn't show up in the lists of unparished part(s) of districts. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does Telford as in central Telford like the centre plaza Southwater town park and the railway station have a parish council? @Crouch, Swale? Just wondering DragonofBatley (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonofBatley: Southwater is in Great Dawley parish[5], the central station is in Lawley and Overdale [6]. There isn't a parish called just "Telford" but the town has several parishes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: Lawley and Overdale parish, which has a parish council, covers the central area of Telford and has a ward called "Town Centre". PamD 23:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Category:Civil parishes in Shropshire and Category:Telford and Wrekin. Its not usually helpful to subdivide by district unless (a) the district has the same name as a settlement like Hastings or some other recognizable thing like Isles of Scilly or (b) the category relates to something specific to the district like elections. Otherwise just create "X in ceremonial county" and place all articles in "X in ceremonial county" and "X district" or "X parish" (if it exists). Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A similar situation arises with the parishes in the City of Milton Keynes, one of the two UA areas of Buckinghamshire. Its parishes are Category:Civil parishes in Buckinghamshire (IMO, correctly) and DoB's requirement is met with a navbox at the bottom of every parish article, Template:Milton Keynes parishes. It has worked well but maybe that is because CoMK is fully parished? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are other categories: Category:Civil parishes in Ashford, Kent (created in 2006), Category:Civil parishes in Warrington (2007), Category:Civil parishes in Winchester (2008), Category:Civil parishes in Harborough District (2009), Category:Civil parishes in South Hams (2010) and Category:Civil parishes in Basingstoke and Deane (2011). There were also categories for the former districts in Cheshire and Cornwall. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 26#Category:Civil parishes in Milton Keynes Borough seems to be the only discussion that is not just about renaming. If there are too many articles in the main Telford and Wrekin category, subcategories could be similar to those in Category:City of Bradford - so this could be changed to Category:Geography of Telford and Wrekin. Peter James (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The decluttering mentioned by DragonofBatley seems like a good idea and, where appropriate, should be applied to other areas. I don't think this category is doing any harm. Waggers TALK 11:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Intersectional feminists

Propose merging Category:Intersectional feminists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Feminists

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between being a feminist and a type of feminism. At the very least, the child categories need to be purged/restored to the parent category. For example, being a Jewish feminist doesn't mean that they're an intersectional feminist. ^SMason_Garrison 01:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a defining characteristic (with very few exceptions). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 20:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a very consistent type of feminism. LIrala (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on LIrala's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 19:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If kept then heavily purge. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not enough participation to reach consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WikiProject Feminism and WikiProject Biography been notified. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New towns by decade

Propose merging Category:New towns by decade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Populated places by decade of establishment
Propose merging Category:New towns started in the 1900s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Populated places established in the 1900s
Propose merging Category:New towns started in the 1920s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Populated places established in the 1920s
Propose merging Category:New towns started in the 1930s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Populated places established in the 1930s
Propose merging Category:New towns started in the 1940s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Populated places established in the 1940s
Propose merging Category:New towns started in the 1950s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Populated places established in the 1950s
Propose merging Category:New towns started in the 1960s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Populated places established in the 1960s
Propose merging Category:New towns started in the 1970s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Populated places established in the 1970s
Propose merging Category:New towns started in the 1980s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Populated places established in the 1980s
Propose merging Category:New towns started in the 1990s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Populated places established in the 1990s
Propose merging Category:New towns started in the 2000s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Populated places established in the 2000s
Propose merging Category:New towns started in the 2010s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Populated places established in the 2010s

Nominator's rationale: I don't think it is necessary to have a separate establishments category for planned communities/new towns. For consistency, merge to the populated places tree, diffusing by year where applicable. WP:OVERLAPCAT –Aidan721 (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom but also merge to Category:New towns in the United Kingdom when applicable. New towns in the United Kingdom was really a thing. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- New towns are not exclusive to the UK. Verne Equinox (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "New town" is a term used in the planning profession to distinguish planned communities from unplanned communities. Without going into too much detail, there is a diffeence between a planned community and, let's say, an organic one - in that it attempts to provide a balance of land uses that allows for a certain self-sufficiency, or in the case of an industrial town, has a specific intent of housing a workforce. New towns also tend to have fewer investors. Verne Equinox (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of "new town" in general is so broad that every town or city established in the 20th century may fall in that category. In the UK there is a narrower definition of government-assigned new towns in a specific period. However if creation of Category:New towns in the United Kingdom does not get support then I unconditionally support the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Priority Air Transport

Priority Air Transport → United States Army (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Term is not mentioned in target article. Is confusing to arrive at the US Army article without explanation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contra Run and Gun

Contra Run and Gun → Contra (series) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving it unclear what this redirect is meant to refer to. Steel1943 (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lean keep - This is almost certainly a non-parenthetical unnecessary disambiguator. "Run and gun" is the genre of games that the Contra series belongs to, and may have even kicked off said genre. I lean towards keeping this as an unambiguous target, but I can see arguments for deletion as malformed. Still, WP:CHEAP probably applies, so lean keep it is. Fieari (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Konami filed for the trademark and this is the logical home as a search target. czar 12:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Upon research in this title further, seems this phrase refers to a game bundle called "Contra Run & Gun Bundle" (Steam link). Seems this bundle was also released on major consoles. Either way, seems like we may have a WP:RETURNTORED situation since this topic is not mentioned at the target, and seems to represent a valid subject, so it does not seem to be describing the genre in general. Adding a mention to the target article describing the subject of the redirect could relieve this problem, given the topic of this redirect probably fails WP:GNG. Steel1943 (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sapphics

Sapphics → Sapphic stanza (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Retarget to Sapphic as template:r from plural. --MikutoH ^talk! 23:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Current target seems to be the only plausible plural subject. Otherwise, weak delete per my aforementioned statement. Steel1943 (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Steel. After looking at usage, this seems like the only reasonable target. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Sapphic or Sapphism: The most common usage I hear for 'Sapphics' refers to Sapphism, indicating people who are Sapphic, much like saying 'lesbians'. Retargeting to the DAB makes sense as well. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Sapphic. Common usage (e.g. [7]) seems to use this as a synonym for "lesbians" though encyclopedically the current target also makes sense. Probably best to send it to the DAB. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 08:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maersk Phoenix

Maersk Phoenix → Maersk Line (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention of "Phoenix" at the target page. After being merged 6 years ago, people who use this redirect are currently being taken to a location where their questions about a Maersk "Phoenix" are not addressed. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, this was simply WP:BLARed, and was never merged. Information about the ship and its sister ships from the former article could be merged to List of ships owned by Maersk. - Eureka Lott 01:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the pre-BLAR page content?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 21:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to the list article, as a Former ship (no longer operated by Maersk). Here's an archived link to the dead MarineTraffic page [8] -- which combined with the archived page for the DNV page from the old article version would give you refs to show the ship existed at that name. The current MarineTraffic [9] shows that the ship is now named "Tiburon" ; the list article can just list the ship its type and its name for the Phoenix-- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of people nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States in the last year of a presidency

List of people nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States in the last year of a presidency → Nomination and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States#Vacancies (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
List of people nominated to U.S. Supreme Court during last year of last presidential term → Nomination and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States#Vacancies (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
List of people nominated to U.S. Supreme Court in last year of presidency → Nomination and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States#Vacancies (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Does not seem that the target page contains such an organized list of people as stated in the titles of these redirects. Readers searching these terms may not be satisfied with the results, given the target page has no such organization. (However, one of the redirects, List of people nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States in the last year of a presidency, is a {{R from merge}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best solution would be to restore the article that was purportedly integrated into another one. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, The rationale for redirecting the article was sound – see:Talk:List of people nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States in the last year of a presidency. The information was integrated into the target article, but its fit did not stand the test of time when the article underwent subsequent expansion and revisions. Drdpw (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

41st millennium

41st millennium → Timeline of the far future (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Isolated millennium redirect not linked from anywhere. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules

NFL minor coaching staff navboxes

Template:NFL defensive back coaches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:NFL defensive line coaches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:NFL linebacker coaches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:NFL offensive line coaches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:NFL quarterback coaches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:NFL running back coaches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:NFL special teams coordinators (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:NFL strength and conditioning coaches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:NFL tight end coaches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:NFL wide receiver coaches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These are minor assistant roles within their respective teams. Head coaches, offensive coordinators, and defensive coordinators have their own articles to connect back to unlike these. It is also tedious to constantly maintain. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I mean, I find them pretty useful at least... I know that alone isn't enough to keep but I think it'd be a shame to get rid of these... BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still think Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/List of current National Football League staffs should be moved back to mainspace. A lot of the coaches (like the ones in these navboxes) are notable, it's not just a list of random names. Readers can't easily find these staffs anymore without opening up 32 different pages. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany

Deletion review

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creating articles Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and voting	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates