Wikipedia:XfD today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page transcludes (or when this is not feasible, links to) 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]

The category is at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.

Articles[edit]

Purge server cache

William Thomas Putt[edit]

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

Article makes no claim of notability, and the subject does not meet WP:GNG. signed, Rosguill talk 18:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Subject is notable in the context of British social history as the squire of a 4,000 acre estate and owner a major English country house redesigned by Sir John Soane. There are good inline citations and the article brings useful additional detail to the associated Wikipedia articles.Fuseemusee (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge to Manor of Gittisham#Putt, which currently has one line on the subject. Part of the present article is on his older brother, who is covered more fully there. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

AOAart[edit]

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

Organization lacking significant coverage in RS. I understand that my search may not have turned up anything because this organization is based in Beijing. However, it is totally unsourced and completely promotional. If sources can be found, it would be a good candidate to stubify. Citrivescence (talk) 05:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep for now, there seems to be some mainstream coverage in Japanes and Chinese news sources, but I do not have the ability to evaluate them. We need someone who can read those to give an informed opinion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Carola Remer[edit]

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

All she has is modeling agencies and directories. Trillfendi (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Nomination rationale is false, as article already has a Cut (NY Mag) source listed. I just added an easily located Die Welt profile. In other words, this article is sourced to the same level as the dozens of other 3-sentence name+heritage+agency+clickbait fashion model articles proliferating throughout the encyclopedia. Technically, a pass of WP:GNG, and perhaps of WP:ENT (since WP:NMODEL just redirects there), depending on how one interprets fashion model participation in shows, ads, and covers as "other productions" or not. Bakazaka (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
The Cut’s Meet the New Girl series was just an appendage of their Model Manual (aka the directory of profiles they haven’t updated since 2012). They really only tend to offer trivia beyond saying a few jobs a model did. Trillfendi (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Not a modeling agency, not a directory. Bakazaka (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
That “article” is 3 sentences then right at the bottom Explore other rising stars (plus all the big names) in our extensive Model Manual, featuring runway pics, glamorous editorials, model bios, career timelines, and more. Very obvious that they wanted the reader to segue to their directory since that’s what they were known for. Meanwhile in her career section, the first sentence is a dead link to her

former modeling agency One Management, which shouldn’t have been there in the first place. The only thing left was models.com which is reserved for the infobox. The nonsensical inclusion of “supermodels.nl” which is a forum at best, is undignified. Trillfendi (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

P. P. Mukundan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep because he served for many years on the national executive of India’s governing party. Mccapra (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Being a member of national executive of India’s governing party doesn't make him notable. There is no in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are indepndent of the subject and no evidence he played a major role in politics or election campaigning .Thus Delete.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Mersbrass[edit]

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

Unsourced article of a non-notable company. I've been unable to find any significant third-party coverage. Zanhe (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Somewhere in Palilula[edit]

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

This article doesn't has much information. This article has been orphaned long enough. No citations to verify the casts and informations. Sincerely, Masum Reza 04:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Pauline Barnett[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Cannot find any sources that do more than mention subject incidentally. Rogermx (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, winner of notable award. There will be significant contemporary news coverage, even if you can't find it with a simple Google search. I have added Blomberg biography as a reference. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC).
  • Delete per nom. A Bloomberg listing is not particularly useful for establishing notability. Note: Rich Farmbrough created this article and a lot of other stubs for winners of the Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion, a award that doesn't appear to be all that significant. Many of these other winners' articles have been tagged for questionable notability, e.g. Pamela Neal, Janette Pallas, Nicholas O'Shiel, Anne Duncan, etc., and should be deleted too. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence anyone who gets this award is automatically notable, and many of the others should go too. Should otherwise be sources covering them besides just for the award. Unclear why there's The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (2011), etc. as well. Reywas92Talk 22:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I have added a couple of sources to the article. I don't see why the award would not qualify for WP:ANYBIO - it's a national award, not a local one, and there were 10 recipients of that award each year, in a population of about 60 million overall. Assuming that about 3/4 of the population were aged 20+, the award was given to 10 in 45,000,000 people, or 2.22%, which is surely notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as winner of notable award and User:RebeccaGreen has improved the article with more references giving credibility to its notability. Thanks MyanmarBBQ (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane talk 04:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Even though this article has been improved since nomination, I don't see any notability. Doesn't pass WP:GNG and I think this article falls under WP:NCORP as well - not even a notable business associated. Skirts89 11:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:NCORP is not for people, it's for organisations. The question is not whether the organisation/s she is associated with are notable, but whether she herself meets any notability criteria. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

George Mason VI[edit]

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

Many of his relatives are notable--and are in fact major historical figures-- but I see no evidence he is. (Note that the similarity of names in his family makes searching rather difficult) . DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep - His role in the ownership of the historic Mason estate at Gunston Hall is sufficient notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • How THIS can get a weak Keep? Has anyone seen the references? Out of 4 references - three are from the official website of George Mason! I am new here but even I know that official website is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia rules Dariakupila (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I have added four more sources. Mosaicberry (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Policy & Internet[edit]

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

Not notable. Minor e-mag. Tagged for no sources since 2013, and it's been 6 years and no one's fixed it. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Taineua[edit]

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

There is an article on Tai Nuea language but no reliable sources are provided for this article’s historical account. It mostly seems drawn from tourism sites and I can’t find any RS (in English). Mccapra (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • If there's consensus for deletion, then instead of deleting, the article should be turned into a redirect to Tai Nuea language. – Uanfala (talk) 09:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. While the term describes the language, the various peoples that form its users are usually collectively described as Dai people. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Update: It appears that there are indeed sources which cover Tai Nua people as an ethnic group, e.g. [1] (actually two ethnic groups with the same name; one in China and Myanmar, and another in Laos). The article still needs to be completely rewritten though, as it fails to distinguish between the two and appears to be based mostly on original research and non-reliable sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment thanks Paul_012 in that case it seems the best outcome is a redirect to Dai people. Unless anyone objects I’ll do that and ask for this AfD to close. Mccapra (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I'd rather let the AfD ran its course. I think Tai Nuea language is still probably the better target, since readers arriving via the term would be WP:ASTONISHed to be directed to Dai people. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Really? But Dai people is about the people and customs whereas Tai Nuea language is just about linguistics, so surely the former is a closer match to what the user is searching for? Mccapra (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Dai people doesn't have content about the Taineua people apart from a brief mention of "Tai Nüa" inside a table, if that counts for anything, so it's not particularly useful to readers who search for "Taineua". If it did have more substantial content, then Taineua could be turned into a disambiguation page listing the ethnic group/s and the language, per the naming conventions: in English a given name is used for both the ethnicity and the language, and the two topics don't normally tend to attract vastly different readership, so there's usually no primary topic). – Uanfala (talk) 06:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep or Draft this article needs rework or improve. see source 1. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Mayor of Delran Township, New Jersey[edit]

Mayor of Delran Township, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

A list of mayor for a township of less than 17,000 people. Most of the list is not even reliably sourced thus failing WP:V. Appears to contain WP:OR since even the Delran Historical Society (which I wouldn't consider reliable anyway) does not have the complete list on their website [2] None of the mayors appear to be notable by themselves either which means the entire list would fail the requirements of WP:LISTPEOPLE Rusf10 (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

comment. I believe what's missing on the list is pictures of some of the mayors, not the mayors themselves.Jacona (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. None of these people is likely to get an article as mayor, so it's rather pointless to have a list of redlinks. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Strictly speaking, the question of whether these people would qualify for their own standalone biographical articles or not isn't controlling on whether there's value in maintaining a list of their names or not — for closed-ended lists with defined inclusion criteria, like mayors of a place, it's more important that a list be complete than it is that it comprise exclusively blue links. (We do have the option of placing a "blue links only" restriction on open-ended lists that have a tendency to attract the addition of non-notable publicity seekers, like generic indexes of writers or musicians or people-from-city, but lists that are constrained by their own definitions to a specific and closed-ended set of topics, such as lists of holders of specific political titles, are allowed to contain redlinked or unlinked names.)
    Rather, the important problem here is that the list is not fully referenced in order to ensure that it is (and stays) accurate: if somebody were to edit this list to change any of the information in it, for the majority of the people here we would have no way of verifying whether that was a helpful correction or a vandalistic uncorrection. So if we can't actually find a complete list of Delran's mayors anywhere else to verify this against, then we can't keep it unless every name in the list gets referenced to at least one reliable source of its own. Bearcat (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Bearcat (talk and this reference, list of delran mayors. It references every mayor up to June 2016, which gets us into the internet age with plenty of sources.Jacona (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The applicable guideline is WP:LISTBIO, which states "Inclusion within stand-alone lists should be determined by the normal criteria established for that page. Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:SOURCELIST, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including Wikipedia:Trivia sections)." In other words, the inclusion criteria can be set in the article (for instance, it doesn't have to be bluelinks). A finite list like this is very different from a list of alumni that by nature could swell to a large number of entries were inclusion criteria like write the article first not applied.Jacona (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
While I don't think the page needs deletion, merging it into Delran Township, New Jersey might be a better option.Jacona (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge into Delran Township, New Jersey. A verifiable list of mayors of a jurisdiction is appropriate for this project. Whether that list is a stand-alone article or contained within the article of the jurisdiction is a matter of editorial judgement (based on other policies and practices). My sense is the Delran Historical Society page contains an accurate list. --Enos733 (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge/Delete Perhaps in a collapsable table, this is not exactly a notable position and the officeholders are not inherently notable. Reywas92Talk 22:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep- References available. A merge would make Delran Township, New Jersey too long.Djflem (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom, per Bearcat. I'm can't find any guidance on notability of lists per se (someone please let me know if there is one; WP:LISTPEOPLE is about inclusion in a list, not about whether the itself should exist), but I'm inclined that if the topic of list (mayor of Delran Township) is non-notable, and most (or all) of the list members are non-notable, then we shouldn't have the list. Yilloslime (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete- Yilloslime said it better than I could. Neither the topic of the list, nor most of the members of it, are notable. Therefore there's no justification for the list itself. Reyk YO! 10:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Past guidance from the community has generally kept lists of mayors that are sufficiently sourced (but not lists of deputy mayors or councilmembers). As I wrote in WP:Articles_for_deletion/Mayor_of_Chesterfield, "Keep per WP:CSC (point 3). The list of mayors of a particular city or town can be verifiably complete and provides the 'retention of encyclopedic information' while each mayor may not warrant a separate article." I would encourage reading the discussion in WP:Articles for deletion/List of mayors of Farmington, Missouri, which was closed as "move to draft space" because the sources were not present, and WP:Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey (2nd nomination), which closed as "keep." --Enos733 (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This conversation has come to a stall - relisting to hopefully re-spark some discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 15:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Rooh Afza (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF. WBGconverse 16:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and WP:NFILM. Etc. ——SerialNumber54129 17:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete As the film notability guideline says, we should wait until prinicipal photography begins before having an article - there is little noteworthy to write about yet. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Hardik Mehta. Redirect would be the best option as the film is definitely going to happen. There are various reliable sources confirming film’s announcement and it is even scheduled to release on 20 March 2020. When filming begins, it can be simply restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Smart LION (talkcontribs) 04:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Ghadasi[edit]

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

Another non-notable caste, a handful of passing mentions but nothing significant. It's basically the equivalent of last name and people trying to put more weight behind something that just isn't. Praxidicae (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

This is notable article because ghadasi is subcaste of the Kolis of gujarat. GujaratiGangster (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge By the article creator's own argument above, as a subcaste of the Koli people it would only seem to make sense to add any information about the Ghadasi to the Koli article under a heading rather than have an entire new article, especially if their only claim to notability is by being a subcaste. That might be true of most of what is under the category for the Koli people [5], in fact, since at the current moment there's at least one more AfD, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chuvalia, going on in relation to this topic. Userqio (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Chuvalia[edit]

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

Non-notable caste. Praxidicae (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

This is notable and subcaste of kolis of gujarat. GujaratiGangster (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

TeleTrade Group[edit]

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

Advertising, promotion. Deleted 3 times in Ru.wikipedia.org Кронас (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment I think the topic is notable, but it's insane to me that it exists without mention of the raid,[1] embezzlement and fraud,[2] website shutdown,[3] and most recently suspension of operation.[4][5] Pegnawl (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

keep a multinational corporation with 3,000 employees will generally be notable. Graywalls (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be an adequate argument per WP:BIG: "Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources." Pegnawl (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment I would !vote for Delete unless the citations brought into the discussion by User:Pegnawl were added, in which case I would switch to a Weak Keep. As the article currently stands, its advertising and non-notable; with the inclusion of the criminal investigation under WP:ILLCON/WP:NCRIME it's possible to establish notability (technically it would be the Russian Bank Crackdown that would be notable and deserving of an article, which is why I'm a Weak Keep). Userqio (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Harsh Beniwal[edit]

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

Deleted after an AfD in September 2017. Still not seeing enough to demonstrate sufficient notability. Edwardx (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Why deleting this? Now, if this deleted so please nominate other Youtubers pages for deletion like Ranveer Alhabadia, Sejal Kumar and many Youtubers. In this page many sources are available and he is in also a Hindi film. --Raju Jangid (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
If other Youtubers seem not to meet our notability guidelines then anyone, including you, can nominate them for deletion. This discussion is about Harsh Beniwal, not those others. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@Phil Bridger: Okay Thanks.--Raju Jangid (talk) 10:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Furnace Party Incident (Fairmont)[edit]

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

Non-notable hoax for a rather small neighborhood. Could not find any reliable third party sources to establish notoriety. Tinton5 (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Citilink Flight 800[edit]

Citilink Flight 800 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Not notable event in which nothing happened. Wikipedia is not a newspaper Andrewgprout (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Dominic Jephcott[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Google search shows no reliable sources - those do refer to the different Jephcott, a businessman - this him is an actor. Many of the TV shows this article links to has made no mention of him there, and even if he was, it's unlikely he had played any significant roles.

Even before the user, who claims to be Jephcott himself, "updates" this article, I don't see any citations supporting anything stated on this page. See also Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. theinstantmatrix (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
You do know that criteria means there are 100000's of character actor articles that need AFD's CT. There is nothing in WP:NACTOR that says an actor has to have "starred" in a show. I have a couple dozen DVDs that include his performances and many of them are significant - though that word can be in the eye of the beholder. If this is the way it finishes then so be it. Apologies if this comes off as insulting because I don't mean it that way. Best regards to you and all that you do here at the 'pedia. MarnetteD|Talk 19:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@MarnetteD: I bear no ill will towards you or the subject. There are lots of working actors, just as there are lots of judges, military officers, musicians, etc. They're not all notable. However, NACTOR requires "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" and this subject does not pass that. You said "that criteria means there are 100000's of character actor articles that need AFD's" and yes, I'll !vote delete on all of them. The reason I'm a deletionist is that I find it's the result of strict adherence to our norms (policy, guidelines, or essays). For me to do otherwise would be arrogantly substituting my own judgement for the consensus of the community, even when I don't agree with the current rules. (I supported an SNG making ambassadors notable.) The subject fails GNG, ANYBIO, and NACTOR. For me to say otherwise implicitly disrespects the will of my fellow editors. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - Agree he meets WP:NACTOR. Tacyarg (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Yet another British actor whose stage career is not represented in the article. The subject's own edits to the article provide information which can be searched for in reliable sources, and compiled into a suitable format for a WP article. It is clear that he does meet WP:NACTOR, having had multiple significant roles in multiple notable performances. Of those that are currently shown in the article, he had significant roles in The Scarlet Pimpernel, Good and Bad at Games, Inseminoid and Holby City. He had other significant roles in performances which don't yet have WP articles, including An African Dream. I will check his Royal Shakespeare Company appearances and other stage performances, and add them to the article, and also add sources. AfD is not about the current state of the article, though it often seems to be interpreted that way by some editors. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm going to relist this for another week - We're on the fence about NACTOR and the article has been significantly updated since the nomination. Some feedback about the updates and whether there's now a consensus that Dominic meets the NACTOR requirements or even WP:GNG now would be awesome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Janet Adair[edit]

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

Actress who I am trying to find notablity for. She was only in 5 films, which none of them even have a Wikipedia page for. Based off of the IMDB none of her roles seem that notable either (sole exception is Here Comes the Bridesmaid where she is the only credited person-then there is Crooked Dagger where the credits are in alphabetical order). (The most notable thing about her really is how long she lived and that is it) Wgolf (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Elis Paprika[edit]

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

This article is a hot mess of BLP vios, promotional language, red links, and conflict of interest editing. The main editor is User:Cachizalo who I strongly suspect to be the current drummer of her group, Cachi Zazueta. Perhaps it could be massively stripped down to a stub or basic article but I couldn't do it. ALL the refs are external links and only a few seem legit but are often behind paywalls. Oh, and the majority of the text is pure original research. If someone wants to step in and save it, be my guest. Mark Ironie (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I sincerely believe this article about Elis Paprika to be as accurate as I, and most everyone else that has edited it could make it. I have nothing to do with the artist or her band. If there are any doubts on the veracity of any of the refs, I invite you to follow them so you can see everything has been checked before including it. There have been previous attempts to mess with some of he information included, and after checking it, it has been corrected. I do not see where any of this information would be promotional, but if you feel that some of it might be more than purely educational, please point it out so that it can be addressed. Thank you for taking the time to revise my, and other people's work here in this page. I wish to be helpful with any doubts. Cachizalo (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cachizalo (talkcontribs) 05:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

EMix[edit]

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

Google news comes up with one peice of news and it is a press release. http://www.healthcareitnews.com/press-release/pacsgear-adds-emix-open-image-exchange Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT #1. No argument has been made for deletion. The nominator has mentioned that there is only one result on Google News, which is not overwhelmingly surprising, considering that this article is about a technology in the medical field and healthcare industry. A better search would also involve Google Scholar. MarkZusab (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. On the other hand, as a technology in the medical field, Google Scholar comes up with significantly more than one result. Note that many of these are merely mentions of the phrase "electronic medical information exchange", and do not actually discuss the technology this article is about. However, there are also many sources discussing the actual technology. This may contribute to notability. MarkZusab (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

DR Systems[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Malkapuram Shivakumar[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Only the most successful of film producers tend to be notable, and based on this article, the subject would barely meet WP:NDIRECTOR had he directed the movies that he was a producer for (as a producer, there is no subject specific guideline other than WP:ANYBIO). All coverage that I was able to find is just quotes from the subject drumming up publicity for films he produced. signed, Rosguill talk 02:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 02:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 02:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 02:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 02:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete-per nom. Was thinking of putting a AFD earlier for him. Heck the IMDB only has ONE film for him. The others seem to be dubbed versions only. Wgolf (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Files[edit]

Files for discussion[edit]

April 21[edit]

File:Marvelmanspecial.jpg[edit]

File:Marvelmanspecial.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Logan1138 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Article has a lot of non-free media and this is adding nothing critical or educational. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 05:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Miraclemanr23.jpg[edit]

File:Miraclemanr23.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Logan1138 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Article has a lot of non-free media and this is adding nothing critical or educational. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 05:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Miracleman Issue 15.jpg[edit]

File:Miracleman Issue 15.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ntnon (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Article has a lot of non-free media and this is adding nothing critical or educational. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 05:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Miraclemanbook3.JPG[edit]

File:Miraclemanbook3.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Logan1138 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Article has a lot of non-free media and this is adding nothing critical or educational. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 05:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

April 21[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Power Linux distributions[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The name of the architecture the Linux distributions supports is called the Power ISA, not Power. 99Electrons (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I can find no reference where these Linux versions are referred to by this name. They are all either called Linux on Power, or Power Linux. I don't see the "ISA" term used at all. A really paranoid android (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • It isn't claimed that these Linux distributions have "Power ISA" in their name. This category is for Linux distributions that run on computers that implement the Power ISA. It contains, as it did when it was nominated: Debian, Fedora (operating system), and Red Hat Enterprise Linux. None of these distributions have Power in their name. And what has "Linux on Power" or "Power Linux" got to do with this discussion? These are not the names of any Linux distribution (AFAIK); they are IBM phrases/terms that describe Linux running on Power-related things, and the former is also just a partial match for "Linux on Power Systems", which means what it says: Linux running on IBM Power Systems. 99Electrons (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • If I understand you correctly, you are saying that given that the Power architecture is now open, any implementing vendor could run Linux for the Power architecture on their hardware, and therefore, the name should change to reflect that neutrality? Are there any real world examples of this? If not, I'm still opposed. A really paranoid android (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • You've completely misunderstood me. I'm saying Category:Power Linux distributions was created for Linux distributions that support the Power ISA, but it doesn't give the name of the architecture correctly—it mistakenly shortens it to Power. That's wrong, there's no such architecture called Power. 99Electrons (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: There's a discussion about the use of "Power Architecture" on Wikipedia that's relevant to this discussion. 99Electrons (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 03:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Power operating systems[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The name of the architecture the OSes in this category support is called the Power ISA, not Power. 99Electrons (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree no problem! that's right! Editor-1 (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. See also my vote on a similar rename, just above this one. I have found no reference to the operating system that uses the ISA term. A really paranoid android (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • This is the key reason, I'm on the "oppose" side of things. If common usage doesn't use the ISA term, who does it benefit if the category name is changed? It seems like this would be a very pedantic way to handle this topic, which is not going to be followed by the majority of readers. It may be imprecise as it stands, but IMHO, changing things to be more precise, will make things less usable. A really paranoid android (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I didn't state that the common name for "Power ISA" is "Power", I stated the reason why a person wouldn't find many mentions of "Power ISA" among Linux distributions. This reason is because for some architectures, the convention amongst free software, which Linux distributions are subject to, is to refer the port name instead of that of the architecture. This can be due to a number of reasons: for brevity, or because the same architecture is used by multiple incompatible platforms, necessitating a separate port to each, thus rendering the architecture irrelevant. Another reason is because of history: the architecture was called something else in the past, and instead of introducing a new port name to reflect the new architecture name, the existing port name is reused with some qualifier. As a final example, the port may require additional commonalities other than architecture: endianess, ABI, etc.
Free software or Linux distributions doesn't refer to the Power ISA frequently for some of the reasons outlined previously. The Power ISA is an evolution of the PowerPC architecture. Linux was ported to PowerPC first, so all ports to the PowerPC and subsequent architectures are called "ppc". Power ISA is also used in either big or little endian mode, so ports must choose one. Finally, Power ISA software uses an ABI specified by the OpenPOWER foundation that's different from the ones used by PowerPC.
These reasons have caused all the four Linux distributions in Category:Power Linux distributions to refer the architecture by some name other than that of the architecture:
  • Debian has a ppc64el port, which targets Power ISA 2.07 and 3.0 in the little endian mode using the 64-bit OpenPOWER ELFv2 ABI.
  • Fedora also has a ppc64el port, which supports IBM Power Systems and industry standard OpenPOWER computers (which use IBM POWER7/8/9 processors, all of which are Power ISA processors).
  • Red Hat refers to "architectures", but consistently refuses to refer to any architecture by name, using other names instead, and for the Power ISA, it names the specific processors supported and the endianess supported.
  • SUSE refers to the POWER processor series, and mentions that it's actually a ppc64el port.
Can we put the arguments pertaining to usage to bed now? There never was such an argument, because every argument for usage that has been put forward was based in an incorrect understanding of the situation, and has added nothing to the consensus process other than confusion.
Finally, for a category that's part of the Category:Linux distributions by processor architecture hierarchy, the only acceptable name for an architecture is the name of the architecture, not a partial match that's never been shown to be in use, let alone in common use. A user of this hierarchy would expect all its subcategories to refer to the architecture by its name. This signifies the relationship between the subcategories and their parent. This is especially important in the case of the Power ISA, because there are other things with similar names that differ by only capitalization, suffixes, and the inclusion of other words. Thus, it's the omission of "ISA" from "Power ISA" that's confusing and obstructive towards easy navigation. 99Electrons (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: There's a discussion about the use of "Power Architecture" on Wikipedia that's relevant to this discussion. 99Electrons (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 03:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This good discussion would be more productive creating a main article (by expanding what's in Power Architecture#Implementations). Once that scope and naming convention reach a consensus, the category name will follow. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:American expatriate soccer players in Germany[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Clear OVERCAT, not needed - see previous consensus here and here. Upmerge. GiantSnowman 08:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Also, please read WP:NARROWCAT, which you cited:
  1. NARROWCAT: Such intersections tend to be very narrow, and clutter up the page's category list. — Not so here. The intersection category reduces clutter.
  2. NARROWCAT: Even worse, an article in categories A, B and C might be put in four such categories "A and B", "B and C", "A and C" as well as "A, B and C", which clearly isn't helpful.. — Again, that's the inverse of this situation
  3. NARROWCAT: In general, intersection categories should only be created when both parent categories are very large and similar intersections can be made for related categories — which does apply here.
So on all points of NARROWCAT, it supports a keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Well yes, technically "upmerge", same difference. This is overcategorization, an additional level of categories such as Category:Gabonese expatriate footballers in Lithuania is not needed and shouldn't be promoted (this just leads to pointless diffusion). And I wouldn't say categories such as Category:American expatriate sportspeople in Germany are "very large" to need a lower level. No other such triple intersection categories exist, for good reason as the existing categories suffice. S.A. Julio (talk) 11:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@S.A. Julio, Category:Gabonese expatriate footballers in Lithuania doesn't exist per NARROWCAT for the very good reason that it would contain only one page.
That's a very different situation to the 111 pages in Category:American expatriate soccer players in Germany, which you propose to add both to the 3,571 pages in Category:Expatriate footballers in Germany and to the 820 pages in Category:American expatriate soccer players.
If 3,751 doesn't for your definition of "very large", then there are v v few large categories on en.wp. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, some of the "Expatriate footballers in Y" categories for major countries are on the larger side, though so are categories such as Category:English footballers and Category:1988 births. The main issue goes back to one of the older discussions, I think the nominator and closer's rationale summarise it well, having this category structure is simple overcategorisation and adds very little value, just like categories such as Category:Gabonese expatriate sportspeople in Lithuania. S.A. Julio (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@S.A. Julio: Phrases such as simple overcategorisation are unreasoned statements of opinion, not reasoned arguments.
The value that Category:American expatriate soccer players in Germany adds is that it diffuses 111 pages from some large categories. I dunno how many times I need to explain that point, but it seems to be getting lost.
I am happy to discuss the upper layer of cats "Fooian expatriate sportspeople in Bar" elsewhere, but this so not the place, so please drop the point-scoring attempts to introduce red herrings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
All I'm stating is that both of those past deletion discussions came to the conclusion that adding this whole additional layer leads to very little benefit, and promotes the creation of narrow categories. Many expatriate footballers will already be playing in more than two countries, and categories such as Category:American expatriate soccer players are used for all articles similar to Category:German footballers. Therefore, the difference is only of one category, so I highly doubt this will help reduce clutter, and isn't worth the creation of hundreds of narrow categories when tools such as PetScan allow for this type of searching. There are quite a lot of categories that could be created by diffusion and populated sufficiently, such as Category:1989 births in March (likely ~1300 people), Category:FIFA World Cup players of Brazil (nearly 350 players) or Category:English goalkeepers (over 1700 players). However, these aren't useful enough categories, just because a category can be divided using a defining characteristic doesn't mean it should, hence why overcategorisation exists. PetScan instead is a very useful tool to find these intersections of specific characteristics. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't advocate the creation of a flurry of new smallcats for Fooian expat footballers in Bar. I am advocating keeping such cats for large sets.
But this case is different to the other examples you cite, and I think that both you and GS are spending too much time look at unrelated possibilities elsewhere, and overlooking what's happening here. We have 3 attributes (sport, nationality and location) which are usually categorised two at a time. By combing that into a single triple intersection category, we reduce category clutter while breaking up an overlarge set.
The other examples which you cite — Category:1989 births in March, Category:FIFA World Cup players of Brazil & or Category:English goalkeepers — are all new intersections. This isn't a new intersection; it's a better handling of an existing intersection. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Not sure how this is an "existing intersection" when no other triple intersection categories of the format "X expatriate footballers in Y" exist. I'd say this is very similar to Category:Italian goalkeepers which was deleted, which diffused Category:Italian footballers and Category:Association football goalkeepers. Overcategorisation does very little to help readers, not every intersection which has more than a few members needs a category. In this case it makes very little difference with clutter, the outcome of both past CFD discussions seems clear as to why these categories are avoided. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@S.A. Julio: It's an "existing intersection" because those, as I explained above, those 3 attributes (nationality, location, and sport), are already intersected with each other. The difference is that the the existing intersections take 2 attributes at a time, which requires 3 categories; whereas the triple intersection replaces those 3 cats with one.
Rather than repeating declarations such Overcategorisation does very little to help readers, please will you explain:
  1. How readers are helped by having 3 cats in each case, instead of one cat
  2. How readers are helped by dumping a 111 page category into a cat with > 3,000 pages?
It seems to me that you and GS are both fixated on the idea that triple intersections are inherently bad, without actually looking at their effects. It's disappointing to repeatedly point out those effects and be ignored. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, not sure why it is "disappointing" as I had already explained above, Many expatriate footballers will already be playing in more than two countries, and categories such as Category:American expatriate soccer players are used for all articles similar to Category:German footballers. Therefore, the difference is only of one category, so I highly doubt this will help reduce clutter, and isn't worth the creation of hundreds of narrow categories. The difference is quite minimal, this won't be greatly reducing the number of categories used in articles (which was also noted in the past CfD). Just because a category is larger does not mean it needs to be diffused, the same question could be asked about the usefulness of categories such as Category:1989 births to readers. And not all categories which share attributes need a triple intersection created. Categories such as Category:Olympic footballers of Brazil, Category:Footballers at the 2008 Summer Olympics, Category:Medalists at the 2008 Summer Olympics, Category:Olympic medalists for Brazil and Category:Olympic medalists in football all intersect and share similar attributes (Brazilian footballers, football medalists, 2008 Olympics), however this does not mean Category:2008 Olympic footballers of Brazil needs to be created. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@S.A. Julio, I'm sorry, but you still seem have not read what I have written. Face-sad.svg
This type of category ("Fooian footballers in Bar") reduces the number of categories by the following formula: 1 + NumberOfCounriesThePlayerPlayedIn
So if e.g. they played in two countries, it means 3 fewer categories.
Here's the example I produced below for @Marcocapelle:
Take the example of an American soccer player who has played for teams in the UK, Italy, Spain
If there were sibling cats to Category:American expatriate soccer players in Germany, then that player would be in
  1. Category:American expatriate soccer players in the United Kingdom
  2. Category:American expatriate soccer players in Italy
  3. Category:American expatriate soccer players in Spain
However, currently that same player will be categorised by the same attributes as:
  1. Category:American expatriate soccer players
  2. Category:American expatriate sportspeople in the United Kingdom
  3. Category:American expatriate sportspeople in Italy
  4. Category:American expatriate sportspeople in Spain
  5. Category:Expatriate footballers in the United Kingdom
  6. Category:Expatriate footballers in Italy
  7. Category:Expatriate footballers in Spain
So that's 3 categories instead of 7. Your assertion that the difference is only of one category is plain wrong.
There is no great novelty in this. We already have 84 by-country subcats of Category:American expatriate basketball people, 78 by-country subcats of Category:Serbian expatriate basketball people etc. Same with baseball: see e.g. 6 by-country subcats of Category:American expatriate baseball people, 5 of Category:Canadian expatriate baseball people etc.
We can look at the Olympic category another time. For now, just look at how triple intersection categories are widely used to reduce cutter on expatriate sportspeople. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Maybe you didn't catch what I wrote. Categories such as Category:German expatriate footballers are used similarly to Category:German footballers, which is wp:non-diffusing, so therefore with the above example it is only a difference of one category per country, which is not significant enough for a triple intersection. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@S.A. Julio: that is simply false. You have misread Category:German expatriate footballers.
If you look at again, you will see that it a non-diffusing subcategory of Category:German footballers. In other words, a page should not be remove from Category:German footballers because the player is an expat; but there is no bar to diffusing Category:German expatriate footballers by nationality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm stating that all expatriates should be included in the expat category, so even if sub-categories were created, they should still remain in the main expat category (similar to what GS said). S.A. Julio (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • One of the advantages of the subcategory would be to reduce the size of the parent category. What is the reason for making it non-diffusing? Marcocapelle (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd say the same reason Category:German footballers is non-diffusing, it is useful to have a complete category. Otherwise if more of these categories existed, it becomes strange for players who played in some countries where these categories exist, but also in other countries which do not. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Then in the parent category footballers would be left who did not play in any of the countries that have a subcategory. That is not strange at all, it is just by default how the category system has been designed. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
So then the main expat category will be exhaustive except for players who just happened to play in countries which people decided to create subcats for. It makes more sense to be non-diffusing and categorise all expats in the main cat, just like the top nationality categories. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Rather the reverse, the main category will become almost empty except for players who just happened to play in small countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
That's quite unlikely. Hypothetically, if 50 were the threshold, not enough categories would meet this requirement for the main category to even be close to empty. If a footballer plays in multiple countries, but at least one doesn't have a category, they would still have to be in the main expat cat. Hence why it is more useful to operate similar to the top footballer nationality categories. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Phrases like "the main expat cat" are unhelpful, because "main" could mean anything here.
@S.A. Julio assertions are still simply false.
Look again at the 3 merge targets: Category:American expatriate sportspeople in Germany, Category:American expatriate soccer players and Category:Expatriate footballers in Germany
  1. Category:American expatriate sportspeople in Germany: Almost no expat sportspeople play abroad in more than one sport, so there's no need to make that non-diffusing when there are by-sport subcats such as Category:American expatriate soccer players in Germany
  2. Category:Expatriate footballers in Germany: no need to make that non-diffusing, except for players with dual nationality.
So the triple intersection gives us a net gain of one less category per country
This whole proposal started from an axiomatic belief that triple intersection are inherently bad, based on a false analysis of the maths, and inversion of the cited guideline NARROWCAT. These myths have been asserted without looking at the actual effects ... and when the actual effects are pointed out, then reasons are invented why these cats should be exceptions to normal categorisation practice.
We have plenty of categories which are only partly diffused, and they work fine (see e.g. Category:Librettists). There's no reasons why soccer players can't be the same. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Well with context it's not too difficult to determine I was referring to the main nationality expat categories, i.e. Category:German expatriate footballers. You seem to continue to dismiss my arguments with incorrect assertions. Assertions are still simply false. Look again at the 3 merge targets I'm referring to Category:American expatriate soccer players, which you didn't address. So the triple intersection gives us a net gain of one less category per country Yes, that's exactly what I said prior (which you highlighted above and also incorrectly dismissed), so no idea why you again are saying this is based on a false analysis of the maths. Regarding this whole proposal started from an axiomatic belief that triple intersection are inherently bad, no this proposal started because "X expatriate footballers in Y" is overcategorisation, and one category less isn't useful enough to need these triple intersections. I've explained why this is overcategorisation, not sure why this needs to be dismissed as "reasons are invented". I see it more useful as non-diffusing, just as nearly all German footballers are in subcats of Category:German footballers but still are in the main category as well. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
However, that merger would cause extra category clutter on the articles, which seems to me to be both unhelpful to readers and harder for editors to maintain.
This category currently contains 111 pages. I don't see how the usability of any of the 3 parent categories will be improved by dumping 111 pages into each of them.
Note that I don't in general think it's wise to subcat a Category:Fooian expatriate sportspeople in Bar category by sport, because it will usually create a set of WP:SMALLCATs. But when the resulting subcat contains over 50 pages, it seems like a very good idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: by that logic, let's SUBCAT even further, say by position (so to Category:American expatriate soccer defenders in Germany etc.) or by age (so to Category:American expatriate soccer players in Germany who were born in the 1980s...??? GiantSnowman 11:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman, you usually seem to be a sensible editor, but comments like this one can undermine that impression. Face-sad.svg
In this case, we have a choice between one category on the age (as of now), or replacing it with 3 categories as you and GS want to do. The proposals you make would not combine 3 categories as this does. @S.A. Julio cited NARROWCAT above, misunderstanding it application, but it would apply to both Category:American expatriate soccer defenders in Germany and Category:American expatriate soccer players in Germany who were born in the 1980s, because one player could be in several of those.
It really would help a lot if you too would actually read WP:NARROWCAT. It might help you to avoid these misplaced comparisons of apples and oranges. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
BHG you usually seem to be a sensible editor, but condescending comments like that can undermine that impression. Face-sad.svg
The upmerge would simply be from Category:American expatriate soccer players in Germany to Category:American expatriate sportspeople in Germany and Category:Expatriate footballers in Germany - the articles are already (or should already be) in Category:American expatriate soccer players. Please see the comments/arguments at this CFD. GiantSnowman 11:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Comments like that come when you try distraction techniques using facetious example, rather than addressing the issues at hand.
Your latest is factually wrong, @GiantSnowman.
Category:American expatriate soccer players in Germany is a normal diffusing subcat of Category:American expatriate soccer players.70 articles have not been diffused, but the other 41 have been. In any up merger, it's unwise to assume that articles are already in the parent category; much better to let a bot do the merger, and handle and exceptions.
But this is all distraction from the core point. You want to take a usefully-sized category of 111 pages, and on each of those 111 pages replace it with 3 parent categories. How does this help either readers or editors of those pages or of the 3 categories which will have an extra 111 pages dumped into them? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
How does it help readers to have such narrow categories? GiantSnowman 12:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
It's not narrow. It's a large set, of 111 pages.
It helps readers by:
  1. by reducing category clutter on each article
  2. By sub-dividing a large category on the basis of a defining chaacteristic
Take a look at Category:American expatriate sportspeople in Germany. If we include its subcats, there are in total 930 pages.
However, it currently has two subcats by sport: soccer and basketball.
A reader looking for American soccer players in Germany now has a discrete set to read, uncluttered by other sportspeople. For some reason, you want to add in 50 players of other sports, and if you follow through on your logic, the basketball players should also be upmerged, putting those 111 soccer players in an undifferentiated set of 930. How does that help readers?
Then look at Category:American footballers in Germany, which currently has 3,576 pages plus the 111 Americans in the subcats. How would dumping the 111 into that huge set help readers? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the basketball category, this is regarding association football, there are other factors relating to that category given the stature of basketball in the US. If people are interested in very specific intersections, then I'd say PetScan would be a better option. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Petscan is an external tool, with no integration into the en.wp interface. It's no help to to readers.
And the status of a sport is one country is irrelevant. We are discussing intersection between any two countries, not simply how to handle the US.
Please can you address the actual issues I have raised here:
  1. Reduced category clutter on pages
  2. Breaking up a set of 3,756 pages without intersecting any attributes which are not already intersected.
As I asked GS, how exactly would How would dumping the 111 into that huge set help readers? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Well I have no interest or great knowledge in basketball and its category structure, hence why I don't think it is necessary to discuss here. And I already addressed both issues you mentioned in the upper section. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@S.A. Julio, the basketball comparison is relevant because the structure of its expatriate categories is exactly the same as that for expat soccer players, with the only difference being that it adds an extra layer of triple intersections to both reduce clutter and diffuse the overlarge by-nationality and by-country categories. If you take a few moments to look at Category:Expatriate basketball people by nationality you can see how it works.
Compare e.g. Category:American expatriate soccer players in Germany with Category:American expatriate basketball people in Germany. I can see no reason to treat expat footballers differently to expat basketball people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Those basketball categories are a great example of why these narrow triple intersections should be avoided. This is clear overcategorisation, 80% of the "X expatriate basketball people in Y" or "National Basketball Association players from X" have less than 50 articles, nearly 70% have less than 20 articles, 57% have 10 articles or less, and 25% have only 1 or 2 articles. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@S.A. Julio, that's exactly why I wrote below[6] that the extra layer should not be created unless it passes a high threshold, of say 50 or 100 pages
The category under discussion here has 111 pages. As noted at the very start of the nomination, there is nothing in WP:NARROWCAT to deprecate it.
It seems to me that every argument you make against this category involves pointing at something else, rather than looking at the merits of this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Again (for the third time?), you seem to dismiss my arguments despite the fact that I already directly addressed the issues with the category in question several times in the upper section. But since you brought up this basketball category, I thought I'd mention the more general observation of the issue with these types of triple intersections. Sure, some might consider 50 the threshold, but if these categories become more widely adopted people will start adding to the overcategorisation with the creation of categories for only one or a handful of players, thus further crowding the category system and making it less useful. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Take your example of an American soccer player who has played for teams in the UK, Italy, Spain
If there were sibling cats to Category:American expatriate soccer players in Germany, then that player would be in
  1. Category:American expatriate soccer players in the United Kingdom
  2. Category:American expatriate soccer players in Italy
  3. Category:American expatriate soccer players in Spain
However, currently that same player will be categorised by the same attributes as:
  1. Category:American expatriate soccer players
  2. Category:American expatriate sportspeople in the United Kingdom
  3. Category:American expatriate sportspeople in Italy
  4. Category:American expatriate sportspeople in Spain
  5. Category:Expatriate footballers in the United Kingdom
  6. Category:Expatriate footballers in Italy
  7. Category:Expatriate footballers in Spain
So this type of category actually reduces clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
      • That is a completely fair punt. This leads me to think that - after I have seen objections in general against triple intersections in numerous CfD discussions - that triple intersection categories aren't really a bad thing at all, provided of course they can be sufficiently populated. In this case the triple intersection will be useful for UK, Italy and Spain, but not for Gabon. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Yes, before 2010 there was a campaign to eliminate triple intersections, but it seems to have faded away since then. I have created lots of triple intersections once I spotted how they reduced act clutter.
          I agree that in this case, the extra layer should not be created unless it passes a high threshold, of say 50 or 100 pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support upmerges that were suggested by Julio. Triple intersections are a bad thing. Is this discussion really going to rewrite the policy in that area? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Laurel Lodged: there is no policy against triple intersections, and never has been. And as I have demonstrated above, this triple intersection category is a Good Thing™ in two way: a) it reduces category clutter on pages, and b) it subdivides an overlarge category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
    • It would be interesting to see the arguments against triple intersections (apart from that it often leads to smallcat issues). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
This is simple maths of combinations.
If we have three attributes A, B and C we can combine them in a triple intersection as Cat:ABC.
Or we can combine them two at a time, as Cat:AB, Cat:AC, Cat:BC
Or we can take them one at a time as Cat:A, Cat:B, Cat:C
So with 3 attributes, the only way to avoid having 3 categories is to have a triple intersection.
Same with any number of attributes: combining them all produces the fewest categories. You can test it at http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/combinations-permutations.aspx
It's a pity to see straightforward counterfactuals being asserted with such certainty as @Laurel Lodged's utterly false claim that if all such triple intersections were eliminated then the number of categories would reduce even further. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
The statement that "the only way to avoid having 3 categories is to have a triple intersection" crucially assumes that in the presence of such a triple intersection, single categories and double categories disappear. Unfortunately, in wiki space, this does not happen: in a survey of a few American expatriate soccer players that I've examined, each one has the full panoply of single, double and triple categories. So no category count saving then in practice. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
LL, that's simply a matter of category diffusion per WP:SUBCAT. Normal category maintenace, now made vastly easier by careful use of Cat-a-lot. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep -- While triple (or worse) intersections tend to be deplored, this one is well-populated, indicating that it is a notable intersection, and we should keep the category. If there were only a handful of articles, upmerging would probably have been appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Populated places in the Donetsk People's Republic[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:NPOV issues. There has been no discussion about the creation of this cat. Given that the Donetsk People's Republic is not recognised, how is it significant that there is a population (with the only substantiated figures being provided by the unrecognised entity occupying the territory)? Such categories imply that Wikipedia chooses to recognise this entity despite global, mainstream sourcing thoroughly repudiating its existence. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The self-declared Republic is included in our List of active rebel groups. After four years of "independence" it still lacks diplomatic recognition. Dimadick (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I wasn't particularly concerned about the category until the recent martial law business was picked up as a major story by the mainstream media globally. There have been a plethora of background/summary articles covering developments in Ukraine since 2014 reminding readers of the circumstances of implementation of martial law. Reliable sources most certainly condemn both the DPR and LPR as Russia-backed states which would not exist without Russia's less than tacit backing. Given the reissuing of statements condemning the existence of - and rationale behind supporting - the states, it clearly flouts WP:NPOV to neutrally portray the DPR as though it were a matter of commonly supported understanding that it is a recognised, unproblematic entity. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Recognition is not required to be included in Wikipedia, as long as the entity exists de-facto. Recognized by whom? By one country? by most countries? by UN assembly? we have plenty of countries with limited recognition. Donetsk is just another one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greyshark09 (talkcontribs)
  • @Fayenatic london: The title of the source contains "war-ravaged Ukraine", it once mentions the Donetsk region, it once mentions that it has been occupied by the DPR. That is neither consistent nor does it actually say that the place is in the DPR. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Being located in the provisional territory of an unrecognized and as yet unsuccessful secession movement is not a defining point of categorization for a populated place. Every place here is already in the appropriate subcategories of Category:Populated places in Donetsk Oblast as it is, so this is not necessary and not breaking context. No prejudice against recreation if the Donetsk People's Republic ever actually succeeds in gaining independence from Ukraine, but as long as it still is part of Ukraine the places are already appropriately categorized without needing this. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep -- While this unrecognised polity exists, we ought to have the category for places in it. If it ceases to exist (by conquest, amalgamation, or otherwise. we may still need it for the former polity. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Any way you look at it, these populated places are actually located in Donetsk Oblast as far as geography is concerned. Even when Jersey was temporarily controlled by Germany during WWII, it was still, in terms of geography, located in the Channel Islands. Place Clichy (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep – Simply put, I do not find the arguments for deletion to be convincing. There appear to be three primary arguments for deletion, which I will address in turn:
    (1) Such categories imply that Wikipedia chooses to recognise this entity despite global, mainstream sourcing thoroughly repudiating its existence. Mainstream sources "repudiat[e] its existence" as a legal entity but certainly recognize its de facto existence. Categorization on Wikipedia acknowledges the latter, not the former.
    (2) Being located in the provisional territory of an unrecognized and as yet unsuccessful secession movement is not a defining point of categorization for a populated place. It seems counter-intuitive to argue that the identity of the entity which exerts territorial control over a place is non-defining. I admit, it does smack a bit of recentism, but then again we do tend to be relatively quick to reflect political changes (e.g. Swaziland → Eswatini).
    (3) [T]hese populated places are actually located in Donetsk Oblast as far as geography is concerned. "Donetsk Oblast" is a political and legal territory, not merely a geographic area. While "Donetsk Oblast" continues to exist as a de jure entity, in reality there are two entities: a Ukrainian-controlled Donetsk and the separatist DPR.
    To be clear, I would not support creating the full range of country-level subcategories for the DPR and certainly oppose categorizing applying DPR categories to pre-2014 topics. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
    It should be deleted really because of the combination of #1 of #2, not because any of the two separately. We have quickly renamed Swaziland into Eswatini because mainstream sources have accepted that equally quickly. In this case, mainstream sources accept that Donetsk People's Republic controls certain places, but not that the places are in the Donetsk People's Republic. Similarly, in a period of war, we would not quickly recategorize places if they were occupied by a hostile army. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
    I grant you, categorization of this type does smack a bit of recentism given the conflict is ongoing. However, categorizing places as being in the DPR is not mutually exclusive to categorizing them as being in Ukraine, so in my view it's a question of additional categorization and not recategorization. I see your point about "control" versus "in", but I think the line is blurrier in reality—for example, Famagusta is near-universally recognized as being occupied by Turkey (via the puppet state of Northern Cyprus) yet we categorize it as being "in Northern Cyprus". -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
    Regarding #3, if you consider that Donest Oblast is no longer a geographical designation but merely a de jure entity between is split between Ukrainian-controlled area and DPR, then where exactly on the map do you place the limit between the two? The lack of a long-term stable cease-fire line is IMHO the major difference here with the many other cases of disputed territories worldwide, such as North Cyprus, Indian/Pakistani-controlled Kashmir, Israel/West Bank & Gaza, Israeli-controlled Golan, ROC-controlled Taiwan, Transnistria/Moldova etc. DPR is a rebellious entity holding a moving piece of territory, not a geographical area. Other examples that come to my mind of comparable rebel-controlled moveable territories are: LTTE-controlled Northern Sri Lanka, FARC-controlled areas of Colombia, Khmer Rouge-controlled areas of Cambodia after their 1979 downfall, Viet Cong-controlled South Vietnam, or territory held by the several groups of the Syrian Civil War. It would make no sense to have Category:Populated places in FARC or Category:Populated places in Jabhat Fatah al-Sham, or Category:Populated places in Viet Cong. "DPR" is in the same situation. Place Clichy (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    If I am not mistaken (and I could be), FARC, JFS, and the VC did not declare and operate a de facto state in the territories they controlled, unlike the DPR. As far as "a moving piece of territory", my impression was the Donetsk front had been fairly static since mid-2015/early 2016. Thus, while acknowledging your point about the DPR's relative newness, and without intending any comment on the legitimacy of any of these entities, I compare this category to Category:Populated places in Abkhazia, Category:Populated places in Northern Cyprus, etc. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    Abkhazia is a province of Georgia and already had a defined border before seceding. North Cyprus has a UN-defined and guarded cease-fire line. The Donetsk case cannot be compared to any of these two. FARC, VC or LTTE definitely operated a de facto state much like the DPR, and their situation is much more comparable in terms of geography. Place Clichy (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    I suppose I do not place as much importance on a defined border prior to secession given borders become fluid in times of war. I think it is more significant who controls a particular territory, regardless of pre-war boundaries, than who claims to be the legitimate authority but is unable to exercise control. Again, I disagree with the parallels to FARC, the VC, or the LTTE as, to the best of my recollection, they did not ever declare an independent state. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
    Merely looking at the name, Category:Populated places in Abkhazia refers to the region of Georgia just as much as the territory of the secessionist republic. Abkhazia is a worthwhile geographical entity, DPR is not. Nobody would argue against a sentence like "Sukhumi is located in Abkhazia" and it does not make any assumption on the recognition status thereof, while "village XYZ is located in Donetsk People's Republic" does not make much sense in terms of geography because one day it is in it, one day it is not. Front lines are not drawn on atlas maps - permanent cease-fire lines are (correlate to WP:Wikipedia is not news). Unless of course you consider all of Donetsk Oblast to be in DPR, because it is what they claim. Claims do not matter here, international recognition status even less. Only geography matters. Place Clichy (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the boundaries of Abkhazia, Kosovo, Taiwan, Transnistria, Artsakh etc are more or less well-sourced and it was stable, but Donetsk People's Republic just can't compare to those unrecognised state that had been frozen since end of cold war. Matthew hk (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per norm. How to verify at war boundaries? Matthew hk (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
    The ebbs and flows of this war, and of the line of territorial control, are well-documented in reliable sources. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - categorization (of towns etc) should be (only) by more permanent characteristics than which side of a front line they are currently on. DexDor (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's Donetsk Oblast. Besides we're not here to define fluid war boundaries. --Darwinek (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment At a minimum we should exclude from this category any claimed place where the Republic does not have actual physical control.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I strongly believe that NPOV requires us not to take sides in an a contested secession like this. Instead we should categorise both by the de facto political geography (i.e. the DPR), and by the de jure political geography (i.e. Donest Oblast of Ukraine). We should leave readers to make up their own minds which POV they prefer.
If there is evidence that the de facto boundaries of the DPRI are hard to verify or are wildly unstable, then I could be persuaded that this particular instance is not verifiable. But so far, I see no such evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. According to Donetsk_People's_Republic#Geography, the area controlled by the DPR is significantly less than the whole oblast. Moreover, that area has been stable since Feb 2015. IMHO it is defining for those places to be within the control of DPR. I haven't checked all the citations but the evidence was sufficient for me. – Fayenatic London 11:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Inmates by prison[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other categories in Category:Prisoners and detainees by prison. Renata (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


Redirects[edit]

April 21[edit]

Schools Climate Action Ireland[edit]

The schools strike for climate has occurred in many countries, redirect to those countries who had joined in are WP:COSTLY B dash (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Move to article space[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Racism of low expectations[edit]

Not mentioned at target. Also, should this go to Michael Gerson#Lines attributed to Gerson (where "soft bigotry of low expectations" is mentioned) instead?  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Templates[edit]

April 21[edit]


Miscellany[edit]

Deletion review[edit]

21 April 2019[edit]